Much more likely would be a dirty bomb. Just a regular bomb with some nuclear material that it spreads. The nuclear material isn’t the bomb itself, but used exclusively for the exposure effects. You don’t even need plutonium or uranium for this. There are plenty of other radiological sources to make dirty bombs. Old radiographic medical equipment for instance.
There are hundreds of thousands of orphaned sources in the world. Several of them have caused the worst radiological incidents in history.
The fact we don’t see this already is quite surprising.
I’m kind of skepitical of the “dirty bomb” idea. Frankly, it sounds like a load of bullshit, because of the πr2 thing. Namely, if you want to irradiate and area to a sufficient extent to cause immediate radiation sickness, then keeping it concentrated is your best bet. A very small bomb, at most.
The other extreme would be a huge bomb to spread radioactive material over, say, a city. At which point it barely raises the radioactivity above background levels. Or at least doesn’t cause immediately apparent effects. Imagine terrorists issuing a statement like, “Sure, it doesn’t seem so bad TODAY, but wait 'til you see the slight bump in cancer rates in 20 years.”
Indeed, on looking it up, I see that the experts are skeptical, too, and tests conducted by Israel didn’t find much effectiveness. That could be why we haven’t seen one used.
Yeah, but destruction and loss of life isn’t the point. Terror is. If a dirty bomb was detonated in a city, and it contained enough nuclear material to say, cause a 10% jump in cancer outlooks over a 20 year period, that’s not the point.
The point is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to come out, shut a city down, do all sorts of testing, clean the shit out of everything, and disrupt everyone’s lives. The fear is the point, and as a fear-causing weapon, radiation is in a unique class all its own.
Honestly, the problem with a dirty bomb isn’t the cancer rates or w.e, its the sheer amount of propaganda that has gone into scaring people over nuclear energy. Yes, the propaganda is mostly to stop nuclear reactors to force reliance on oil, but its still there.
I used to use a nuclear soil density gauge. The gauge was not at all scary, I could use it as a seat for a whole year, and it would have a minimal effect on my lifetime cancer rates.
But no matter how many times I explained it, as soon as I said “Nuclear Gauge” people got scared.
“Nuclear” has become a scare word, so a nuclear dirty bomb is terrifying to people.
I’m not that surprised. Radiation poisoning is a special kind of torture for EVERYONE. Shit would immediately invalidate any goodwill or sympathy for whomever uses them.
It also wouldn’t be much more lethal than a bomb of equivalent mass. If you’re close enough to get a lethal dose of polonium or w/e, you’re probably also getting a lethal dose of shrapnel.
Much more likely would be a dirty bomb. Just a regular bomb with some nuclear material that it spreads. The nuclear material isn’t the bomb itself, but used exclusively for the exposure effects. You don’t even need plutonium or uranium for this. There are plenty of other radiological sources to make dirty bombs. Old radiographic medical equipment for instance.
There are hundreds of thousands of orphaned sources in the world. Several of them have caused the worst radiological incidents in history.
The fact we don’t see this already is quite surprising.
I’m kind of skepitical of the “dirty bomb” idea. Frankly, it sounds like a load of bullshit, because of the πr2 thing. Namely, if you want to irradiate and area to a sufficient extent to cause immediate radiation sickness, then keeping it concentrated is your best bet. A very small bomb, at most.
The other extreme would be a huge bomb to spread radioactive material over, say, a city. At which point it barely raises the radioactivity above background levels. Or at least doesn’t cause immediately apparent effects. Imagine terrorists issuing a statement like, “Sure, it doesn’t seem so bad TODAY, but wait 'til you see the slight bump in cancer rates in 20 years.”
Indeed, on looking it up, I see that the experts are skeptical, too, and tests conducted by Israel didn’t find much effectiveness. That could be why we haven’t seen one used.
Yeah, but destruction and loss of life isn’t the point. Terror is. If a dirty bomb was detonated in a city, and it contained enough nuclear material to say, cause a 10% jump in cancer outlooks over a 20 year period, that’s not the point.
The point is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to come out, shut a city down, do all sorts of testing, clean the shit out of everything, and disrupt everyone’s lives. The fear is the point, and as a fear-causing weapon, radiation is in a unique class all its own.
For that matter, then you don’t need to put any radioactive material in it at all, but just claim it.
Honestly, the problem with a dirty bomb isn’t the cancer rates or w.e, its the sheer amount of propaganda that has gone into scaring people over nuclear energy. Yes, the propaganda is mostly to stop nuclear reactors to force reliance on oil, but its still there.
I used to use a nuclear soil density gauge. The gauge was not at all scary, I could use it as a seat for a whole year, and it would have a minimal effect on my lifetime cancer rates.
But no matter how many times I explained it, as soon as I said “Nuclear Gauge” people got scared.
“Nuclear” has become a scare word, so a nuclear dirty bomb is terrifying to people.
I’m not that surprised. Radiation poisoning is a special kind of torture for EVERYONE. Shit would immediately invalidate any goodwill or sympathy for whomever uses them.
It would also be dangerous and expensive for the people making it.
It also wouldn’t be much more lethal than a bomb of equivalent mass. If you’re close enough to get a lethal dose of polonium or w/e, you’re probably also getting a lethal dose of shrapnel.