Iran war games?

[soda72]

Russia's enrichment plan proposal is the only compromise that is going to be pursued with Obama in office, Bush was in favor of this also.  But any military option being used while Obama is in office just isn't going to happen.  

[Die Hard]

Cobalt 60 has a half-life of around 5 years I believe.  But when talking half-lives, you have to remember, Co60 would then no longer be radioactive at that 5 year mark.  However, considering your common topsoil is radioactive, how long before that same Co60 would be as radioactive as soil, or a banana, or a TV set, or computer screen, or a granite counter top, etc.?

It was a movie quote...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iesXUFOlWC0

[warhed]

The Cobalt-60 would be radioactive for far longer than roughly 5 years, in that time only half of the of the cobalt would be gone.

In fact after 20 years some 6% would still remain, and still radioactive.....

Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.27 years.  Which means, at less than the date of 5.27 years later, the Co60 would be at the same radioactive levels as many common substances we come into contact with everyday.  The original point being, while it does take an incredibly long time for a radioactive substance to lose that radioactivity all together, it does not take nearly as long to reach the same radioactive levels as topsoil, or granite, etc.

[Sol75]

Cobalt 60 has a half life of 5.27 years.  Which means, at less than the date of 5.27 years later, the Co60 would be at the same radioactive levels as many common substances we come into contact with everyday.

That is overly simplified IMO.  That all depends on the quantity of CO-60.
If you had 1 gram, then after 5.27 yrs, 1/2 of that gram would be CO-60, the other 1/2 it's decay product.
then in another 5.27 years, 1/2 of that 1/2 gram of remaining CO-60 would be it's decay product, leaving you with 1/4 of the original amount. and so on and so on.

If the quantity was small, the total radiation dose after 1 half-life could indeed be at or below the background radiation level, however, if you had a large quantity, it would still be deadly radioactive, especially in the case of CO60 due to it's gamma ray emissions.

No, I do not work in the nuclear industry, but I was trained a few years ago, as a member of a volunteer urban SAR team, on radiological detection and monitoring....

Sol

[warhed]

That is overly simplified IMO.  That all depends on the quantity of CO-60.
If you had 1 gram, then after 5.27 yrs, 1/2 of that gram would be CO-60, the other 1/2 it's decay product.
then in another 5.27 years, 1/2 of that 1/2 gram of remaining CO-60 would be it's decay product, leaving you with 1/4 of the original amount. and so on and so on.

If the quantity was small, the total radiation dose after 1 half-life could indeed be at or below the background radiation level, however, if you had a large quantity, it would still be deadly radioactive, especially in the case of CO60 due to it's gamma ray emissions.

No, I do not work in the nuclear industry, but I was trained a few years ago, as a member of a volunteer urban SAR team, on radiological detection and monitoring....

Sol

With the amount that could be attained for use in a simple dirty bomb, and the spread of the Co60, I was trying to get across how low of an impact that would have on public safety.

[Sol75]

Actually, frighteningly high amounts of Co60 could be acquired relatively easily (as compared to other radioactive/nuclear material).  Co60 is used in large quantites for such applications as industrial radiography, food irradiation for sterilization purposes, and radiation teletherapy machines in hospitals.  In the case of industrial radiography, the activity of the source in many cases is high enough to cause fatal radiation sickness (500REM or so) in a matter of minutes.  I will look for the specific NRC and or IAEA document referring to several fatal incidents with industrial radiography equipment if you like.  And unfortunately, most of the sources are in factories which are NOT well guarded.  Most consist of a gate guard or 2, being paid 10 bucks an hour or less.... usually unarmed.  Not hard to get past those folks.  The hardest thing would be to shield the source during removal and transport, and even this could be accomplished by someone with the know how, or someone who simpy does not care if they live or not.

Sol

[Sol75]

Oops double post

[warhed]

Actually, frighteningly high amounts of Co60 could be acquired relatively easily (as compared to other radioactive/nuclear material).  Co60 is used in large quantites for such applications as industrial radiography, food irradiation for sterilization purposes, and radiation teletherapy machines in hospitals.  In the case of industrial radiography, the activity of the source in many cases is high enough to cause fatal radiation sickness (500REM or so) in a matter of minutes.  I will look for the specific NRC and or IAEA document referring to several fatal incidents with industrial radiography equipment if you like.  And unfortunately, most of the sources are in factories which are NOT well guarded.  Most consist of a gate guard or 2, being paid 10 bucks an hour or less.... usually unarmed.  Not hard to get past those folks.  The hardest thing would be to shield the source during removal and transport, and even this could be accomplished by someone with the know how, or someone who simpy does not care if they live or not.

Sol

I posted one such incident earlier in this thread.  It is quite a common one as well.  I wouldn't like to get into specifics, but as far as shielding goes, for a safety in transportation aspect, it would not be difficult at all for someone, requiring almost no special materials or tools.

[Sol75]

A few documents on irradiator incidents with Co-60 sources.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html  This one gave 2200Rem in under 25 minutes, with a 65kCi source (not an uncommon activity)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html

These are jsut a few of many.  IMO a dirty bomb would be much more than jsut the "annoyance" that could be cleaned up.  Granted, the dispersal of lethal levels would not be that great, but you WOULD have a high number of casualties near the blast site, due to the possible activities involved, and the time it would take to evacuate persons from the area, while keeping the dose to the first responders to a reasonable level.

Sol

Heck, back in 1995 a teenager managed to nearly build a working breeder reactor in his back yard, to earn a boy scout merit badge!
While he did not create a functioning reactor, he did acquire and amass a LARGE quantity of radioactive material, and built several devices leading up to the breeder, such as a neutron gun for transmutation of radioactive elements
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html
Kinda scary a teenager could do that, imagine what a determined, well funded, terrorist could come up with.

[warhed]

A few documents on irradiator incidents with Co-60 sources.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975USSR2.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1975ITA1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980USSR2.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1980PRC1.html
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1982NOR1.html  This one gave 2200Rem in under 25 minutes, with a 65kCi source (not an uncommon activity)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1989ESAL1.html

These are jsut a few of many.  IMO a dirty bomb would be much more than jsut the "annoyance" that could be cleaned up.  Granted, the dispersal of lethal levels would not be that great, but you WOULD have a high number of casualties near the blast site, due to the possible activities involved, and the time it would take to evacuate persons from the area, while keeping the dose to the first responders to a reasonable level.

Sol

From some of the projections I have seen, one of the biggest impacts would be the cost of cleanup, especially considering the level of regulations one would have to deal with.  Death would always be a possibility in such an attack, but mostly only for those who remained in "hot" areas.  I know subway attacks have been the most feared location to have a dirty bomb attack.  Supposedly there have many steps taken to respond to that in the U.S.
I never said it would be "just" an annoyance.  I was arguing the point that a chemical or biological attack would be a much more dangerous attack.  A dirty bomb would be absolutely nothing compared to Chernobyl.
Off topic, I had a conversation with an American who got to work on a cleanup effort at Chernobyl, he talked to one man involved in the inspection of the core of the plant.  Inside, the nuclear fuel had melted, and taken on the appearance of lava, which is what they started calling it, the lava flow.  There was a hole in a wall, and on the other side of that wall, was the lava flow.  He was there to inspect it, so he put his head in front of the hole to take a quick look.  He said he could feel the radiation hitting his eyes and skin, that it felt like "tingling."
With a dirty bomb as by most common definition, we'd not even be dealing with 1% of those radiation levels.  A bomb is never a safe thing, and throw in some radiological contamination, it just makes it nastier.  But not nearly the threat posed by chemical or biological weapons.

[Sol75]

From some of the projections I have seen, one of the biggest impacts would be the cost of cleanup, especially considering the level of regulations one would have to deal with.  Death would always be a possibility in such an attack, but mostly only for those who remained in "hot" areas.  I know subway attacks have been the most feared location to have a dirty bomb attack.  Supposedly there have many steps taken to respond to that in the U.S.
I never said it would be "just" an annoyance.  I was arguing the point that a chemical or biological attack would be a much more dangerous attack.  A dirty bomb would be absolutely nothing compared to Chernobyl.
Off topic, I had a conversation with an American who got to work on a cleanup effort at Chernobyl, he talked to one man involved in the inspection of the core of the plant.  Inside, the nuclear fuel had melted, and taken on the appearance of lava, which is what they started calling it, the lava flow.  There was a hole in a wall, and on the other side of that wall, was the lava flow.  He was there to inspect it, so he put his head in front of the hole to take a quick look.  He said he could feel the radiation hitting his eyes and skin, that it felt like "tingling."
With a dirty bomb as by most common definition, we'd not even be dealing with 1% of those radiation levels.  A bomb is never a safe thing, and throw in some radiological contamination, it just makes it nastier.  But not nearly the threat posed by chemical or biological weapons.

Agreed, Chemical attacks certainly have a higher liklihood of a higher number of immediate casualties.  And no, a "dirty bomb" would not have the activity of the "lava" in the lower levels of Chernobyl, (unless they managed to get ahold of high level nuc waste), however, a dirty bomb is a real threat, and along with the immediate casualties, you also must consider long-term casualties, illness, economic impact, and psychological injuries.  Most of the public fears radiation much more than a chem weapon.  Not sure WHY this is, but it is.  A terrorists goal is included in the title, to terrorize.  As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.

Sol

[warhed]

Agreed, Chemical attacks certainly have a higher liklihood of a higher number of immediate casualties.  And no, a "dirty bomb" would not have the activity of the "lava" in the lower levels of Chernobyl, (unless they managed to get ahold of high level nuc waste), however, a dirty bomb is a real threat, and along with the immediate casualties, you also must consider long-term casualties, illness, economic impact, and psychological injuries.  Most of the public fears radiation much more than a chem weapon.  Not sure WHY this is, but it is.  A terrorists goal is included in the title, to terrorize.  As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.

Sol

Even Chernobyl had a very low initial death toll.  Most of the initial deaths were caused by the non-nuclear explosion.  The next deaths were volunteer first responders who would literally walk up to a pile of fuel that had been ejected from the explosion, and throw lead on top of it.  Those volunteers usually would not make it back to safety before the radiation killed them.  And the death toll 10 and 20 years after the accident is also much lower than people think.

[soda72]

Well things could always be worse..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8375560.stm

 

[MORAY37]

As such the psychological impact of a radiological bomb, may be of higher value to the terrorist, than the higher immediate body count of the chemical attack.

Sol

And, honestly, by you worrying your pretty little head about it, they've already completed their mission.

[Sol75]

Who says i am worried?
Aware and concerned is another matter. Does it make me think of what to do if it happens? Absolutely. Preserving the life of my family is my no 1 purpose in life. Does it make me afraid? Or change how i live my day to day life? Absolutely not!