Well we see the usual suitcase nuke, the other the Alarmist method to
cause concern or for reasons of Demonisation, the so called Dirty Bomb
Ok here is a take on just what we do face:
Dirty bombs
Saturday 10 December 2005
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1523404.htm
Summary
Dirty bombs, those which supposedly spread radiation have been
mentioned as part of the terrorist threat. They're also the stuff of
television drama such as Numb3rs. But are they the threat they've been
painted?
Program Transcript
Excerpt TV Show, Numb3rs: Five pounds of C4 explosive is missing from
the naval weapons station in Seal Beach.
Actor: When did that happen?
Actress: Inventory is taken every 14 days; the last one was eight days
ago, so within a week.
Actor: How does someone get access to C4 in a naval base?
Actress: Enlisted men, civilian contractors, maintenance crews,
they'd all have access.
Actor: Right, run it down. I mean if it's the same people who stole
the truck they've got nuclear material, high explosive and that is a
dirty bomb.
Robyn Williams: Two remarkable things about that excerpt from the TV
show, Numb3rs, produced by the brothers Tony and Ridley Scott. First,
it's maths as well as the FBI that catches the villains. And
secondly, this one is about a dirty bomb, a sort of nuclear bomb used
by terrorists in other words. But also on television this time SBS on
Thursday in a remarkable series by BBC producer, Adam Curtis, we heard
that dirty bombs are a nonsense. Just listen.
Excerpt from SBS, The Power of Nightmares.
Newsreader: Recent intelligence reports suggest that Al-Qaeda leaders
have emphasised planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels and
other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States. Terrorists
are considering physical attacks against US financial institutions.
Adam CurtisAnd Abu Zibidar [PHONETIC] also told his interrogators of a
terrifying new weapon the Islamists intended to use; an explosive
device that could spray radiation through cities. The dirty bomb.
News presenter: First a CBS exclusive about a captured Al-Qaeda leader
who says his fellow terrorists have the know-how to build a very
dangerous weapon and get it to the United States.
Adam CurtisAnd the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb
as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and in
the process they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But in
reality the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is
to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. But
almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the
radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the
radioactive material would be so dispersed, and providing the area was
cleaned promptly the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past
both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and
both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this
very reason.
Adam CurtisHow dangerous would a dirty bomb be?
Interviewee: The deaths would be few if any, and the answer is probably
none.
Adam CurtisReally?
Interviewee: Yes. And that's been said over and over again, but then
people immediately say after that, but you know people won't believe
that and they'll panic. I don't think it would kill anybody and I
think you'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim
otherwise. The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and
they actually measured what happened. The measurements were extremely
low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a
fairly high dose, not life threatening but fairly high, and I checked
into how the calculation was done and they assume that after the attack
no one moves for one year. One year. Now that's ridiculous.
Interviewee: The dirty bomb, the danger from radioactivity is basically
next to nothing. The danger from panic however is horrendous. That's
where the irony comes. Don't panic.
Television Presenter Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the end of our
show, however something very much like this could happen at any moment.
We just thought we ought to prepare you and more or less put you in the
mood. Thank you. And now back to our story.
Robyn Williams: The Power of Nightmares, SBS television on Thursday. A
remarkable series by the BBC's, Adam Curtis. So, is a dirty bomb a
real threat? This is Dr Bob Hunter, former president of Scientists
against Nuclear Arms.
Bob Hunter: Well it's a bomb, an explosive device, which has
contained within it some radioactive material. It's not radioactive
material which is causing the explosion, it's simply particles of
radioactive materials which will be dispersed by the explosion.
Robyn Williams: Now what we've just heard from Nightmares, the series
on SBS, suggests that it's not dangerous particularly at all.
Bob Hunter: All the tests that I've heard about suggest that you
couldn't get enough radiation into a reasonable space to affect
anyone. Certainly no one would suffer from acute radiation sickness.
Some people might absorb some radiation and subsequently have their
life expectancy minutely altered, just as they do every day, because
we're all subjected to radiation all the time. That's something
that most people don't seem to ever come to grips with.
Robyn Williams: So what is the big fuss about?
Bob Hunter: Oh, I think it's just another part of the technique of
keeping us worried. You know as long as we keep frightened then the
government can keep passing laws to limit our freedom in the guise of
protecting us. It's stretched now from the USA to Britain and even
more so in Australia.
Robyn Williams: These are jumpy times but if the dirty bomb as
described isn't a worry, what about those stolen nuclear materials,
if you like, that say the Russians or whatever may have had in a kind
of prepared nuclear weapons state?
Bob Hunter: Well, I'm told that there is a black market in weapons
grade uranium, and weapons grade plutonium, as well as in just general
radioactive material, in Istanbul, Turkey, particularly.
Robyn Williams: It's sounds fairly old fashioned stuff, not the
sophisticated briefcase nuclear bomb that sometimes people talk about.
Bob Hunter: That's right. The briefcase bomb, it depends on who you
ask what story you get. The claim is that both the Americans and the
Russians during the cold war made suitcase bombs; bombs that could be
carried by a single individual. They were for use as demolition weapons
for you know large scale exercises like big bridges, you know say
Sydney Harbour, or something like that, and they could be carried by a
single person and strapped to the site and blown up. The Americans
claim they've destroyed all these of course. They're claiming that
the Russians may not have. They also claim that some of the Russian
ones are missing. Putin claims that none of his are missing. An
American respondent says that he talked to a Russian general who
claimed that two-thirds of the some 130 that they'd made were
missing. So, it just depends on who you ask whether there are suitcase
bombs floating around likely to be in the hands of nasty people.
That's a different exercise altogether. That's a nuclear weapon
capable of not only destroying large-scale structures but also
spreading a large amount of nuclear waste in the process.
Robyn Williams: Well the third category of course if bombing nuclear
facilities and we've only got one, and a fairly small one, a small
reactor at that at Lucas Heights. How vulnerable might that be to
attack?
Bob Hunter: Well, I don't think it's terribly vulnerable, and for a
start the new one has a much lower level of activity in the core
material. The old one was about 50 per cent enriched uranium, whereas
this one is a much lower level. The Americans in fact didn't like us
having highly enriched uranium. It's also got a very heavy protective
arrangement on it; certainly you can't just crash a plane into it and
expect it to go up. I don't see it as a problem at all. People who
get worried about living near it I don't understand. I mean many of
those similar research reactors are in the middle of university
campuses in other places in the world. It's a damn sight less
dangerous in my view in terms of statistics than living next to a
suburban petrol station; I mean they go up every now and again. They
don't have long-term consequences but they're certainly nasty if
you're sitting next door.
Robyn Williams: Dr Robert Hunter, Research Fellow in Chemistry at the
University of Sydney. Meanwhile.
Excerpt from Numb3rs: Got something. That mincy smell? Cyclohexanone
vapour.
Actress: The bomb's for real, no question.
Actor: Alright, well we know that.
Actor: Donny, go to Angela Square. Wait Don, how you know that, Charlie
says it doesn't hold up mathematically?
Actor: I know what Charlie says but I know these maps and I would
choose Angela Square.
Actor: Right, tell me why?
Actor: It's the height of the buildings, it creates what we used to
call an urban canyon. The air currents through the buildings spread
their radiation much further. If I wanted to inflict as much damage as
I could that's where I would go.
.
|
