NationStates Jolt Archive

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22008800/)makes me kind of nervous. For a cold million you can get the stuff to make a dirty bomb, and with a little more you can make a decent sized nuke.

Slovak police: 3 arrested with nuclear material
Substance not yet disclosed but was for sale, officials say

MSNBC News Services
updated 2:10 p.m. ET, Wed., Nov. 28, 2007
BRATISLAVA, Slovakia - Police said Wednesday three people have been arrested for attempting to sell a small amount of an unspecified nuclear material.

Police spokesman Martin Korch said specialists were examining the radioactive material seized in Slovakia. He said the three allegedly planned a deal to sell the material, which weighs a kilo, or 2.2 pounds, for $1 million.

Two of the suspects were arrested in eastern Slovakia, the other in Hungary. All three were in areas near the border with Ukraine.

Korch said the material was being examined and did not confirm a report carried by the Slovak news agency SITA that it was enriched uranium. Uranium enrichment can yield either fuel for nuclear power stations, or be used for nuclear warheads.

The suspects were not identified.

Korch said Slovak and Hungarian police have been working together on the case for several months. He declined to give any further details, saying they would be released on Wednesday.

There have been concerns that Eastern Europe could be a source for radioactive material for a so-called "dirty bomb."

In 2003, police in the neighboring Czech Republic arrested two Slovaks in a sting operation in the city of Brno, after they allegedly sold undercover officers bars of low-enriched uranium for $715,000.

Doesn't say what type of nuclear material. Polonium is radioactive, but poor fission bomb material.

This makes me kind of nervous. For a cold million you can get the stuff to make a dirty bomb, and with a little more you can make a decent sized nuke.You forgot Polonium :D

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22008800/)makes me kind of nervous. For a cold million you can get the stuff to make a dirty bomb, and with a little more you can make a decent sized nuke.

Oh shit... Here, take a look at this: http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=367

It takes it a minute to boot up.

Anyone want to start a NSG trust fund/money pool/suitcaseofmoneyinadarkalleyway?
I'm sure we could reach a million in a decade or so.
Though we might need to plan ahead for inflation.

Doesn't say what type of nuclear material. Polonium is radioactive, but poor fission bomb material.

Indeed. I want more information before I start becoming mildly worried.

Anyone want to start a NSG trust fund/money pool/suitcaseofmoneyinadarkalleyway?
I'm sure we could reach a million in a decade or so.
Though we might need to plan ahead for inflation.


Collect 1 million dollars
...
Profit!

Collect 1 million dollars
...
Profit!


Unless that middle step is "Bann-ed manages to pocket the entire fund in a massive Swiss bank account embezzling scheme" then we can just skip it.

This tickles me pink. It also makes me wonder about those missing Russian suitcase nukes.

I wonder if there will ever be a time when we see a newscast showing a destroyed city block in some capital city due to one of those babies.

For a cold million you can get the stuff to make a dirty bomb...
The ever-present dirty bomb!

Here’s an enlightening interview with Theodore Rockwell (http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/rockwellbio.htm), Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, Technical Director of the first commercial atomic power station, and recipient of Distinguished Service Medals from both the Navy and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

It’s taken from the outstanding Adam Curtis/BBC documentary series, The Power of Nightmares:


Curtis: “And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and in the process they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But in reality the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. But almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and providing the area was cleaned promptly the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.”

Curtis: “How dangerous would a dirty bomb be?”

Rockwell: “The deaths would be few if any, and the answer is probably none.”

Curtis: “Really?”

Rockwell: “Yes. And that’s been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, but you know people won’t believe that and they’ll panic. I don’t think it would kill anybody and I think you’ll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise.

The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. The measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose, not life threatening but fairly high, and I checked into how the calculation was done and they assume that after the attack no one moves for one year. One year. Now that’s ridiculous.

The dirty bomb, the danger from radioactivity is basically next to nothing. The danger from panic however is horrendous. That’s where the irony comes. Don’t panic.”

The ever-present dirty bomb!

Here’s an enlightening interview with Theodore Rockwell (http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/rockwellbio.htm), Fellow of the American Nuclear Society, Technical Director of the first commercial atomic power station, and recipient of Distinguished Service Medals from both the Navy and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

Alarm bells there. A dirty bomb is comparable to a nuclear plant explosion. That c.v strongly suggests an individual with an interest in promoting such plants as safe.

It’s taken from the outstanding Adam Curtis/BBC documentary series, The Power of Nightmares:


Curtis: “And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and in the process they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But in reality the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. But almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and providing the area was cleaned promptly the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.”

But ... "completely ineffectual" as battlefield weapons doesn't mean "not terrifying."

Curtis: “How dangerous would a dirty bomb be?”

Rockwell: “The deaths would be few if any, and the answer is probably none.”

Curtis: “Really?”

Rockwell: “Yes. And that’s been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, but you know people won’t believe that and they’ll panic. I don’t think it would kill anybody and I think you’ll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise.

The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. The measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose, not life threatening but fairly high, and I checked into how the calculation was done and they assume that after the attack no one moves for one year. One year. Now that’s ridiculous.

The dirty bomb, the danger from radioactivity is basically next to nothing. The danger from panic however is horrendous. That’s where the irony comes. Don’t panic.”

I am distinctly unimpressed with this testimony. Exposure to radiation increases the risk of cancer, which may or may not kill. By taking this "no-one will definitely die" line, Rockwell sounds awfully like Big Tobacco and their "you can't prove anyone definitely died from using our product" defense.

Any increase in the risk of heritable deformity, or increase in the risk of cancer is going to be VERY distressing for any victims.

I'm not prepared to say he's wrong at this stage, but ... very skeptical.

Alarm bells there. A dirty bomb is comparable to a nuclear plant explosion. That c.v strongly suggests an individual with an interest in promoting such plants as safe.
Firstly, a ‘dirty bomb’ is not in any way comparable with an critical nuclear reactor meltdown; the amount of radioactive material would be far, far smaller, and the damage far, far less.

Secondly, even if Rockwell was a lackey of, being paid off by, the commercial nuclear industry — and there isn’t any proof of this whatsoever — why would he be trying to downplay the results of a terrorist’s device?

Moreover, why would he be questioning a Department of Energy study?

But ... “completely ineffectual” as battlefield weapons doesn’t mean “not terrifying.”
Physical damage is the question at stake here, not the ability to terrify.

I am distinctly unimpressed with this testimony. Exposure to radiation increases the risk of cancer, which may or may not kill. By taking this “no-one will definitely die” line, Rockwell sounds awfully like Big Tobacco and their “you can’t prove anyone definitely died from using our product” defense.
Your completely missing the point.

No-one, not even the most avid defenders of nuclear energy, denies radioactive material is dangerous to human beings. Rockwell isn’t either.

He’s simply pointing out the various studies that show ‘dirty bombs’ are of insignificant threat, radioactively-speaking. Again, I don’t see how questioning the danger from radioactivity in a ‘dirty bomb’ helps the nuclear industry.

Any increase in the risk of heritable deformity, or increase in the risk of cancer is going to be VERY distressing for any victims.
Yes, if the ‘victims’ stood in the same spot for one whole year, while no-one did anything about the small amount of radioactive debris around them.

I’m not prepared to say he’s wrong at this stage, but ... very skeptical.
Well, find some evidence to show that dirty bombs are actually radioactively dangerous; evidence more than vague government warnings and hysterical tabloid nonsense.

Yes, if the ‘victims’ stood in the same spot for one whole year, while no-one did anything about the small amount of radioactive debris around them.

Well, find some evidence to show that dirty bombs are actually radioactively dangerous; evidence more than vague government warnings and hysterical tabloid nonsense.

Who needs dirty bombs? Or a year? A month will do, or less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

Who needs dirty bombs? Or a year? A month will do, or less.
Again, I’m not questioning the potentially lethal effects of radioactive substances.

What myself, Curtis, Rockwell et al, are questioning is the effects a conventional bomb, combined with a small amount of radioactive material, would have on bystanders.

Firstly, I have done a few minutes research now, and I am tending towards a view that blowing up radiological waste is not an effective method of contaminating people.

And since your second-last post was directly to the subject of dirty BOMBS, I am backing off somewhat.

Firstly, a ‘dirty bomb’ is not in any way comparable with an critical nuclear reactor meltdown; the amount of radioactive material would be far, far smaller, and the damage far, far less.

I agree with the premise but not the inference.

The amount of radioactive material in a dirty bomb is usually assumed to be the amount you could corruptly aquire from a decommissioned hospital or by recycling consumer products like smoke alarms.
About a kilogram, which coincidentally is what we are talking about in this thread.

The amount of nuclear material in a reactor is in the order of a hundred tonnes. However, much of it is harmless or nearly so, it isn't tonnes of material chosen for it's ability to quickly contaminate people, and there's a crew of people trying to prevent it doing that as the reactor burns.

Rather different situation from a terrorist, trying to get maximum terror value out of the their kilo of cesium.

I agree that modern reactors are unlikely to go critical or even melt-down.

But consider this: even a failed attempt to destroy a power-station will cause a huge public demand for their decommissioning. Britain or France, who depend on quite a bit, would take a major hit. I agree with Rockwell's quote in this: it's more about perception than a credible risk to life.

Secondly, even if Rockwell was a lackey of, being paid off by, the commercial nuclear industry — and there isn’t any proof of this whatsoever — why would he be trying to downplay the results of a terrorist’s device?

Sigh. He's an old fella who has clearly been a champion of nuclear energy all his life. He could be less-than-objective, he could have an agenda of his own ('little white lies') without being corrupted by bribes as you imply.

See the answer four down.


Moreover, why would he be questioning a Department of Energy study?

He wasn't?

Physical damage is the question at stake here, not the ability to terrify.

Disagree. Terrorism is not measured by it's ability to damage. IF IT WERE, we'd be ignoring it, in favour of reducing gun crime or reducing disease. Terrorism is psychological warfare and those who fight it as though it's empire-building invasion put themselves at a strategic disadvantage.

Your completely missing the point.

Sometimes I do that. Thanks for noticing. :)

No-one, not even the most avid defenders of nuclear energy, denies radioactive material is dangerous to human beings. Rockwell isn’t either.

He’s simply pointing out the various studies that show ‘dirty bombs’ are of insignificant threat, radioactively-speaking. Again, I don’t see how questioning the danger from radioactivity in a ‘dirty bomb’ helps the nuclear industry.

Reactors, weapons and the reprocessing industry are all possible sources of radiological materials. Really, they're the ONLY sources other than medical applications or digging it out of the ground.

Yes, if the ‘victims’ stood in the same spot for one whole year, while no-one did anything about the small amount of radioactive debris around them.

You know, I'm suss about that on the basic principles. Deaths directly attributed to radiation poisoning generally come from sudden high exposures. Recurrent exposure at low levels is far less dangerous.

Well, find some evidence to show that dirty bombs are actually radioactively dangerous; evidence more than vague government warnings and hysterical tabloid nonsense.

When you call my speculation "hysterical tabloid nonsense" I have a tendency to completely lose interest in discussing it with you. I don't represent anyone's opinion but my own, and I'm not made of straw.

But I will quote government sources. I will quote the Department of Energy reports, IAEA reports, I'll quote whatever I find credible ... and I'll win if your only source is this nuclear-industry fanboy with his forty-year history of employment by the military-industrial complex of the United States.

What myself, Curtis, Rockwell et al, are questioning is the effects a conventional bomb, combined with a small amount of radioactive material, would have on bystanders.

Depends on the size of the bomb, radioactive material and its level of radioactivity. That same amount of cesium in a hand grenade would have killed the same amount of people it did as a ring and dust on the floor depending on where said grenade blew up.

Sigh. He’s an old fella who has clearly been a champion of nuclear energy all his life. He could be less-than-objective, he could have an agenda of his own (‘little white lies’) without being corrupted by bribes as you imply.
Again, I don’t see how a career in the military and/or nuclear energy industry would create an ‘agenda’ on questioning the danger of potential terrorist weapons, especially in the current climate, or what effect such an agenda would have on reports by the US Department of Energy.

He wasn’t?
Apologies; that wasn’t a clear sentence.

‘Even if Rockwell does have sympathies with the nuclear energy industry, why would he be bothering with questioning a report by the DoE that had nothing to do with commercial nuclear energy concerns?’ was what I was trying to say.

Disagree. Terrorism is not measured by it’s ability to damage. IF IT WERE, we’d be ignoring it, in favour of reducing gun crime or reducing disease. Terrorism is psychological warfare and those who fight it as though it’s empire-building invasion put themselves at a strategic disadvantage.
And by massively exaggerating the danger of ‘dirty bombs’ governments and media are once again supplying the terror and fear they are meant to be so vehemently against.

When you call my speculation “hysterical tabloid nonsense” I have a tendency to completely lose interest in discussing it with you. I don’t represent anyone’s opinion but my own, and I’m not made of straw.
I wasn’t referencing your statements as “hysterical tabloid nonsense”, sorry if it cam across that way. I was meaning the hyperbolic reports about terrorists with home-made nuclear devices in tabloid (and broadsheet) newspapers.

But I will quote government sources. I will quote the Department of Energy reports, IAEA reports, I’ll quote whatever I find credible ... and I’ll win if your only source is this nuclear-industry fanboy with his forty-year history of employment by the military-industrial complex of the United States.
I believe Rockwell’s own sources are Department of Energy reports, IAEA reports, etc.

That’s his (and Curtis’s) whole point: the reputable institutions and agencies themselves are saying these ‘dirty bombs’ have little or no capability of causing harm from radioactive materials.

It’s the government(s) and fourth estate that are blowing things out of proportion.

Excuse the pun.

That same amount of cesium in a hand grenade would have killed the same amount of people it did as a ring and dust on the floor depending on where said grenade blew up.
Um...I don’t understand the sentence.

“Ring and dust on the floor”?

Um...I don’t understand the sentence.

“Ring and dust on the floor”?

Apologies, I should have said cesium ring and dust, similar to the Goiania incident.

Apologies, I should have said cesium ring and dust, similar to the Goiania incident.

Well, that incident shows how dangerous such substances can be if no-one realizes they're there, and get exposed instead of running away. Cesium is apparently very soluble, if it were deliberately put into food or water it would harm a lot more people than blowing it up and hoping they inhale it before they can leave.

I guess it's similar to Anthrax, potentially very harmful but weaponizing it is not a simple matter.