4 ms·

I can't tell from the article if this is enriched uranium (which would be really scary), or just uranium as it comes out of the ground (which would be much less

I can't tell from the article if this is enriched uranium (which would be really scary), or just uranium as it comes out of the ground (which would be much less scary, although still not great).

girvo 5y ago
I wonder if unenriched but still radioactive uranium chucked inside a conventional explosive bomb would be as scary as that sounds to me.
- xeromal 5y ago
  Pretty sure they call that a dirty bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
  - agogdog 5y ago
    Until recently I didn't realize that dirty bombs were considered to only be marginally more dangerous than conventional bombs... it's interesting how the psyop component of the concept of a dirty bomb is kind of played up a bit even by our own government.
- eloff 5y ago
  Not really. Basically just slightly scarier than the bomb itself. It's not an effective terrorist strategy, since slightly raising cancer risk over a long period of time is one of the least dramatic and fear inspiring things. The really dangerous stuff they don't seem to do, like lighting the forests on fire at the height of fire season, or engineering an airborne pandemic. Thankfully.
- bsder 5y ago
  You would be in more danger from the Uranium acting as a heavy metal ion poison than from radiation. Breathing fine powders of metal ions is generally unwise--radioactive or no.
anthropodie 5y ago
> The uranium was seized and was sent to BARC in Mumbai for analysis. A report was received that the substance is Natural Uranium, which is highly radioactive and dangerous to human life. They are saying its natural Uranium.
- eloff 5y ago
  So 7kg natural uranium is not something you want in your pocket, but not such a big deal either.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    The main reason not to put it in your pocket is that it'll pull your pants down uncomfortably. You don't want to grind it into a fine powder and breathe that in, or ingest it, but the toxicity is a bigger threat than the radioactivity.
- ekelsen 5y ago
  "Natural Uranium" in solid form isn't really what I would call "highly reactive and dangerous to human life", so I don't find this statement to be that definitive. "While the CDC has published one study that no human cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium" -- wikipedia article on uranium.
exnukeguy 5y ago
I got excited at first and worried about the enrichment. The article mentions its natural uranium at some point. Its really not that scary after all. Id be more scared with the security implications of 7Kg of fentanyl than natural U.
petre 5y ago
It's natural Uranium. "Highly explosive and radioactive" is just sensation seeking news. Naturally occuring Radon-222 which is also an alpha emitter with a half life of 3.8 days instead of 4.68·10e9 years is a lot more radioactive than Uranium-238. It's still a toxic heavy metal.
treeman79 5y ago
I love how it’s described as “highly explosive”

I can't tell from the article if this is enriched uranium (which would be really scary), or just uranium as it comes out of the ground (which would be much less scary, although still not great).

girvo 5y ago

I wonder if unenriched but still radioactive uranium chucked inside a conventional explosive bomb would be as scary as that sounds to me.

xeromal 5y ago
Pretty sure they call that a dirty bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
- agogdog 5y ago
  Until recently I didn't realize that dirty bombs were considered to only be marginally more dangerous than conventional bombs... it's interesting how the psyop component of the concept of a dirty bomb is kind of played up a bit even by our own government.
eloff 5y ago
Not really. Basically just slightly scarier than the bomb itself. It's not an effective terrorist strategy, since slightly raising cancer risk over a long period of time is one of the least dramatic and fear inspiring things. The really dangerous stuff they don't seem to do, like lighting the forests on fire at the height of fire season, or engineering an airborne pandemic. Thankfully.
bsder 5y ago
You would be in more danger from the Uranium acting as a heavy metal ion poison than from radiation. Breathing fine powders of metal ions is generally unwise--radioactive or no.

anthropodie 5y ago

> The uranium was seized and was sent to BARC in Mumbai for analysis. A report was received that the substance is Natural Uranium, which is highly radioactive and dangerous to human life. They are saying its natural Uranium.

eloff 5y ago
So 7kg natural uranium is not something you want in your pocket, but not such a big deal either.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  The main reason not to put it in your pocket is that it'll pull your pants down uncomfortably. You don't want to grind it into a fine powder and breathe that in, or ingest it, but the toxicity is a bigger threat than the radioactivity.
ekelsen 5y ago
"Natural Uranium" in solid form isn't really what I would call "highly reactive and dangerous to human life", so I don't find this statement to be that definitive. "While the CDC has published one study that no human cancer has been seen as a result of exposure to natural or depleted uranium" -- wikipedia article on uranium.

exnukeguy 5y ago

I got excited at first and worried about the enrichment. The article mentions its natural uranium at some point. Its really not that scary after all. Id be more scared with the security implications of 7Kg of fentanyl than natural U.

petre 5y ago

It's natural Uranium. "Highly explosive and radioactive" is just sensation seeking news. Naturally occuring Radon-222 which is also an alpha emitter with a half life of 3.8 days instead of 4.68·10e9 years is a lot more radioactive than Uranium-238. It's still a toxic heavy metal.

treeman79 5y ago

I love how it’s described as “highly explosive”