Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-06-2004, 08:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
U.S. Flies Radioactive Items Out of Iraq

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
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 08:28 PM   #2 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
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
djtestudo is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 08:33 PM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
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.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 09:23 PM   #4 (permalink)
No Avatar, No Sig.
 
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.
Wax_off is offline  
Old 07-06-2004, 10:47 PM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Oh God, the rain!
I think I am what people say non-plussed.
Asuka{eve} is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 01:22 AM   #6 (permalink)
Paq
Junkie
 
Paq's Avatar
 
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
Paq is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 01:32 AM   #7 (permalink)
Wah
 
Location: NZ
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.
__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy
apeman is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 03:12 AM   #8 (permalink)
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
Peetster is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 09:08 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
It's good that we are getting that material out of there but I don't think people should make too much of this.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 09:19 AM   #10 (permalink)
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.
DelayedReaction is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 09:40 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 09:57 AM   #12 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
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.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-07-2004, 10:25 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-08-2004, 07:39 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
hannukah harry's Avatar
 
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
hannukah harry is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:37 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:41 AM   #16 (permalink)
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.
wonderwench is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:45 AM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
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.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:47 AM   #18 (permalink)
Banned
 
And now that evidence has been found which is not forged, it is reasonable to believe it.
wonderwench is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 08:52 AM   #19 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
I'll withhold judgement until evidence is actually produced and analyzed.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 11:43 AM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
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.
kutulu is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 12:28 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
The pasted excerpt says that the 45 minute claim will be officially discredited in this new report.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 01:26 PM   #22 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
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.
MSD is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 01:55 PM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
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.
powerclown is offline  
Old 07-09-2004, 03:19 PM   #24 (permalink)
undead
 
Pacifier's Avatar
 
Location: Duisburg, Germany
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?
__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein
Pacifier is offline  
 

Tags
flies, iraq, items, radioactive

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360