[ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

[Franz Schönhofer]

Maury et al.,

More than enough and detailed information about nuclear weapons including 
"Little Boy" can be found on google. For information on the latter just type 
in the words and there is at least one information which would answer all 
your questions! There are also films frequently shown in documentaries, how 
the bomb was loaded into the Enola Gay and I would be surprised if these 
scenes were not available on the internet. There exists a number of 
excellent books on the Manhattan Project with a lot of details - I bought a 
few during my visits to Los Alamos, Albuquerque, the Trinity site etc. Don't 
forget the museum in Albuquerque with replicas.

U-235 has a shorter half-life than U-238, therefore it is more radioactive 
than natural uranium, but not so much that handling would involve a 
radiation risk.

One conclusion one can draw, is that this uranium would not be effective for 
a dirty weapon! Plutonium would be a different story if one would be able to 
disperse it extremely finely.

Best regards,

Franz

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- 
From: McClung, Danny
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 6:31 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Maury,

The components are only mildly radioactive prior to nuclear detonation.  Not 
a lot of shielding required.

It would likely be something small.  10 KT seems a plausible yield.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu 
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Maury
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:17 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Can anyone tell me or suggest a link to description of the size and
weight of the radioactive components of the Hiroshima bomb?  Also would
like to know weight and size of the shielding required to handle this
material.  How did they load this material onto the USS Indianapolis
without lethal irradiation of handlers?  Am wondering if these answers
would shed any light on what would be required to attempt a practicable
so-called dirty bomb if not a practicable nuclear weapon.

Seems to me that terrorist groups would be hard pressed to handle a
nuclear weapon even if any of our opponents saw fit to give them one
...?  The implication to me is that a dirty bomb of any serious yield
would not be feasible?

Thanks for comments.
Maury&Dog
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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