Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

After a 'Dirty Bomb' Explodes
The New York Times ^ | June 11, 2002 | Editorial Staff

Posted on 06/11/2002 6:56:06 AM PDT by vannrox

After a 'Dirty Bomb' Explodes




he age of terrorism is forcing all of us to learn a whole new vocabulary that describes potential threats and their consequences, if for no other reason than to calibrate how terrified we should be as each new menace emerges. The latest worry came yesterday with the revelation by Attorney General John Ashcroft that an American terrorist associated with Al Qaeda has been planning to explode a radiation-laced "dirty bomb" in the United States. We can fervently hope that no such weapon is ever exploded here. But should one ever be detonated, it is important to know that the number of fatalities would probably be small. The chief impact would be psychological and economic. Dirty bombs are not mass killers, they are weapons designed to inspire panic and cause disruption.


What makes dirty bombs one of the more worrisome threats is that they would be relatively easy to make from materials that are widely available. Such a bomb could consist of a conventional explosive surrounded by radioactive materials that are used in tens of thousands of industrial and medical devices in this country. Although these materials are supposed to be under some degree of control, their ubiquity makes it hard to guarantee that some won't be stolen or bought by a terrorist.


The conventional explosives in a dirty bomb can kill people or destroy buildings in the immediate vicinity. But their signature consequence would be release of a radioactive cloud that could contaminate a significant area with low-level radiation.


Mr. Ashcroft overstated the likely damage when he said a dirty bomb could cause "mass death and injury." Experts who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in March suggested that the number of fatalities would be small, possibly measured in the dozens. The impact would be nothing like a crude nuclear weapon that might kill tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people. But the radioactive material dispersed by the blast could contaminate a large swath of a city, force residents to evacuate, and cost billions of dollars to clean up and additional billions in disrupted economic activity. The radioactivity might not be as dangerous as anthrax, but it would be every bit as disruptive, if not more so.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; alqaeda; anthrax; ashcroft; binladen; bomb; bush; dispersed; evil; expert; explosive; fuel; iran; iraq; islam; material; muslim; nuclear; plot; psychological; radioactive; saudi; spent; terror; terrorism; war; wtc

1 posted on 06/11/2002 6:56:07 AM PDT by vannrox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vannrox
So which would be worse -- a dirty bomb or Clintoon moving in next door?
2 posted on 06/11/2002 7:21:39 AM PDT by Jerrybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jerrybob
So which would be worse -- a dirty bomb or Clintoon moving in next door?

You are confusing a radiological hazard with a toxic gas hazard.

3 posted on 06/11/2002 7:34:48 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
The radioactivity might not be as dangerous as anthrax...

Any scientific types out there who can verify this statement? I thought that radioactivity would be a much worse threat than anthrax.

4 posted on 06/11/2002 7:35:33 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Mr. Ashcroft overstated the likely damage when he said a dirty bomb could cause "mass death and injury."

And had Mr. Ashcroft actually said that 'only a few dozen deaths' would occur (as the article states the 'experts' claimed) he would be then accused of 'minimizing' the dangers.

I hate the NYT.

5 posted on 06/11/2002 7:39:54 AM PDT by Jim Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: vannrox
Estimates were 50,000 - 70,000 if released in Washington, DC or New York.... And you think the numbers are small.... if you are where it happens no number is small enough!

But from a purely tactical perspective, injure me a little so I have justificaiton to finish you and your's off!

7 posted on 06/11/2002 7:42:17 AM PDT by Jumper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jerrybob
So which would be worse -- a dirty bomb or Clintoon moving in next door?

Which Clintoon? The impeached rapist, the wicked witch of NY, or Webbs daughter?

8 posted on 06/11/2002 7:46:55 AM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Yeah well I prefer not to acquaint myself with several dozen deaths being bantied about as an acceptable number and talking about radioactive clean up as if it were really possible to do.

I would prefer no open borders, no people allowed in the country from terrorists nations, and the illegals rounded up here and deported for a start.

9 posted on 06/11/2002 7:53:38 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
It is funny how the same news media which excoriated Bush for temporarily delaying implementation of Clinton's last minute arsenic regulations is now minimizing the hazards of dirty bombs. In the case of arsenic, the worst-case scenarios projected less than a 1% increase in late-life cancers resulting from lifetime exposure to the most arsenic-laden water allowable, which is considerably less risk than posed by a dirty bomb. But the arsenic risk was played as a HUGE problem, whereas dirty bombs are now being scoffed at as a fabrication of John Ashcroft's mind.
10 posted on 06/11/2002 7:54:10 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
The radioactivity threat varies enormously based on the kind of materials used. If the terrorists could get their hands on weapons-grade plutonium or waste from a nuclear power plant, the threat would be extreme. However, this is consisdered unlikely, as these materials are very hard to obtain. It is more likely that terrorists would use low-grade radioactive materials used in common medical and industrial procedures, and these are far less toxic. That is what I have heard, I am not myself an expert.
11 posted on 06/11/2002 7:59:26 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Weapons grade anthrax is vastly more dangerious than a dirty bomb.
12 posted on 06/11/2002 8:10:29 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PJ-Comix
Well, there's the 7/10 rule for radioactive decay: for every 7-fold increase in time, there's a 10-fold decrease in radiation.

Example. Day zero, Joe Jihad blows up a "dirty bomb". Ambient radiation in the area is "x". On day 7, the radiation would be .1x. On day 49, .01x. And so on.

So, in general, an area that is contaminated, slowly decontaminates itself over time: anthrax doesn't. There are reportedly areas in Russia, where an anthrax leak occurred in the 1960s, that are STILL lethal to go into.

OTOH, radiation from a dirty bomb doesn't have to kill you, or even give a case of radiation sickness, to eventually trigger cancers later on.

Still, a dirty bomb isn't as nasty a weapon as a bioweapon, IMHO. The effects of a dirty bomb are far more psychological than physical: due to the general level of scientific illiteracy in the general population, and the ongoing campaign of the greens to equate "nuclear" with "evil" , the panic levels caused by a dirty bomb will cause 99.9% of the damage. . .

13 posted on 06/11/2002 8:22:28 AM PDT by Salgak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
Both are right. The bomb itself will cause minimal casualties and damage.

The resultant panic, however, would likely make the LA Riots look like a peaceful walk in the forest by comparison....

14 posted on 06/11/2002 8:24:53 AM PDT by Salgak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
RE: post #9 Your idea is the only thing that might prevent a castrophe like a dirty bomb. If it happens our economy will likely be worse than the Depression. These people mean business. They proved it by coming back to attack the trade center in New York after failing earlier in the 90's. I predict that we don't really have any idea of what lies ahead.
15 posted on 06/11/2002 8:27:16 AM PDT by southland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jim Scott
"He would be accused of minimizing the dangers."

You got it. He would be portrayed as callous and unfeeling. I can hear it now: "Mr. Ashcroft might think that a few dozen lives are expendable, but that will come as small consolation to the families of those left behind. Perhaps if one believes, as Mr. Ashcroft does, that Jesus as about to descend from the clouds, these everyday concerns are of little account. But the rest of us lack Mr. Ashcrofts certainties. America deserves better." Or something like that . . .
16 posted on 06/11/2002 8:30:47 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: southland
I'm just not for making it easy on politicans who want to look busy fighting terrorism when they are doing anything but. The answer is not to con us out of our Civil Liberties falsely promising us we are safer when we know we are not.

I don't think Americans should have to fight terrorist on one side and smoke and mirrors politicians on the other trying to con us that they give one tinkers damn about our safety and all we have to do is give up a few liberties. They are only concerned with their own skins, free trade, open borders, and globalism.

It may take one state at a time to become discontent with their resident D.C. con artist enough to vote in someone more appreciative of their first duty, but eventually it will happen.

17 posted on 06/11/2002 8:47:59 AM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: PJ-Comix
Here is a link to the Federation of American Scientists analysis of the "dirty bomb" scenario including different targets, different radioactive materials and estimated long term casualties:

Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

Regards

J.R.

19 posted on 06/11/2002 8:59:55 AM PDT by NMC EXP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jerrybob
The most effective dirty bomb would be waste right from a reactor as it would have the same rad output as a ground zero strike.
It would also kill anyone within 100ft trying to assemble it.
20 posted on 06/11/2002 2:36:50 PM PDT by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson