Dirty Bomb or Dirty lie?

raid517

One more inconvient fact for you guys to take on board...

How credible is it that some dumb assed ex gangbanger could produce a dirty bomb? Indeed how credible is the very concept of a dirty bomb itself?

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/20.../jf04koch.html

This whole network of terror and fear that your government has conjoured up for you is a complete illusion.

Not only is the concept of a dirty bomb a lie - it is a very easy lie to prove too - one that can be shown to be false by doing a very simple pen and paper equation - whereby you calculate the amount of radioactive material, the amount of plastic explosives that would be needed to disperse it over a wide area, the rate of decay (or the half life) of the radio active material used, the range over which any radiological activity would be active (as it is a function of most radio active materials that they are generallly only active over very short ranges) and the realtive length or 'duration' of exposure of anyone exposed to the source of any such radioactive material. Also you must factor in that any explosives used would have the effect of dispering the radioactivity over a much wider area - thus consderably weakening the effectiveness of the radioactive material itself. Since the actual 'lethal' doses for any radioactive exposure are very well known, it is easy to draw up a nice simple graph that would show that in most cases the levels of actual exposure would be minimal - that in the majority of all of the known possible scenarios you would probably have to stand in the same place in close vicinity to the explosion for up to a year or more before receiving a lethal does of radiation, that in almost every precievable situation, more people would be likely to die from the effects of the initial explosion of the conventional explosives themselves than would ever be likely to die as a result of exposure to the radio active source - and that there would be on the whole masses of time to allow an odered and calm evacuation of the effected area so that specialised clean up teams could get in and tackle the clean up before any significant damage or loss of life was caused.

In other words as a way of killing people, a radioactive dirty bomb is an extremely inneficient way to do things...

As Dr Theodore Rockwell, an internationally renowned authority on radiation put it:

So why would your government invent such a threat - when most serious scientists could quickly demonstrate that the threat they were proposing simply wasn't real?

Why deliberately seek to make people so irrationally afraid?


Could it be that the other terrors they are suggesting you should all be so afraid of may not be real either?

GJ

pr0digal jenius

My tax dollars hard at work.....

My onyl question tho, is whether there is a use for a dirty bomb and mild radiation dispersal, such as tagging groups of people for Radioactive ID, which can eb picked up via satellite? If you could make a discrete enough explosion with enough oopmph to get a decent dispersal radius, a dirty bomb could idneed be a HELL fo a weapon, on a more reconaissance based level, as opposed to a destructional level

raid517

No that's not quite how things work either... radioactivity of the type used in almost all conventuional applications has a very limited range. you wouldn't be able to pick it up from a satelite. The dose most people would get would be so minimal it would be hard to detect. The reason that nuclear weapons are so effective is pretty much because they produce such huge levels of radioactivity and they are also so powerful they manage to disperse it over very wide areas. So what you are talking about is levels of concentration. A 'dirty bomb' just isn't capable of producing anything near an effective level of concentration in order to form a significant threat. Indeed since you need a high concentration of radio activity in order to kill anything, the best way for a dirty bomb to work is to not blow it up at all. Blowing it up makes no sense - because by doing so you lower the levels of concentration by dispersing the source.

Interesting hu?

GJ

pr0digal jenius

Interesting...disgusting....sickening...depressing .....whatever floats yer boat

Necrosis

Um the whole point to these bombs is just the terror it would spread. You put radioactive, or nuclear in a sentence and folks get nervous.

raid517

Well it doesn't quite float my boat - but it does show how when people are misinformed or mislead, how easy it is for them to be manipulated.

It is certainly very sad...

GJ

Necrosis

However, turn that dirty bomb into a biological weapon and then we have a whole other show.

BTW, raid don't you think this is broad leap of logic?

Could it be that the other terrors they are suggesting you should all be so afraid of may not be real either?

I wonder what your Tony Blair would say about that?

raid517

Yes... but in this case it is your govenment spreading the terror - because even the construction of a dirty bomb is not such an easy thing to achieve. The best way for a government to combat this terror in any case is to tell people that they have nothing to fear, to educate them on the correct way to deal with any possible scenario like this, because in doing so you go a almost all the way towards eliminating the threat. The best way to eliminate the threat of any such terror is not to go around telling people that an attack could happen at any instant and that when it did it would be likely to kill thousands.

I mean why not just tell people 'there is no need to be afraid, that the only thing to fear is fear itself?' That is the real way to eliminate the threat - since the threat itself would only really exist in people's minds.

GJ

raid517

Well if you want to PM me I can demonstrate too how most of them are. Unfortunately I can't do so in public because it means pointing to to some potentially copyrighted material.

It is your choice.

GJ

Necrosis

Weird I haven't seen anything in tv ads or anything from the ad council about this. I thought the scare was about terrorists getting a hold of fissionable material?

raid517

Well I don't know about a biological weapon. I think this is confronted with many of the same issues - particularly those associated with the handling and level of sophistication required to produce them. The last time there was anything like this was when that guy was sending smallpox spores through the mail - and it turned out that the FBI's major suspect for this was and still is an ex employee of one of America's own top biological Weapons Research Agencies. (So hardly the result of someone messing about with your avereage $50 chemistry set).

GJ

raid517

You haven't heard anyone in your government or in the media ever refer to the deadly capabilities of a dirty bomb?

Where have you been for the last 4 years?

Take a look through this:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...e+Search&meta=


I'm pretty sure in that google search you will find ever major government agency and spokesperson and every major news agency in America promoting the concept of a dirty bomb - almost always in direct association with the activities of Osama Bin Laden.

Fissionable material is another issue - possibly - or possibly not more real than the threat of a dirty bomb. Fissionable material - or weapons grade plutonium is something that various governments around the world are sometimes accused of dealing in. But this belies the fact that there is a legitamate international legal market for this material, so smuggling is largely irrelevant. (Amost any government can legally obtain weapons grade plutonium - since it is only the act of actually turning it into a bomb that is seen to be a threat. It's a bit like when a lot of American's say they own a gun - but that this doesn't by implication make them a ki ller). Most often countries are accused in illegally palming off radio active materials in general to terrorists for deployment in dirty bomb type scenarios - because even the US government doubts that the world will believe it is credible that a few disperate fanatical Arabs could produce a nuclear bomb through their own limited and usually highy non technical resources. You have to appreciate the levels of research, money and skill involved in producing a real nuclear bomb - which is why so few countries in this world have still been able to manage it. That is why the 'dirty bomb' type scenario was dreamt up - because it had a more credible ring to it that would be easier for the government to promote.

GJ

CaptinSxb

Did the american government screw you out of money or something. All you do is conplain about the us. Go find a different country to bitch about, no one is perfect.

__________________
A64-3200; x800xl; a couple other things ; and a floppy drive

Necrosis

Well just maybe I'm not a news whore, and don't believe everything I see & read. What I have "picked" up on is the concern of wholesale nuclear devices on the black market plus knowledge to build said devices.

raid517

See my above answer.

GJ

raid517

Well I live in the UK and we have been affected by all this BS here too. It seems every other week we have to listen to nonsensical stories about threats from dirty bombs, or non existant shadowy terror groups, or threats from underground invisible networks - so yes I do object to it. What I object to is that your government has succeeded in exporting all of its terror and paranoia over here. And for as long as it does this I will continue to resist it.

GJ

Necrosis

So could you please explain Iran, and Korea to me? If it's so legal why are their nuclear develope programs under attack? Why is the former soviet union states even before 9/11 a matter of international concern in regarding to nuclear weapons? Last but not least, last time I checked Pakistan doesn't have much money. Where do you think Osama is right now?

I'm not sure if you're proposing a connection here with your information, or this is another one of your America is "SATAN" (church lady impersonation) posts.

Davisorle

It's always been the damn goverment! My girlfriend is American and when i met her she was all proud to say she is! Not anymore after all the shit i've shown her and proved to her about the way the US works! I'm Greek and I would rather be called Germen or whatever else Mexican let's say than be called American!

The american goverment has always been the real terrorists and it makes me sick that people vote for Bush who is a damn republican and the only things he does wonder and wonder and wonder... I mean look at his face when he tries to answer! The president as long as you have a guy like bush will be the same! If you at least had democrasy you would be able to do changes in the US but as i see people here are SO SO DAMN HIPOCRITES that they vote by being christians (supposebly ) and stuf! I don't think that being a christian thought you to stop anyone from chosing to be somethign else! In Greece what Ive been thought and raised ( Greece has always been a christian country with a history of more than 3000 years also invented democrasy! ) with the beliefes that I can vote for evey action that my goverment will choose to do! When you have democrasypeople like you and me have the right to choose for everythign in your country! The republicans like Bush won't give a marble for anyone's son or father that dies in Iraq or wherever they can get money and power our of!

It's so so simple.. Bush was asked more than 10 times at the Debate...
HOW CAN YOU BEEN SAYING THAT IT'S A WAR OF PEACE AND SAFETY OF YOUR COUNTRY WHEN THERE ARE NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAQ?
I mean these people are pathetic! But they still vote for him...

Anyways I have nothing against Americans but when it has to do with that stuff... They just wont open their eyes and vote for their best! Unbelievable!

__________________

• P4 2.8Ghz HT - ASUS P4C800 DELUXE - AIW 9800 PRO 128Mb - CORSAIR XMS 512MB DUAL CHANNEL ( 256 x 2 ) - MAXTOR 120GB 8MB + MAXTOR 60GB 8MB(RAID ?) - SOUND BLASTER AUDIGY 2

Necrosis

A little history on Greece for all of you.

http://www.campusprogram.com/referen...of_greece.html

The_Neon_Cowboy

it so simple it's not funny, and this sort of stuff is easily available on the intenet. just like to make all kinds of bombs explosives etc.... take less then 5 minutes you can find anything you want just have to be able to go to www.google.com and run a search

a dirty bomb is more for fear/terror factor then it is deadly, radation is harmfull, but dirty bomb doses are weaker then leathel doesn't mean if won't make the person i'll (and posable die) a dirty bomb is far easier to make then a nuke ..just some simple radio active material is all you need... and thats no as hard to get as anything that could be made weapons grade.... saddam had tons barrels of radioactive material that would have been good for such durity bombs...

__________________

zerodamage

lol. Another "highly credible site" I see.

raid517

As I said it is legal for countries under certain conditions to buy nuclear material - it just may not be legal under all such conditions for them to use it to start their own nuclear research programs. (Even then it's a bit of a grey area - since it all depends on whether they are signatories to the nuclear weapons procurement treaty. Mostly it just seems to depend who the US designates as a threat).

In any case it is certainly possible that states could pose a threat. Pakistan may seem poor by American standards, but by third world stnadards (and due to the US having been responsible for canceling much of her debt, since she allied herself to the US duruing the war in afganistan) she is really quite rich. She also has a highly educated highlyy sophisticated middle class and University system which she inherited from the British when they left the region in the mid 1940's - so she has more than enough resources to design her own nuclear weapons program.

As for saying that I am just ranting against you and your government - what more do you want. The subject I started this thread with is one any reasonably competant engineer or mathematician could do a calculation on the back of a napkin to prove - so what am I to do when you are adamant in your assertion that even the facts are no longer facts?

Why not just look at what I have and make up your own mind?

GJ

flaherrc

Dude, Biological weapons IMO are a bigger threat than any dirty nuke. Read these books Biohazard by Ken Alibek (USSR defector in charge of the Soviet Biological Weapons program) and Germs by Judith Miller et al. These two non-fiction books will scare the bejezus out of you - at least they did me.

It is a falacy to think that you need highly specialized weapons grade biological agents to mount a bio attack. Biological weapons production can be easily hidden, easily moved, easily set up. (look at Iraq. My guess, these things were dismantled quickly. I know you don't believe in the WMD program in Iraq. Read the books and positively tell me that biological weapons and production equipment were not, are not, in Iraq). Biological weapons do not take much sophistication nor money. Especially compared to nukes. All you need is a biochemist and some fermenters that are used in the production of many industrial chemicals. You don't need a highly trained and specialized physisist or equipment that once purchased everyone in the world knows what your are duing. IMO this will be a weapon in the arsenal of terrorists. And it is more frightening than any dirty nuke story (except The Sum of All Fears, but that was a work of fiction).

bob

raid517

Well I would say that the Journal of Atomic scientists was a fairly credible source - I believe they have some of the worlds top nuclear physicists among their readership.

But then again I guess even a dry highly factual site of this nature is something you would consider 'leftist'.

How about you actually offer some argument against the points that are made, instead of continually just butting in with these kind of empty comments?

Please try not to turn this into another thread where you harp on endlessly about how much you dislike me.

GJ

pr0digal jenius

where would you rather hear it from? the CIA?

Necrosis

Alrighty,

I'm going to take this in three parts to your three paragraphs.

1. or also the U.N.

2. a.)With the in-flux of money since 2001 they've been able to develope Nuclear weapons?
b.) We have you UKer's to be thankful for Pakistan helping nuclear weapons now? You seem rather proud about it.

3. I'm not disqualifying your facts am I? What I only am saying is what I've heard here in the U.S.. It appears what you're hearing maybe different because if you read carefully I've said nothing to back U.S. claims. To be honest I think it has been said that the threat of a "dirty" bomb is more of tactile scare than anything else. The first time I've ever heard of such a bomb was years ago on the "History" channel. It was a special on German weapons of WWII; one of the scenarios was a dirty bomb dropped on New York.

ToshiroOC

I think you're missing the point, raid. A dirty bomb is meant to scare, not to actually injure anyone.

__________________
[img][/img]
[color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color]
Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

raid517

Biological terrorism is very much a threat that we need to worry about. However, terrorists will face a number of formidable obstacles to conducting a successful biological attack. These include acquiring the agent, cultivating it and preparing it for dissemination, developing a means of dissemination, (probably the most technically difficult step of all), selecting and studying the target, and estimating the proper dosage required to achieve the desired effect. It follows then, that the terrorist must possess the technical skills required to obtain and cultivate the agent, then understand how the agent will behave in the lab and in the field, and comprehend the mechanical dimensions of the dissemination process. There are not too many people that possess all these attributes and are motivated to conduct a terrorist act. For that specific reason, states-which have a larger human and material resource pool to draw on---are much more likely to be successful in this endeavor than a lone perpetrator or a small terrorist group.

It is a common misperception that carrying out a biological terror attack is easy. In fact, any number of missteps during the preparatory phase (should the agent be agitated while it ferments? should it be grown under aerobic or anaerobic conditions? should the strain be purified for best results?) could cause an attack to fail. There is also a potential for missteps during dissemination, due to ignorance of the proper dosage required to obtain a desired effect, the capabilities of a building's ventilation system---or wind speed and direction if an outdoor attack is planned---and misconceptions concerning a given agent's entry path to the body.

There are several myths regarding biological agents that need to be debunked:

* 1) Biological agents placed in water reservoirs can kill thousands of people. This would not be so easy to do. Most agents do not perform well in water. For example, cholera---which lives in water---is killed by sunlight, and even if it were to survive exposure to the sun, it might cling to the water pipes or be killed during the chlorination process. If the cholera survived to be ingested by a human, it might be killed by the natural acidity of the stomach. It is also important to note that the public water systems were developed to protect against just such hazards. Accordingly, water is tested regularly.

* 2) Anyone can produce a biological agent. This is not true. A terrorist must have detailed knowledge about the agent and the conditions in which it lives.

* 3) Biological agents are contagious and their release would cause an epidemic. In fact, most agents produce diseases that are not contagious. Plague is one example of an agent that is contagious, but because it is usually spread by animal-borne fleas, it is not a likely candidate for use by terrorists. Despite these difficulties, we must be prepared for such an eventuality in the future.

Now I'm not saying that biological and chemical weapons don't still pose a threat, but I am saying that it would be likely that you would need a considerable network of people with the skills expertise - and the motivation to pull off an attack successfully. I simply do not believe that such a sophisticated and determined network of people actually exists.

If it were as easy as you assume, it would undoubtedly already be every would be terrorist's first choice as a means of attacking those they precieved to be their enemies.

Chemical weapons are another issue again - but overall their impact is even more limited - while potentially suffering from many of the same issues.

Some of you may recall the Sarin nerve gas attacks in Tokyo in the mid 90's (still not anything to do with Arab terrorism though) and some may remember the 'devastating impact' that this had. But in reality it's true impact was really realtively minor - with only 12 people in total dying as a result of exposure to the gas.

It's value as a terror weapon was undeniably significant - however unlike the US and UK administration the japanese government moved quickly to reassure the population and to do everything in it's power to limit the negative impact of the attack - both emotionally and in terms of it's effect on the Japaneese economy. They certainly didn't seek to over play the possibility that this was the beginning of a new and concerted trend - something that every Joe blow would be terrorists with a gripe out there would be looking to do from that point on. It was very much viewd as an abhoration, with a realtively small impact - and this is pretty much the way it was played. There hasn't been really any other significant attack of this nature either before or since then - so it is safe to say that in many respects the actual threat as it stands may well have been over stated by governments here in the West.

The problem is very much I think one of 'risk assessment' - because while you may precieve that there is a risk that you might be injured by an act of terrorism - that risk is undoubtely very much smaller that the risk that you might get killed while crossing the road outside your own front door. So why do our governments persist in over stating this risk? Why does it seem so important for them to continue to do this?

But that's not really my point. At least in one respect the next time you hear your government harping on about a 'dirty bomb' it might make you think twice before believing them implicityly on everything they tell you to be afraid of. Hopefully it might raise at least some questions in your mind.

My real concern is with the bigger lie - and that's the lie about the guys who are supposed to be prepared to carry out these attacks - with the often touted global network of terrorism. It's that which I object to most - it is that that I think is the real absurdity in all of this and it is something I am increasingly comming to believe is nothing more than an outright and bare faced invention by both our governments. Moreover I do not say this without evidence - it is simply a case of whether or not you are willing to consider the evidence - or whether you are willing like some people here to dismiss everything that is said that contradics this goverments motives as some kind of left wing plot.

GJ

raid517

Yes, but that's the point - who is doing the scaring? If it is unlikely to injure anyone - why does the goverment keep bringing it up and overstating the dangers?

I mean, why would a terrorist even use it, since it wouldn't be likely to harm anyone? Sure it might make people a little afraid, But from this perspective I would still prefer to be a little afraid than just plumb dead. Fear itself isn't a killer. No one ever died from just being afraid.

If the government wanted to defeat the terrorists, the best way to do this would surely be through some kind of public education program explaining to them what the risks really are (again which are statistically quite small) and how best to deal with them - should any attack like this ever really take place. Surely that would be the best way to defeat terrorism - because by informing the public you limit the impact that any attack like this might possibly have.

Why do the opposite and continually talk up and overstate the risks until the people at large are whipped up into a veritable frenzy? Why make it seem as if it is the government who is trying to scare you every bit as much as the terrorists?

What capital (or capitol) is there for them in maintaining such high levels of fear?

GJ

raid517

Mmm.. well the influx of money since 2001 has certainly helped in terms of procurement - though the reason they ran up such huge debts originally is because they have been trying to develop nuclear weapons for the last 25 years or so. So after this time - and after their debt was cancelled, it certainly helped move them along a lost faster and further than would have been possible prior to this.

I'm not certain Osama is in Pakistan - like most people I have no clue where he is - but if you are certain, perhaps you should inform the FBI, as I believe they have been looking for him for some time too.

I wouldn't say I am proud of British involvement in Pakistan (or india as it was then - since this was before the old India split in three) but it does rather show some of the dangers of nation building. You do everything you can for some people, you build roads, hospitals, schools, Universities and infrastructure and so on, only for them to pop up some time down the line and give you a good old hard kick in the butt. I mean you guys are still quite new at this game, it happend to the Brits quite a few times.

Oh well. You reap what you sow I guess...

GJ