Just something to think about.
Dirty Bomb Doomsday
By Rocco DiPippo
August 4, 2005
In September of 1987 a Brazilian scrap yard worker in the town of Goiaina pried open a canister that had been dumped in the junk yard he worked in. Inside the container was a mesmerizing, sparkling, blue powder. Soon the residents of Goiaina who lived near the yard caught wind of the worker’s mysterious discovery. The canister began making its way from block to block, house to house. Residents touched the blue powder, ran it through their fingers and marveled at its phosphorescence. A six year old child played with it and rubbed it into her hair. It made her hair glow.
What none of Goiaina’s residents knew at the time was that the beautiful blue dust they were passing around; that sparkling azure powder that made a young girl’s hair glow, was deadly radioactive Cesium. The canister containing the Cesium had been looted from an abandoned nearby cancer treatment facility. Within a few days four people, including the child whose hair had glowed, were dead. Within weeks the Brazilian authorities demolished 85 contaminated homes in order to contain the radiation that had been unleashed by the deadly curiosity of Goiaina’s residents.
If a similar amount of Cesium fell into the hands of modern terrorists, was fashioned into a so-called “dirty” bomb and detonated in a major Western city, the event would make the incident in Goiaina pale in comparison. A dirty bomb is relatively easy to construct. It is made by packing low-grade radioactive material around a conventional explosive charge. When the charge is detonated, the radioactive material packed in and around it pulverizes into dust and spreads through the air. Anything this dust contacts becomes radioactively contaminated.
People in the immediate area of a detonating dirty bomb would likely be killed or injured by the conventional explosion itself and not by exposure to radiation, though exposure to the radioactive dust in high enough concentrations could also cause death. More likely, the radioactivity released by a dirty bomb would cause an increase in cancer rates among those who survived the conventional explosion but came into contact with the radioactive dust. Though the cleanup of a dirty bomb attack would be time consuming and expensive and the damage inflicted by one more economic than physical, the most devastating effect on a society in which one is detonated is likely to be psychological.
The words “nuclear” and “radioactivity” elicit strong negative reactions from most people even when mentioned in a benign context. Thoughts of invisible particles wafting through the air emitting radiation and silently wrecking the ability of human cells to properly replicate rightly terrify Americans. It is for this reason that the dirty bomb is a dream weapon for terrorists-it has the ability to cause maximum psychological terror for a small investment in time and materials. It is also in keeping with what, so far, has been the Islamist’s affinity for parlaying the use of low-tech objects and devices into maximum psychological terror.
This week, journalist Joseph Farah sparked intense discussion by asserting that not only had Islamist terrorists procured conventional nuclear weapons in the form of so-called suitcase bombs, they were close to detonating them in major U.S. cities. Echoing earlier similar assertions by writer Paul Williams, Farah laid out a scenario describing the inevitability of a conventional nuclear attack on the U.S. using such bombs. Though Farah’s scenario is possible, there are many daunting technical difficulties involved in procuring viable suitcase bombs, maintaining them, and preparing them for use. The nature of these difficulties makes great the possibility that terrorists planning a suitcase bomb attack will be discovered before they can carry it out.
A conventional nuclear weapon is a highly complex, tight-tolerance piece of machinery. It is nearly impossible to build one without highly specialized facilities, a quantity of fissionable material (which is almost impossible to procure), and an impressive knowledge of physics coupled with prodigious engineering skills. It is an extremely dangerous process to manufacture and assemble one. On the other hand, constructing a dirty bomb is relatively simple. Any radioactive material ground up to maximize its dispersion will do, and a crude explosive charge is sufficient to disperse that material. The maker need only shield himself from an overdose of radiation and avoid blowing himself up while preparing the explosive charge.
Simply put, radium from an obsolete watch-dial duct-taped to a hand grenade makes a crude (though not very effective) “dirty” bomb. In the U.S., more than 2 million radioactive sources are possessed by 157,000 licensed users. Approximately 400 of these sources are lost or stolen every year. The situation is far worse in the former Soviet Union, where large quantities of radioactive material routinely slip past the Russian government. It is reasonable to assume that some of this material has ended up in the hands of Islamists, who have a long history of attempting to procure it. There is only one reason for them wanting to possess it. And it is a reason they hope will frighten us into both appeasing them and accepting their murderous agenda. Rocco DiPippo, a freelance political writer publishes The Autonomist blog and contributes to David Horowitz’s Moonbat Central blog.
Source
{Terror} Dirty Bomb Doomsday
Moderator: S2k Moderators
{Terror} Dirty Bomb Doomsday
0 likes
-
rainstorm
Richard Muller explains the overhyped dangers of radiological weapons.
Our experience with radiological weapons—the fancier name for dirty bombs—is limited. They do not require a chain reaction like fission or fusion weapons, but instead use ordinary explosives to spread pre-existing radioactive material. Saddam Hussein reportedly tested such a weapon in 1987, but abandoned the effort when he saw how poorly it worked. In 1995, Chechen rebels buried dynamite and a small amount of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 in Moscow’s Ismailovsky park. They then told a TV station where to dig it up. Perhaps they recognized the truth: that the bomb’s news value could be greater if it were discovered before it went off. For such weapons, the psychological impact can be greater than the limited harm they are likely to cause.
I don’t mean to suggest that radioactive materials are harmless. Indeed, consider the story of scavengers in Goiania, Brazil, who found and dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in 1987. The machine contained 1,400 curies of cesium-137. (A curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium.) Two men, one woman, and one child died from acute radiation poisoning; 250 additional people were contaminated. Several of the 41 houses evacuated could not be cleaned adequately and were demolished.
Imagine now if that radiation weren’t confined to a few houses, but were spread over the city by an explosion. Wouldn’t fatalities be higher? The surprising answer is: No. If the radioactivity were dispersed in that way, larger area would have to be evacuated, yet in all probability no specific deaths could be attributed to the event.
To understand the details, let’s walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I’ll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you’ll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That’s called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you’ll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.
To try do enhance the damage, let’s use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to trigger radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.
...
But even a dirty bomb without casualties could spread nuclear panic, based on the danger of long-term cancer. For doses in the 100-rem range, results from historical exposures suggest the increased risk of cancer is about 0.04 percent per rem. That’s a 6 percent increase in your chance of dying from cancer for each year you spend in the square kilometer. If the radioactivity were spread over a larger area, e.g., a 10- by 10-kilometer square, then the dose would be lower (12.6 rems per year) and so would the added risk of cancer: 0.06 percent per year of exposure. (I am assuming, conservatively, that risk is proportional to dose, even at low doses.
...
If terrorists do attack this summer using a dirty bomb, the resulting death might come from automobile accidents as people flee. Dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. Their success depends on public and government overreaction. Beware not radioactivity but nuclear panic. The main thing we have to fear from a dirty bomb is fear itself.
http://www.commonsensewonder.com
Our experience with radiological weapons—the fancier name for dirty bombs—is limited. They do not require a chain reaction like fission or fusion weapons, but instead use ordinary explosives to spread pre-existing radioactive material. Saddam Hussein reportedly tested such a weapon in 1987, but abandoned the effort when he saw how poorly it worked. In 1995, Chechen rebels buried dynamite and a small amount of the radioactive isotope cesium-137 in Moscow’s Ismailovsky park. They then told a TV station where to dig it up. Perhaps they recognized the truth: that the bomb’s news value could be greater if it were discovered before it went off. For such weapons, the psychological impact can be greater than the limited harm they are likely to cause.
I don’t mean to suggest that radioactive materials are harmless. Indeed, consider the story of scavengers in Goiania, Brazil, who found and dismantled an abandoned radiotherapy machine in 1987. The machine contained 1,400 curies of cesium-137. (A curie is the radioactivity of one gram of radium.) Two men, one woman, and one child died from acute radiation poisoning; 250 additional people were contaminated. Several of the 41 houses evacuated could not be cleaned adequately and were demolished.
Imagine now if that radiation weren’t confined to a few houses, but were spread over the city by an explosion. Wouldn’t fatalities be higher? The surprising answer is: No. If the radioactivity were dispersed in that way, larger area would have to be evacuated, yet in all probability no specific deaths could be attributed to the event.
To understand the details, let’s walk through the design of a dirty bomb similar to what Padilla wanted to build. I’ll assume the same amount of radioactive material as was in Goiania: 1,400 curies of cesium-137. Radiation damage is measured in units called rem, and if you stand one meter from that source, you’ll absorb 450 rems in less than an hour. That’s called LD50, for lethal dose 50 percent. Untreated, you’ll have a 50 percent chance of dying in the next few months from that exposure.
To try do enhance the damage, let’s use explosives to spread our 1,400 curies over a larger area, say a neighborhood one kilometer square. That will result in a radioactivity of 1.4 millicuries per square meter, and a careful calculation shows that residents will get a dose of 140 rems per year. But radiation illness is nonlinear. For extended exposures, the lethal dose increases by the fourth root of time, to approximately 1,250 rems for a one-year exposure and 2,500 rems for a 16-year exposure. So 140 rems per year is not enough to trigger radiation illness, even if you stayed there 24/7 for a decade. Radioactive contamination may be the one case for which the solution to pollution really is dilution.
...
But even a dirty bomb without casualties could spread nuclear panic, based on the danger of long-term cancer. For doses in the 100-rem range, results from historical exposures suggest the increased risk of cancer is about 0.04 percent per rem. That’s a 6 percent increase in your chance of dying from cancer for each year you spend in the square kilometer. If the radioactivity were spread over a larger area, e.g., a 10- by 10-kilometer square, then the dose would be lower (12.6 rems per year) and so would the added risk of cancer: 0.06 percent per year of exposure. (I am assuming, conservatively, that risk is proportional to dose, even at low doses.
...
If terrorists do attack this summer using a dirty bomb, the resulting death might come from automobile accidents as people flee. Dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction, but weapons of mass disruption. Their success depends on public and government overreaction. Beware not radioactivity but nuclear panic. The main thing we have to fear from a dirty bomb is fear itself.
http://www.commonsensewonder.com
0 likes
-
rainstorm
Dirty bombs: about fear more than mass casualties
The thought of radioactive plumes in air conjures mushroom-cloud image – falsely.
By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – If a so-called "dirty bomb" were detonated in the heart of an American city, it could cause casualties on the magnitude of the 1995 Oklahoma City bomb – which killed 168 people – but only in the immediate blast area, experts say.
Yet such an attack could also spark a much wider public panic – due in part to what some observers see as an overly dramatic fear of radiation that's crept into the national zeitgeist in the past half century.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Related stories:
06/11/02
Bomb plot shows terrorist resolve
E-mail Newsletter
Get all of today's headlines, or alerts on specific topics.
Subscribe for free.
With US officials saying this week that they thwarted a dirty-bomb attack by arresting alleged Al Qaeda member Jose Padilla, there's renewed concern about such devices. Yet outside the immediate bomb-blast area, experts say a dirty bomb's impact might consist of a statistically insignificant rise in long-term health troubles, depressed real estate prices, and the need to demolish scores of buildings. That's a far cry from a mushroom cloud of destruction erupting over Baltimore in Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears," or the ghostly desolation portrayed in TV's 1983 nuclear-war drama "The Day After."
Yet the public largely doesn't distinguish between these scenarios, observers say. "In a perfect world," people would understand that even after a dirty-bomb attack, the most dangerous part of being in a big city "would be getting mugged, not being exposed to radiation," says Michael Levi of the Federation of American Scientists here.
If a dirty bomb were set off, the casualties would be caused, experts say, by the "bomb" part of the device – the fertilizer or other explosive material shattering windows or shredding concrete.
The "dirty" element – a radioactive substance strapped onto the explosive material – would simply make the area much more complicated to work in and the debris much harder to clean up.
A bomb's actual impact would depend greatly on everything from prevailing winds to the radioactivity of the device. Spent nuclear fuel rods, for instance, would be very dangerous but also extremely difficult for terrorists to obtain and handle.
One recent mock attack envisioned a medium-size dirty bomb being placed in a stolen yellow school bus and detonated outside the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum. In the scenario, conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, the "ground zero" area was radioactive enough that emergency workers could only be present for one hour before receiving the maximum allowable radiation dose. Yet outside this several-block area, the scenario involved minimal radiation – and nearly undetectable health effects.
Still, the scenario envisioned the bomb sparking a chaotic mass evacuation – and a shortage of emergency workers willing to assist at the bomb site. In fact, experts say public panic can actually increase destruction. For instance, harried drivers crashing into each other during an evacuation could boost fatalities.
The more rational approach for people nearby, experts say, would be to take a shower – to clean off any radioactive dust – and to begin an orderly exit from the city. Staying in the city for hours or days would have little if any health impact, they say.
The scenario's biggest hypothetical impact was economic. Real-estate values plummeted. Tourists stopped coming to the nation's capital. Scores of buildings had to be demolished, since decontamination is so costly.
Indeed, dirty bombs are "weapons of mass disruption – not mass destruction," says Matthew Bunn, a researcher at Harvard University. But "the disruption can be pretty massive."
Yet the distinction is lost on many Americans. Instead, images of mushroom clouds begin dancing in peoples' heads. Terrorists count on using this linkage to magnify an attack's impact, says Philip Anderson, a CSIS expert. "It is the fear factor that we've got to get our arms around."
• Staff writer Francine Kiefer contributed to this story.
The more rational approach for people nearby, experts say, would be to take a shower – to clean off any radioactive dust – and to begin an orderly exit from the city. Staying in the city for hours or days would have little if any health impact, they say.
The thought of radioactive plumes in air conjures mushroom-cloud image – falsely.
By Abraham McLaughlin | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – If a so-called "dirty bomb" were detonated in the heart of an American city, it could cause casualties on the magnitude of the 1995 Oklahoma City bomb – which killed 168 people – but only in the immediate blast area, experts say.
Yet such an attack could also spark a much wider public panic – due in part to what some observers see as an overly dramatic fear of radiation that's crept into the national zeitgeist in the past half century.
E-mail this story
Write a letter to the Editor
Printer-friendly version
Permission to reprint/republish
Related stories:
06/11/02
Bomb plot shows terrorist resolve
E-mail Newsletter
Get all of today's headlines, or alerts on specific topics.
Subscribe for free.
With US officials saying this week that they thwarted a dirty-bomb attack by arresting alleged Al Qaeda member Jose Padilla, there's renewed concern about such devices. Yet outside the immediate bomb-blast area, experts say a dirty bomb's impact might consist of a statistically insignificant rise in long-term health troubles, depressed real estate prices, and the need to demolish scores of buildings. That's a far cry from a mushroom cloud of destruction erupting over Baltimore in Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears," or the ghostly desolation portrayed in TV's 1983 nuclear-war drama "The Day After."
Yet the public largely doesn't distinguish between these scenarios, observers say. "In a perfect world," people would understand that even after a dirty-bomb attack, the most dangerous part of being in a big city "would be getting mugged, not being exposed to radiation," says Michael Levi of the Federation of American Scientists here.
If a dirty bomb were set off, the casualties would be caused, experts say, by the "bomb" part of the device – the fertilizer or other explosive material shattering windows or shredding concrete.
The "dirty" element – a radioactive substance strapped onto the explosive material – would simply make the area much more complicated to work in and the debris much harder to clean up.
A bomb's actual impact would depend greatly on everything from prevailing winds to the radioactivity of the device. Spent nuclear fuel rods, for instance, would be very dangerous but also extremely difficult for terrorists to obtain and handle.
One recent mock attack envisioned a medium-size dirty bomb being placed in a stolen yellow school bus and detonated outside the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum. In the scenario, conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies here, the "ground zero" area was radioactive enough that emergency workers could only be present for one hour before receiving the maximum allowable radiation dose. Yet outside this several-block area, the scenario involved minimal radiation – and nearly undetectable health effects.
Still, the scenario envisioned the bomb sparking a chaotic mass evacuation – and a shortage of emergency workers willing to assist at the bomb site. In fact, experts say public panic can actually increase destruction. For instance, harried drivers crashing into each other during an evacuation could boost fatalities.
The more rational approach for people nearby, experts say, would be to take a shower – to clean off any radioactive dust – and to begin an orderly exit from the city. Staying in the city for hours or days would have little if any health impact, they say.
The scenario's biggest hypothetical impact was economic. Real-estate values plummeted. Tourists stopped coming to the nation's capital. Scores of buildings had to be demolished, since decontamination is so costly.
Indeed, dirty bombs are "weapons of mass disruption – not mass destruction," says Matthew Bunn, a researcher at Harvard University. But "the disruption can be pretty massive."
Yet the distinction is lost on many Americans. Instead, images of mushroom clouds begin dancing in peoples' heads. Terrorists count on using this linkage to magnify an attack's impact, says Philip Anderson, a CSIS expert. "It is the fear factor that we've got to get our arms around."
• Staff writer Francine Kiefer contributed to this story.
The more rational approach for people nearby, experts say, would be to take a shower – to clean off any radioactive dust – and to begin an orderly exit from the city. Staying in the city for hours or days would have little if any health impact, they say.
0 likes
-
Skywatch_NC
- Category 5
- Posts: 10949
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
-
azsnowman
- Category 5
- Posts: 8591
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 8:56 pm
- Location: Pinetop Arizona. Elevation 7102' (54 miles west of NM border)
Brent wrote:I'm worried about a Kobe-style attack on a subway in NYC or another big city. What was the WMD there???
I'm more worried about getting hit while crossing the street during the summer tourist season up here, better YET.....I'm worried that my bullet proof vest won't stop a 9MM round
Dennis
0 likes
Brent it was Sarin in the Kobe subway attack. NYC is conductiong a gas release study of the subway right now. You can read about it Here
- Sarin:
Sarin is a human-made chemical warfare agent classified as a nerve agent. Nerve agents are the most toxic and rapidly acting of the known chemical warfare agents. They are similar to certain kinds of pesticides (insect killers) called organophosphates in terms of how they work and what kind of harmful effects they cause. However, nerve agents are much more potent than organophosphate pesticides.
Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. However, sarin can evaporate into a vapor (gas) and spread into the environment.
How people can be exposed to sarin:
Following release of sarin into the air, people can be exposed through skin contact or eye contact. They can also be exposed by breathing air that contains sarin.
Sarin mixes easily with water, so it could be used to poison water. Following release of sarin into water, people can be exposed by touching or drinking water that contains sarin.
Following contamination of food with sarin, people can be exposed by eating the contaminated food.
A person’s clothing can release sarin for about 30 minutes after it has come in contact with sarin vapor, which can lead to exposure of other people.
Because sarin breaks down slowly in the body, people who are repeatedly exposed to sarin may suffer more harmful health effects.
Because sarin vapor is heavier than air, it will sink to low-lying areas and create a greater exposure hazard there.
0 likes
That is what I am concerned about. AQ has an attack planned titled "America's Hiroshima" and the 9th seems like a obvious date. They are a flexible and patient bunch though so who knows. I have my doubts about the safe return of Discovery so lets take one averted disaster at a time. 8/8 is forecasted to have a significant event happen. I hope it is a safe return because it has been tied into a series of events.
0 likes
-
feederband
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3423
- Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:21 pm
- Location: Lakeland Fl
-
gtalum
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 4749
- Age: 49
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Bradenton, FL
- Contact:
You can sit around fretting about what unlikely terrorist stunt smight be pulled, or you can enjoy life. I'll take option B, thanks very much. 
As for "America's Hiroshima", have any of you considered that the scaremongering freak who is propagating that particular theory might have created it out of thin air to sell books?
As for "America's Hiroshima", have any of you considered that the scaremongering freak who is propagating that particular theory might have created it out of thin air to sell books?
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests