5 ms·

Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to h

by patall 6y ago

Call me irrational but storing small amounts of highly radio active material in many locations is, from my point of view, basically asking for a dirty bomb to happen at some point. It only needs an event like the end of the soviet union to happen in a single country on earth and any terrorist organization would be able to buy enough of it. I acknowledge that this may happen anyways with the current situation but your scenario makes it even more likely.

godelski 6y ago
Dirty bombs aren't an issue. You might want to ask yourself why we've never seen one used, especially if you understand how easy it is to obtain the necessary materials. IIRC we've only caught a handful of devices (none exploded). Also we have to consider when it explodes, it just doesn't make enough radiation. It is pretty difficult to generate enough radiation that would actually cause an increase in cancer rates (bombs disperse the radiation quickly, though it does aerosolize it). And then that cancer hits in 20+ years. It just isn't an effective weapon. Sure, it makes for a scary pipe bomb, but at the end of the day it is far more dangerous for the maker and greatly increases the complexity of the terrorist attack (also greatly increasing the likelihood that you get caught before you can deploy). So a terrorist just gets a slight increase in fear factor, but it doesn't increase deadliness of the weapon, requires a lot more work, greatly increases the chance that they get caught, puts them in more danger, and so they just don't do it. There's too many downsides for only a minor upside. Why do it when you could just make a dozen pipe bombs and put them in trash cans around the city? Really just think if you were a terrorist and wanted to do damage. There's a lot of things you could do (bunch of rusty nails on the I-5) that just don't happen. They are easy to accomplish, can do a lot of damage, but just don't. Why? Different objectives and just terrorism is extremely rare in the first place. And I'm pretty sure a drilling through feet of concrete and metal in a likely highly monitored site is too big of a hurdle when you can just go to home depot and get some stump remover and some steel pipes.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  To add onto this, widespread and cheap is way more effective at generating terror. The current trend in Kabul are bombs that get stuck onto vehicles by passing motorcyclists using magnets. It’s quite terrifying, since the ease essentially allows terrorists to enact a widespread campaign against civil service and civil society. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/asia/afghanistan-magnetic-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/asia/afghanistan-ma...
  - godelski 6y ago
    Exactly, terror is based on perpetuating the idea that anyone could be the victim of a terrorist attack. That they are simple and easy to do so the FBI/CIA has no chance of catching these "rogue" actors. Dirty bombs just don't fit into a typical terrorist's prerogative. Dirty bombs aren't cheap and can't be made by anyone. It takes a lot of time to collect the materials in a way that isn't immediately noticed.
- arichard123 6y ago
  Yes, the time that a dirty bomb is most dangerous is before it goes off
- csunbird 6y ago
  Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest. They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale and a dirty bomb is a very, very terrorizing thing to general population. General population thinks anything with radiation is panic worthy, even though there isn't that big of a deal.
  - alacombe 6y ago
    > Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest Terrorists want blood and guts on national TV, not a statistical raise in cancer over 30 years.
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Look around you at the world stricken by pandemic. What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons now instead of keeping Black Sunday or The Sum of All Fears on loop in the headquarters (for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the Tom Clancy book where Iran weaponizes Ebola)
      - gryn 6y ago
        > What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons for some reason I find it funny to imagine a terrorist pondering about his long term career plans and prospects. do they also have stuff like resume driven development? the terrorist might find some operation ridiculous but does it anyway to make his resume better, that way he can get hired into the FAANGs of the terrorism sector.
      - sofixa 6y ago
        > (for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the Tom Clancy book where Iran weaponizes Ebola) Executive Orders. IilIRC his last actual book.
  - dzhiurgis 6y ago
    > They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale Sounds they better write blog posts about google and facebook tracking
webreac 6y ago
The "highly radio active" material that is dispersed is mainly radioactive by contamination and unsuitable for any bomb. In La Hague, uranium and plutonium are recycled. The part that could be used for a dirty bomb (other fission products) does not leave La Hague. It is called "glass storage" if you do a google search. This storage is the origin of the old logo of cogema.
loeg 6y ago
Coal plants are like aerosolized dirty bombs operating 24/7, so the trade-off is still good even with that (irrational, IMO, but for the sake of argument let's consider it probable) factor.
belorn 6y ago
Pulverised fuel ash seems a much more effective component for a dirty bomb. It mixes good with air, is much more harmful to humans both long term and short term, is also very radiactive, and mixes well with fresh water supplies. It also much easier to find and is likely much less guarded, and if stolen less likely to be tracked. The only reason I can see why no one has used that already is that chemical weapons designed for the purpose are more effective.
- godelski 6y ago
  Those chemical weapons are cheaper, easier to obtain (literally a grocery store), easier to produce, easier to obtain higher yields, etc. They also are extremely terrifying. But even chemical weapons aren't used that often. We rarely hear about anthrax letters and we never hear about terrorist attacks that used bleach and ammonium even though practically everyone knows about this reaction and the materials are cheap, easy to obtain, and don't raise suspicion. (Side note: we do hear about people accidentally creating this mixture fairly frequently. Enough that almost everyone knows someone that did it) Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons are just not worth it to terrorists. If they were we'd have seen them and if we're being honest the dirty bomb is the hardest out of all of them.
  - elzbardico 6y ago
    Not to mention that chemical sources are harder to detect from distance with sensors.
sir_bearington 6y ago
Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there are way better options. Uranium is a relatively slow killer. And we test our water supply for it because it's a heavy metal like lead. So any real attempt to poison people with it will get detected pretty promptly. Groups that have the expertise to covertly retrieve spent fuel could probably just buy guns and shoot up a stadium. And that would cause more damage. The relative risk presented by nuclear waste is trivial.
- patall 6y ago
  So? The parent suggested to store the waste in place, not a mile deep in some central, well protected mine. And that would be stupid indeed.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    Storing waste in place is also hardly any risk. Are terrorists going to retrieve one of these [1], weaponize it, and then deploy it? If they have this capability, then they almost certainly have the capability of shooting up a mall. And the latter would cause more damage. I see effectively zero additional danger presented by nuclear waste in this regard. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File%3ANuclear_dry_storage.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File...

by patall 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

Dirty bombs aren't an issue. You might want to ask yourself why we've never seen one used, especially if you understand how easy it is to obtain the necessary materials. IIRC we've only caught a handful of devices (none exploded). Also we have to consider when it explodes, it just doesn't make enough radiation. It is pretty difficult to generate enough radiation that would actually cause an increase in cancer rates (bombs disperse the radiation quickly, though it does aerosolize it). And then that cancer hits in 20+ years. It just isn't an effective weapon. Sure, it makes for a scary pipe bomb, but at the end of the day it is far more dangerous for the maker and greatly increases the complexity of the terrorist attack (also greatly increasing the likelihood that you get caught before you can deploy). So a terrorist just gets a slight increase in fear factor, but it doesn't increase deadliness of the weapon, requires a lot more work, greatly increases the chance that they get caught, puts them in more danger, and so they just don't do it. There's too many downsides for only a minor upside. Why do it when you could just make a dozen pipe bombs and put them in trash cans around the city? Really just think if you were a terrorist and wanted to do damage. There's a lot of things you could do (bunch of rusty nails on the I-5) that just don't happen. They are easy to accomplish, can do a lot of damage, but just don't. Why? Different objectives and just terrorism is extremely rare in the first place. And I'm pretty sure a drilling through feet of concrete and metal in a likely highly monitored site is too big of a hurdle when you can just go to home depot and get some stump remover and some steel pipes.

bobthepanda 6y ago
To add onto this, widespread and cheap is way more effective at generating terror. The current trend in Kabul are bombs that get stuck onto vehicles by passing motorcyclists using magnets. It’s quite terrifying, since the ease essentially allows terrorists to enact a widespread campaign against civil service and civil society. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/asia/afghanistan-magnetic-bombs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/asia/afghanistan-ma...
- godelski 6y ago
  Exactly, terror is based on perpetuating the idea that anyone could be the victim of a terrorist attack. That they are simple and easy to do so the FBI/CIA has no chance of catching these "rogue" actors. Dirty bombs just don't fit into a typical terrorist's prerogative. Dirty bombs aren't cheap and can't be made by anyone. It takes a lot of time to collect the materials in a way that isn't immediately noticed.
arichard123 6y ago
Yes, the time that a dirty bomb is most dangerous is before it goes off
csunbird 6y ago
Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest. They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale and a dirty bomb is a very, very terrorizing thing to general population. General population thinks anything with radiation is panic worthy, even though there isn't that big of a deal.
- alacombe 6y ago
  > Terrorists are not known to be the most logical people, to be honest Terrorists want blood and guts on national TV, not a statistical raise in cancer over 30 years.
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Look around you at the world stricken by pandemic. What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons now instead of keeping Black Sunday or The Sum of All Fears on loop in the headquarters (for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the Tom Clancy book where Iran weaponizes Ebola)
    - gryn 6y ago
      > What self respecting terrorist isn’t pivoting to bioweapons for some reason I find it funny to imagine a terrorist pondering about his long term career plans and prospects. do they also have stuff like resume driven development? the terrorist might find some operation ridiculous but does it anyway to make his resume better, that way he can get hired into the FAANGs of the terrorism sector.
    - sofixa 6y ago
      > (for the life of me I can’t remember the name of the Tom Clancy book where Iran weaponizes Ebola) Executive Orders. IilIRC his last actual book.
- dzhiurgis 6y ago
  > They are going to try anything that can generate terror in large scale Sounds they better write blog posts about google and facebook tracking

webreac 6y ago

The "highly radio active" material that is dispersed is mainly radioactive by contamination and unsuitable for any bomb. In La Hague, uranium and plutonium are recycled. The part that could be used for a dirty bomb (other fission products) does not leave La Hague. It is called "glass storage" if you do a google search. This storage is the origin of the old logo of cogema.

loeg 6y ago

Coal plants are like aerosolized dirty bombs operating 24/7, so the trade-off is still good even with that (irrational, IMO, but for the sake of argument let's consider it probable) factor.

belorn 6y ago

Pulverised fuel ash seems a much more effective component for a dirty bomb. It mixes good with air, is much more harmful to humans both long term and short term, is also very radiactive, and mixes well with fresh water supplies. It also much easier to find and is likely much less guarded, and if stolen less likely to be tracked. The only reason I can see why no one has used that already is that chemical weapons designed for the purpose are more effective.

godelski 6y ago
Those chemical weapons are cheaper, easier to obtain (literally a grocery store), easier to produce, easier to obtain higher yields, etc. They also are extremely terrifying. But even chemical weapons aren't used that often. We rarely hear about anthrax letters and we never hear about terrorist attacks that used bleach and ammonium even though practically everyone knows about this reaction and the materials are cheap, easy to obtain, and don't raise suspicion. (Side note: we do hear about people accidentally creating this mixture fairly frequently. Enough that almost everyone knows someone that did it) Chemical/biological/nuclear weapons are just not worth it to terrorists. If they were we'd have seen them and if we're being honest the dirty bomb is the hardest out of all of them.
- elzbardico 6y ago
  Not to mention that chemical sources are harder to detect from distance with sensors.

sir_bearington 6y ago

Terrorists are going to break into a government facility, go a mile deep, retrieve massive concrete cylinders, and transport them back to base. Just to get access to low level nuclear material? If they want to poison people en-masse there are way better options. Uranium is a relatively slow killer. And we test our water supply for it because it's a heavy metal like lead. So any real attempt to poison people with it will get detected pretty promptly. Groups that have the expertise to covertly retrieve spent fuel could probably just buy guns and shoot up a stadium. And that would cause more damage. The relative risk presented by nuclear waste is trivial.

patall 6y ago
So? The parent suggested to store the waste in place, not a mile deep in some central, well protected mine. And that would be stupid indeed.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  Storing waste in place is also hardly any risk. Are terrorists going to retrieve one of these [1], weaponize it, and then deploy it? If they have this capability, then they almost certainly have the capability of shooting up a mall. And the latter would cause more damage. I see effectively zero additional danger presented by nuclear waste in this regard. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File%3ANuclear_dry_storage.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File...