U.S. Flies Radioactive Items Out of Iraq - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 07-06-2004, 08:25 PM

Scary stuff...

Quote:

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq (news - web sites) nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham (news - web sites) described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

The haul included a "huge range" of radioactive items used for medical and industrial purposes, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.

Much of the material "was in powdered form, which is easily dispersed," said Wilkes.

The statement provided only scant details about the material taken from Iraq, but said it included "roughly 1,000 highly radioactive sources" that "could potentially be used in a radiological dispersal device," or dirty bomb.

Also ferried out of Iraq was 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium, the department said.

Wilkes said "a huge range of different isotopes" were secured in the joint Energy Department and Defense Department operation. They had been used in Iraq for a range of medical and industrial purposes, such as testing oil wells and pipelines.

Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb. But some of the other radioactive material — including cesium-137, colbalt-60 and strontium — could have been valuable to a terrorist seeking to fashion a terror weapon.

Such a device would not trigger a nuclear explosion, but would use conventional explosives to spread radioactive debris. While few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation, such an explosion could cause panic, make a section of a city uninhabitable for some time and require cumbersome and expensive cleanup.

Nuclear nonproliferation advocates said securing radioactive material is important all over the world.

A recent study by researchers at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies concluded it is "all but certain" that some kind of dirty bomb will be set off by a terrorist group in the years ahead. There are just too many radioactive sources available across the globe, the report said.

"This is something we should be doing not just in Iraq," Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, said when asked to comment on the Energy Department announcement.

Oelrich hesitated to characterize the threat posed by the uranium and other radioactive material secured in the secret U.S. operation because few details were provided about the material. The Energy Department refused to say where the material was shipped.

But Oelrich said it is widely believed that medical and industrial isotopes can be used in a dirty bomb.

The low-enriched uranium taken from Iraq, if it is of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, could have been of value to a country developing enrichment technology.

"It speeds up the process," Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

Link

djtestudo · 07-06-2004, 08:28 PM

Wait...you mean that they had nuclear materials and the ability to make a weapon of mass destruction out of it? IMAGINE THAT!

cthulu23 · 07-06-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wait...you mean that they had nuclear materials and the ability to make a weapon of mass destruction out of it? IMAGINE THAT!

Let's not get too excited here. If you actually read the pasted excerpt, you'll see that the material is thrice referred to as coming from medical and industrial sources.

Wax_off · 07-06-2004, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wait...you mean that they had nuclear materials and the ability to make a weapon of mass destruction out of it? IMAGINE THAT!

Yes, and so does every other country in the world. IMAGINE THAT! No one ever said "If you have ANY nuclear material, no matter whether it's legal, and some C4, we'll attack you."

To try to make this a WMD completly discredits anything I'll ever read by you.

Asuka{eve} · 07-06-2004, 10:47 PM

I think I am what people say non-plussed.

Paq · 07-07-2004, 01:22 AM

Seriously, if you walk into a hospital, you see the radiation symbols everywhere..and not just near the X-ray departments

btw, exactly what constitutes a WMD facility? In my city, there is a textile factory that used to be one of the largest employers around. During WWII, they were converted over to make bombs for the war effort. After the war, they were converted back, but have the capability of becoming a bomb production plant within 3 days. Now, could that be a WMD production facility as it is right now? i'm not trying to be facetious, i just want to know what would constitute a WMD facility. Heck, within a few miles, we have a nuclear power plant..I'm sure you could easily do something with that.

I'm just curious as to what is being considered "good" and "Not good" in the eyes of, let's say, Bush, for the sake of argument.

Seriously, though, most countries have *something* radioactive and *some* way of blowing it up to make a "Dirty" bomb.

So, mark me down as "non-plussed" This is troublesome to me IF it were to fall into terrorist hands, so i'm glad it's being removed, but I dont' really see it as something to use for an argument one way or the other.

Not to mention, haven't we dropped a bit of radioactive material, depleted uranium, etc, even though the radiation from that is low?

apeman · 07-07-2004, 01:32 AM

DU (depleted uranium)? yeah, low radiation risk i think ... the thing is, it's toxic as fuck, i wouldn't want people shooting it round my country and my kids playing with spent shells tipped with it

Quote:

"It speeds up the process," Oelrich said, adding that 1.95 tons of low-enriched uranium could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb.

fair enough, but that's a bit like saying having a tonne of toluene could be used to make 100kg of TNT ... techincally true, but not a particularly useful statement. It's the processing that's the difficult part.

Peetster · 07-07-2004, 03:12 AM

First, I appreciate the civil discourse here.

Secondly, when creating a post quoting an article for discussion, we would prefer you start with some insights of your own. Comment on why you think this article merits discussion, or why this is important.

Thanks, Peet

kutulu · 07-07-2004, 09:08 AM

It's good that we are getting that material out of there but I don't think people should make too much of this.

DelayedReaction · 07-07-2004, 09:19 AM

That does bring up an interesting question; exactly what constitutes a WMD? Is a dirty bomb made out of equipment found in hospitals considered a WMD, or does the material have to be "weaponized" in some manner?

I think that intent has a lot to do with it. If Bush has intelligence showing that Saddam intended to use some of this material in the form of a weapon of terror (maybe a dirty bomb placed at the end of a missile), then I'd feel better about things.

I just hope the removal of radioactive material didn't harm any medical facilities.

kutulu · 07-07-2004, 09:40 AM

I don't think of some radioactive material and C4 as a WMD. I can see chem and bio weapons being classified as WMD's but they don't even come close to the destructive power of and actual nuclear weapon.

cthulu23 · 07-07-2004, 09:57 AM

As you suspect, I would think that this material would have to be gathered and rigged with explosives (or sitting next to plans to do just that) before it could be classified a WMD.

If there was any evidence that this material was being gathered for use in a dirty bomb it would be splashed across every newspaper in the country. We've seen the uproar that a few 20 year old shell casings caused.

kutulu · 07-07-2004, 10:25 AM

The thing with dirty bombs is that they are more a weapon of fear than actual destruction. The conventional blast is the most dangerous thing about it. After that, the effectiveness is based on the fact that it will be costly and lengthy to clean up and will scare people a lot more than it should.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...rty-bombs.html

Quote:

Basically, the principal type of dirty bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies.

However, certain other radioactive materials, dispersed in the air, could contaminate up to several city blocks, creating fear and possibly panic and requiring potentially costly cleanup. Prompt, accurate, non-emotional public information might prevent the panic sought by terrorists.

A second type of RDD might involve a powerful radioactive source hidden in a public place, such as a trash receptacle in a busy train or subway station, where people passing close to the source might get a significant dose of radiation.

At best they can cause long term illness or death to people close to it. Once it's released, people only need to stay away. There is no risk of people passing it on to others, like in a bio attack.

For similar reasons, I think we are way too paranoid about chemical and bio attacks.

hannukah harry · 07-08-2004, 07:39 PM

am i the only one who thinks that flying the stuff out might not be the smartest way? i realize it worked out fine, but when there's still the occasional rpg fired at planes, that would make one hella big dirty bomb...

/feel free to ignore this post due to the use of the word "hella."

kutulu · 07-09-2004, 08:37 AM

An RPG wouldn't turn the plane into some huge fireball unless it was a really lucky shot. They've hit humves' and the crew still lived.

wonderwench · 07-09-2004, 08:41 AM

The Financial Times reported yesterday that the U.K. is about to release a report confirming the claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium from Niger.

(All in all, another brick in the wall.)

Link

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger.

The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers yesterday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned UK government claims about the threat from Iraq.

The report will say the claim that Mr Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes, seized on by UK prime minister Tony Blair to bolster the case for war with Iraq, was inadequately supported by the available intelligence, people familiar with its contents say .

But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler had concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence.

President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary material the US possessed was documents later shown to be forgeries.

The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the material it had gathered to underpin its claim.

The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part.

Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence.

The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment.

The 45-minute claim appeared four times in a government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issued in September 2002, including in the foreword by Mr Blair.

Mr Blair admitted to parliamentarians on Tuesday that WMD might never be found in Iraq.

cthulu23 · 07-09-2004, 08:45 AM

Since the only evidence that backed the uranium purchase attempt up until this point consisted of forgeries, I think that it was a reasonable to refute the claim.

wonderwench · 07-09-2004, 08:47 AM

And now that evidence has been found which is not forged, it is reasonable to believe it.

cthulu23 · 07-09-2004, 08:52 AM

I'll withhold judgement until evidence is actually produced and analyzed.

kutulu · 07-09-2004, 11:43 AM

If the report is going to claim that he was capable of deploying WMDs in 45 min there better be a large cache found adequate means of producing large amounts. Till then there is no credibility.

cthulu23 · 07-09-2004, 12:28 PM

The pasted excerpt says that the 45 minute claim will be officially discredited in this new report.

MSD · 07-09-2004, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djtestudo
Wait...you mean that they had nuclear materials and the ability to make a weapon of mass destruction out of it? IMAGINE THAT!

"Uranium is not suitable for making a dirty bomb"
"few people would probably be killed or seriously affected by the radiation"

Dirty bombs are a disruptive weapon, not a destructive weapon. I would consider it reasonable to label them, "Weapons of Mass Disruption," along with most chemical and many biological agents. Considering the quantities of material and dispersion devices available to terrorists or "rogue nations," nothing short of a nuclear attack is going to be severely destructive.

powerclown · 07-09-2004, 01:55 PM

Most papers did carry this article, just buried in the back somewhere.
It now seems to me more a case of "Potential Bad Stuff thats better off moved out of a warzone" than evidence of WMD.
Most evidence seems to go with the theory that Hussein got rid of his WMD a while back.

Pacifier · 07-09-2004, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonderwench
The Financial Times reported yesterday that the U.K. is about to release a report confirming the claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium from Niger.

which old report are they going to copy this time?

07-06-2004, 08:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Wait...you mean that they had nuclear materials and the ability to make a weapon of mass destruction out of it? IMAGINE THAT! __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

07-07-2004, 01:22 AM	#6 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Seriously, if you walk into a hospital, you see the radiation symbols everywhere..and not just near the X-ray departments btw, exactly what constitutes a WMD facility? In my city, there is a textile factory that used to be one of the largest employers around. During WWII, they were converted over to make bombs for the war effort. After the war, they were converted back, but have the capability of becoming a bomb production plant within 3 days. Now, could that be a WMD production facility as it is right now? i'm not trying to be facetious, i just want to know what would constitute a WMD facility. Heck, within a few miles, we have a nuclear power plant..I'm sure you could easily do something with that. I'm just curious as to what is being considered "good" and "Not good" in the eyes of, let's say, Bush, for the sake of argument. Seriously, though, most countries have something radioactive and some way of blowing it up to make a "Dirty" bomb. So, mark me down as "non-plussed" This is troublesome to me IF it were to fall into terrorist hands, so i'm glad it's being removed, but I dont' really see it as something to use for an argument one way or the other. Not to mention, haven't we dropped a bit of radioactive material, depleted uranium, etc, even though the radiation from that is low? __________________ Live. Chris

07-07-2004, 09:19 AM	#10 (permalink)
DelayedReaction BFG Builder Location: University of Maryland	That does bring up an interesting question; exactly what constitutes a WMD? Is a dirty bomb made out of equipment found in hospitals considered a WMD, or does the material have to be "weaponized" in some manner? I think that intent has a lot to do with it. If Bush has intelligence showing that Saddam intended to use some of this material in the form of a weapon of terror (maybe a dirty bomb placed at the end of a missile), then I'd feel better about things. I just hope the removal of radioactive material didn't harm any medical facilities. __________________ If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

07-08-2004, 07:39 PM	#14 (permalink)
hannukah harry Junkie	am i the only one who thinks that flying the stuff out might not be the smartest way? i realize it worked out fine, but when there's still the occasional rpg fired at planes, that would make one hella big dirty bomb... /feel free to ignore this post due to the use of the word "hella." __________________ shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

07-06-2004, 10:47 PM	#5 (permalink)
Asuka{eve} Addict Location: Oh God, the rain!	I think I am what people say non-plussed.

07-07-2004, 03:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	First, I appreciate the civil discourse here. Secondly, when creating a post quoting an article for discussion, we would prefer you start with some insights of your own. Comment on why you think this article merits discussion, or why this is important. Thanks, Peet

07-07-2004, 09:08 AM	#9 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	It's good that we are getting that material out of there but I don't think people should make too much of this.

07-07-2004, 09:40 AM	#11 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I don't think of some radioactive material and C4 as a WMD. I can see chem and bio weapons being classified as WMD's but they don't even come close to the destructive power of and actual nuclear weapon.

07-07-2004, 09:57 AM	#12 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	As you suspect, I would think that this material would have to be gathered and rigged with explosives (or sitting next to plans to do just that) before it could be classified a WMD. If there was any evidence that this material was being gathered for use in a dirty bomb it would be splashed across every newspaper in the country. We've seen the uproar that a few 20 year old shell casings caused.

07-09-2004, 08:37 AM	#15 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	An RPG wouldn't turn the plane into some huge fireball unless it was a really lucky shot. They've hit humves' and the crew still lived.

07-09-2004, 08:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	The Financial Times reported yesterday that the U.K. is about to release a report confirming the claim that Saddam tried to acquire uranium from Niger. (All in all, another brick in the wall.) Link A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger. The inquiry by Lord Butler, which was delivered to the printers yesterday and is expected to be released on July 14, has examined the intelligence that underpinned UK government claims about the threat from Iraq. The report will say the claim that Mr Hussein could deploy chemical weapons within 45 minutes, seized on by UK prime minister Tony Blair to bolster the case for war with Iraq, was inadequately supported by the available intelligence, people familiar with its contents say . But among Lord Butler's other areas of investigation was the issue of whether Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger. People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler had concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence. President George W. Bush referred to the Niger claim in his state of the union address last year. But officials were forced into a climbdown when it was revealed that the only primary material the US possessed was documents later shown to be forgeries. The Bush administration has since distanced itself from all suggestions that Iraq sought to buy uranium. The UK government has remained adamant that negotiations over sales did take place and that the fake documents were not part of the material it had gathered to underpin its claim. The Financial Times revealed last week that a key part of the UK's intelligence on the uranium came from a European intelligence service that undertook a three-year surveillance of an alleged clandestine uranium-smuggling operation of which Iraq was a part. Intelligence officials have now confirmed that the results of this operation formed an important part of the conclusions of British intelligence. The same information was passed to the US but US officials did not incorporate it in their assessment. The 45-minute claim appeared four times in a government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) issued in September 2002, including in the foreword by Mr Blair. Mr Blair admitted to parliamentarians on Tuesday that WMD might never be found in Iraq.

07-09-2004, 08:45 AM	#17 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	Since the only evidence that backed the uranium purchase attempt up until this point consisted of forgeries, I think that it was a reasonable to refute the claim.

07-09-2004, 08:47 AM	#18 (permalink)
wonderwench Banned	And now that evidence has been found which is not forged, it is reasonable to believe it.

07-09-2004, 08:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	I'll withhold judgement until evidence is actually produced and analyzed.

07-09-2004, 11:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	If the report is going to claim that he was capable of deploying WMDs in 45 min there better be a large cache found adequate means of producing large amounts. Till then there is no credibility.

07-09-2004, 12:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
cthulu23 Banned	The pasted excerpt says that the 45 minute claim will be officially discredited in this new report.

07-09-2004, 01:55 PM	#23 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	Most papers did carry this article, just buried in the back somewhere. It now seems to me more a case of "Potential Bad Stuff thats better off moved out of a warzone" than evidence of WMD. Most evidence seems to go with the theory that Hussein got rid of his WMD a while back.