Posted on 03/21/2002 1:33:51 PM PST by ex-Texan
The time it would take to clean up the mess could be compared to events like Chernobyl and Hiroshima. Also, recall that this radioactive material was created on earth, it is still on earth, and it will be on earth afterwards. That is, we are already suffering from the effects of it and have been since the first little proto-human chased down a rabbit on the veldt. The point is that the material is dangerous when concentrated, and is easier to clean up when it is concentrated. Either way, the city won't die, civilization won't die, and the planet won't die. 5 years, maximum; 1 year most likely; a few city blocks involved. The cleanup tools are firehoses and shovels.
You would have to be very close to the device to detect the leakage especially buried in a cargo container ship... We have a big border and few detectors...
Really? How?
I'm serious here - I worked in neutron science while doing my doctorate, so I know something of the field. By the same token, I've been out of that field for a few years, so am perfectly willing to concede that something new may have come along - thus the questioning.
A dirty nuke would, as I understand it, contain radioactive material, which is what people are looking for. The material emits helium nuclei, protons, electrons, and neutrons as it decays. The protons and electrons are the easiest to detect, and are what Geiger counters track. However, they can also be blocked. Dense material is the best for blocking them, thus the use of lead shielding. It shouldn't be that hard to set contain this - you might have a hard time moving a lead-lined suitcase through today's airport, but if it's already in country, it shouldn't be too tough.
Neutrons are much harder to block. You'd do best to use a hydrogen-rich material, such as parafin wax, and you'd need a lot of it. You'd probably need a van or small truck worth of parafin to block the output from a dirty bomb (NOTE: All these measures are top-of-the-head ones - I have not actually run the numbers myself to see, so feel free to offer correction if I'm off.) However, while neutrons are a pain to block, they're also a pain to detect - those are related after all. Thus, you wouldn't really need to block all the neutrons, just enough so that you wouldn't be able to distinguish it from background. There also aren't any good hand-held neutron detectors around (that I know of) so you should even be able to get sufficient warning that some one is looking.
OK, that wraps up my pessimistic spiel. Please let me know where I'm off.
Drew Garrett
It is not the Arab world that has changed --- since, 1950s, say: we have. It is not they who became stronger but we who weakened our resolve.
The West is the most anti-Western place you can find on earth.
Actually there's a different method for detecting nukes on a container ship, etc. A friend of mine used to work at Los Alamos back in his college days and he told me about this detection method that's been in use for years....Basically, you shoot a beam of neutrons at a target and if it has fissionable material then the neutron beam will create a small, unsustainable reaction. If you detect the emissions from this reaction then you've got something. It's that simple.
Saying there are thirty dirty nukes in the US if they are not in the US, is in itself helping spead psycological terror for the Islamics. Morey needs to get more proof or a better basis from his "friends"
The old innocent civilians gambit?
That is such a red herring I won't even go there.
However, even marginal morons can figure out that a really nasty response given once is likely to be repeated.
That goes to the heart of the problem: all these countries tolerate and wink at terrorist activity, indeed promote it and fan the fires that support it.
That can be stopped two ways; internally in each country, or by outside force. The choice is theirs.
Diplomacy is a wasted exercise, how does one negotiate with a cockroach?
The only uncertainty in my mind is not if this will be necessary eventually, only just when.
Long-life isotopes are by definition weak radiation sources. Conversely, highly radioactive isotopes have very short half-lifes, measured in days or weeks, because they decay quickly.
The biggest danger from a radiological bomb is the public's ignorance and phobia about anything that is the least bit radioactive. These days we worry about "nuclear waste disposal" of hospital materials (e.g., latex gloves exposed to miniscule doses of radiation), as well as the supposed danger from depleted uranium munitions. When people panic over absurdly small and harmless radiation levels like that, you know they are going to spasm and die of fright (but nothing else) if a radiological bomb goes off in a city.
http://alpha.fdu.edu/~bender/NYsplash.html
For normal people, perhaps.
Remember, we're talking muslims here. Posturing and bluster and showboatying is more important to them than actually doing something significant.
That's why 911 came as such a surprise to everyone.
Have no fear -- the tinfoil will block Hamas' ray guns.
Which is what our War on Terrorism is all about: Going after the terrorists and their infrastructure regardless of where they try to hide, and eliminating their safe havens by holding the rulers of those countries as responsible as the terrorists for their actions.
And so far it's working. We've overthrown the Taliban and killed and disrupted the Al Queda network. There have been no new significant terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11. I doubt this report about dirty nukes already being in the U.S., because I think the terrorists would have already used them if they could. But even if it's true and they've been holding off, it doesn't mean our gameplan should change, it should just intensify.
Don't proclaim to the world what we'd do if a dirty nuke went off; let the rest of the world wonder. If they've convinced themselves that President Bush is an unstable, war-mongering, sub-intelligent, gunslinging cowboy, then they've got to worry that he might do anything in retaliation. To the extent that any deterrence is possible against suicidal fanatics, that's the best possible deterrence we have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.