Re: Re: " Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud "

To: RADSAFE <radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu>

Subject: Re: Re: " Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud "

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:44:04 -0400

Sender: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

The uranium in DU and presumably in an RDD is refined. Enough time for significant buildup of radioactive progeny has not occurred. The mill tailings and wastes at former Manhattan Project sites include radioactive progeny that had been in secular equilibrium with the parent radionuclides before the uranium was removed. I also suppose that some of the wastes may have been irradiated in a reactor. Bob C > > From: Raymond A Hoover <ray2hoover@YAHOO.COM> > Date: 2004/06/10 Thu AM 09:32:09 EDT > To: Jaro <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>, RADSAFE <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu> > Subject: Re: " Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud " > > Ok, if a dirty bomb composed of U is no big deal, why are we spending 100's of millions of dollars cleaning up U mill tailings and former Manhatten project sites?

Ok, if a dirty bomb composed of U is no big deal, why are we spending 100's of millions of dollars cleaning up U mill tailings and former Manhatten project sites? It strikes me that the public does not understand the concept of relative risks. They will hear Uranium and think death.

I agree with what the "expert" says about the low risk from such a device, but the true danger of such a device is the public's perception. Such a device will panic the public and that is all a terrorist is worried about. It is still a terrorist weapon. Prof. Zimmerman seems to have missed that.

Jaro <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca> wrote:

Kudos to Mr. Hanley for quite a decent media report on a nuclear issue (just
wish we could have this sort of thing all the time, and in a more timely
fashion....)

Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=753&e=10&u=/ap/2004
0609/ap_on_sc/dirty_bomb_dud
Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud
By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent

NEW YORK - The "dirty bomb" allegedly planned by terror suspect Jose Padilla
would have been a dud, not the radiological threat portrayed last week by
federal authorities, scientists say.

At a June 1 news conference, the Justice Department (news - web sites) said
the alleged al-Qaida associate hoped to attack Americans by detonating
"uranium wrapped with explosives" in order to spread radioactivity.

But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with
high-radiation materials — such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in
medicine and industry that experts see as potential dirty bomb fuels.

"I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American
nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to
illustrate the point.

Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S.
National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was
"extremely disturbing — because you cannot make a radiological dispersal
device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."

Other specialists agreed. "It's the equivalent of blowing up lead," said
physicist Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists.

When Padilla was arrested in June 2002, after returning to Chicago from
Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Pakistan, Attorney General John Ashcroft
(news ! - ! ! web sites) said the ex-Chicago gang member and Muslim convert had
planned a dirty bomb that could "cause mass death and injury." Washington,
D.C., was the likely target, his department said.

But it wasn't until Deputy Attorney General James Comey's briefing for
reporters last week that authorities said Padilla had uranium in mind for
his radiological dispersal device, or RDD, the technical term for such a
weapon. Comey said the detainee disclosed he'd also been sent to set off
natural gas explosions in U.S. apartment buildings.

"Just saying the word `uranium,' the public automatically assumes, `Oh, it
sounds bad,'" said physicist Charles Ferguson of the Washington office of
California's Monterey Institute of International Studies. He co-authored one
of the most detailed reports on the dirty-bomb threat.

Those studying the RDD potential envision a combination of explosives with a
lethal radioisotope, such as cesium-137, diverted! f! ! rom use in cancer
radiotherapy, for example, or from machines that irradiate food.
Particularly if in powder form, it could spew intense radioactivity over a
section of a city, making it uninhabitable.

Radiation from uranium, on the other hand, is billions of times less intense
than that of cesium-137, cobalt-60 and other radioisotopes. It's not
radioactivity but another property of uranium — its ability in some forms to
sustain atomic chain reactions — that makes it a fuel for nuclear power and
bombs.

The Justice Department didn't respond directly when asked this week whether
it had consulted with experts and knew that uranium wouldn't make a dirty
bomb.

Instead, spokesman Mark Corallo said Padilla's statements, in view of his
al-Qaida links, made clear that he was "willing to cause devastating harm to
innocent Americans."

Padilla has been held by the U.S. military since 2002 as an enemy combatant,
without charge and ! wi! ! th little access to lawyers. The Bush administration
has been criticized for denying a U.S. citizen normal access to the courts.
The Supreme Court is considering whether the government, in defending
against terrorism, has such power.

Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, said Wednesday of the dirty-bomb allegation
that U.S. authorities "should have known that this was nonsense."

"When they frightened everybody, what were they trying to do, if they knew
better? To show the administration is on top of things?" she asked.

She wants the government to attempt to indict and try her client. "Maybe the
problem is the evidence is so weak, it's laughable," she said.

Comey said the news conference was called "to help people understand the
nature of the threat" Padilla posed.

Based on what he said were Padilla's admissions to interrogators, he
described a "highly trained al-Qaida soldier" who accepted an assignment to
blow up U.S. ap! ar! ! tment buildings, and "planned to do even more by detonating
a radiological device, a dirty bomb, in this country."

Spokesman Corallo reaffirmed this week that it was Padilla who said uranium
would be used.

"If that's what he planned," physicist Oelrich said of Padilla, "it shows he
doesn't know what he's talking about and hasn't done even rudimentary
homework."

He wasn't the only one, according to a Justice Department summary of
interrogations.

It said Abu Zubaydah, a top al-Qaida lieutenant now in U.S. custody, also
envisioned a uranium device when urging Padilla to mount a U.S. attack. At
another point, however, the summary said Zubaydah told Padilla the dirty
bomb was "not as easy to do as they thought."

Padilla claims "he was never really planning to go through with" any of the
terrorist assignment, Comey told reporters.

As a heavy metal, like lead, uranium poses one health risk: If ingested or
inhaled, i! t ! ! can damage kidneys or other organs. But unlike radioisotopes,
byproducts of nuclear reactors, uranium doesn't emit penetrating gamma rays
that cause acute radiation poisoning. Instead, it slowly radiates weak alpha
particles, which don't even penetrate skin.

"Granted, it (uranium) could have a psychological effect" because of
unfounded fears, said physicist Ferguson. But he said a government
information campaign should quell any panic if such a weapon appeared.

************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/