[ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Thank you for your kind words.  

Another argument against the claim that a neutron weapon was used in
Fallujah is that I suspect all versions of enhanced radiation weapons
(neutron bombs) use plutonium, rather than highly enriched uranium.  At
very least the one description that I found in a quick look mentioned
using plutonium, and it fits with other things I know about such
weapons.  If that is the case, a neutron bomb as the source of U235 is
even more difficult to accept.  



-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
alstonchris at netscape.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 4:12 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah


Mike


Thanks for your usual calm, well informed, and carefully considered
discussion of the matter.  I might only add that the article is really
baffling in that it refers to the U in question as being simultaneously
"weapons-grade" and "slightly enriched".  These are mutually exclusive
characterizations.



Cheers
cja

 > It is sad that people who promote this kind of thing don't bother to>
google what they are talking about.  A "neutron bomb" isn't some magic>
people-killing-building-leaving device; it is a low yield nuclear>
weapon, optimized for neutron production.  If one had been set off in>
Fallujah, everyone who was interested would have known about it, and
the> evidence would be incontrovertible.>> The first clues would have
been pretty distinctive: the mushroom cloud,> really, REALLY loud
explosion and flash (even compared to the other> explosions and flashes)
and an electro-magnetic pulse that would have> fried most electronics
for miles around.  Given that almost every> American in the area was
carrying some personal electronics such as cell> phones, computers, GPS
units, etc., if there had been an EMP, it would> have been noticed.
Someone would have talked.  In addition to the US, I> would guess there
are at least four countries with satellites that could> detect and
identify t
 he EMP from a nuke, and probably as many> corporations (and it may be
as high as 10 countries).  There would also> be a fairly distinctive
blast damage pattern at ground zero.>> Second, given the fairly short
range of a neutron dose high enough to be> fatal in the short term (and
if you are in the middle of a battle you> don't use thing with latency
periods in years or decades, as you want to> kill your targets now, to
make them stop shooting at you), the weapon> would have to be detonated
fairly close to the ground.  This means LOTS> of fallout.  Easily
detectable levels of short lived isotopes would have> been seen probably
a couple thousand miles downwind.  No matter which> way the wind was
blowing, there are countries that would be willing to> blow the whistle
on the event.>> Third, one of the things about neutron bombs is high
neutron flux in the> target area (that is the whole point, after all).
High neutron flux> means lots of activation of material in that area,
wit
 h characteristic> isotopes.  A lot of them are short lived, but there
would be enough to> increase the gamma background, and detectable with a
hand held gamma> spec device for quite some time after.>> No, the best
explanation for finding U235 in samples is that it is> naturally
occurring.>  
 
_______________________________________________
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