[ RadSafe ] How tough is it to build a dirty bomb?

[Ed Hiserodt]

Just the thought of a dirty bomb is scary.  In fact it is really only the
thought  that is scary, the reality is pretty hum drum.  Think of the
problem from the standpoint of the dirty bomb maker.  What isotopes do you
choose?  Ever looked at the cost and difficulty in obtaining Co60 or Ce137?
You've got to have a gamma emitter or everyone can just walk across the
street to be safe.  How do you disperse the nuclides?  By air?  Most would
blow away, or wash to the sea from the next rain.  From a bomb?  Claymore
mines with 1.5 pounds of C4 can cause casualties up to 100 m away by
spraying steel balls.  What dispersible, dangerous nuclides are you going to
spew with a similar bomb that might propel small particles out 25 m?  That's
about 0.4 acres - and you're wanting to take out Central Park -- something
over 800 acres.  

 

The danger to our citizens from a dirty bomb is the fear of the unknown it
engenders in the public.  Say "radiation" and they're headed for cover with
the Union of Concerned Scientists, the NRDC, the main stream media, and the
EPA telling them to run faster.  What percent of people in the U.S. know
what a rem or rad is?  Or a Sievert or a Gray?  One in a thousand?
Consequently you could pick up a tow sack full of monazite sand from the
beaches at Guarapari Brazil, scatter it in Times Square with a quarter stick
of dynamite and radioactive panic would ensure, although there would be
absolutely no danger to the public.  People naturally want to avoid danger,
and especially dangers they don't understand.  Shouldn't we be trying to
help them know the truth?

 

Ed Hiserodt

Maumelle, AR

501 258 2571

 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Maury Siskel
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 3:57 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List;
doug.huffman at wildblue.net
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] How tough is it to build a dirty bomb?

 

I share Doug's impressions (too hot to handle, too hot to build). 

Thought the dirty bomb notion was pretty thoroughly dispelled here and 

elsewhere a few years ago. In addition, I can empathize to a degree with 

suicide bombers. But it seems much more difficult to empathize with one 

willing to die of acute radiation exposure.

Best,

Maury&Dog

========================

 

Doug Huffman wrote:

 

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>Hash: SHA1

> 

>"Common sense" about a dirty bomb, here in America taking its science

>from public broadcasting by journalists?

> 

>Radiation safety and health professionals might do some arithmetic

>involving an area, some energy levels, some concentrations, use those to

>pick some nuclides and calculate their masses and mass specific activity

>and know - as professionals - just what will be required to build a

>credible device.

> 

>If it's too hot to handle (as in clean up) then it's too hot to handle

>to build.  I am not a professional but I have made a formally

>falsifiable assertion and it should be formally fa

> 

-------------------snipped-----------

_______________________________________________

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

 

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

 

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu