BillyBob, you have it backwards. U238 is less radioactive and has a longer half-life than U235. U238 cannot support a chain reaction (nuclear explosion) and U235 can- which is why they separarate U235 from the U238. The 235 goes into bombs and the 238 goes into aircraft ballast weights, shielding for irridium radiography sources, and Warthog tank-killer munitions. There is lots more 238 than 235.
Even then uranium is not that radioactive. I used U238 bricks for shielding in a cobalt-60 cell and each brick was about 5 mREM per hour, not hot compared to dental X-rays.
A dirty bomb made up of a delayed critical U235 assembly would be quite dangerous, though.
The 18 incidents are listed reverse chronological order.
CNS cannot confirm the veracity of these reports.
Click on date of incident for details and sources.
|
|
Material(s) |
Reported Destination |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plant in Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* For sources and further details, see Sandi Arnold, "Factsheet on Reported Nuclear Trafficking Incidents Involving Turkey, 1993-1999," July 1999, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies.
Thanks for the correction. I'm a bit embarrassed by the mistake. I was the second-ranked physics student in all of Mryland, Virginia, Delaware and D.C. in 1960. Other than a few touchups in college, I've been away from the subject for 39 years. We all get rusty.
Billybob