I do not believe they were looking for a

That is the disinformation code phrase.

www.washingtonpost.com...

Basic physics: a radiological dispersal weapon ("dirty bomb") does not create new radioactivity in the explosion. The radioactive material must already be present before time.

Therefore, if you want to disperse it and actually cause any casualties, the total amount of radioactivity must be VERY LARGE when it is in the pre-detonation configuration. In this configuration, it would be a very very strong point source of radiation (however shielded, but a RDD is so radioactive that no shielding will be perfect). This intense source of radioactivity would be very easy to detect; you could probably fly over it with a helicopter with detectors and find it right away. It would be so radioactive that the primary hazard would be to the people transporting it.
Even if they are suicidal, they want to accomplish their mission before dying.

"dirty bombs" are bull#, and al-Qaeda knows this. They would kill less than a single normal truck or car bomb, much less blowing up an airplane.
The government talks about the "panic", blah blah blah, but as soon as people discover that only 4 people died from it then there will be no more panic. Al-Qaeda has bloodlust. They want to kill. They cannot make a Chernobyl. Chernobyl was just about the worst-case dirty bomb, as a large fraction of a huge intensely radioactive nuclear core, weighing hundreds of tons, caught fire and dispersed the particles into the atmosphere. Most who died there were those who heroically went in to try to put out the fire.

in that washington post article they said they found a little piece of radium that some homeless guy had collected. it was designed for radiation therapy for cancer.

That small amount of radioactivity and the fact that they were so concerned about it and jumped on it meant that they were not really looking for a dirty bomb, which would "peg the needle" on their detectors.

The fact that they panicked and jumped all over this means to me that they were looking for a real nuclear weapon, which is enormously more dangerous, and, before exploding, far less radioactive. The effective range to detect them remotely may be less than 100 feet.

Because most people are not knowledgable about radioactivity and such, it works to their advantage to mix the "dirty bomb" and "nuclear weapon" issues. I bet that almost all local and regional law enforcement is also told that it's a "dirty bomb" they should be looking for. Only the top people at the NEST(nuclear emergency search team) would have clearance to get the truth.

I think that most of the time in the media when you hear 'dirty bomb', and it's not connected with some nitwit, think "Nuclear Weapon".

Be afraid.

I believe the idea behind a "dirty bomb" is NOT the size of the explosion, but the long term effects of the radiation or radioactive material being spread into the air thus contaminating water, air, buildings etc. Kinda like radioactive isotopes that are used in Nuclear Medicine, it is a small amount, but comes in a shielded container, cause you don't want to place your hand on that stuff.


[Edited on 7-1-2004 by NetStorm]

I know, but without a large amount of initial radioactivity, even that wouldn't be such a big deal. A small area would be moderately contaminated. Wash it and scrub it off.

It would be easier to clean up than the anthrax spores (since it is easier to detect).

If it is sufficiently spread out then its harm goes down significantly.

Actually at low enough levels, radiation might actually reduce cancer----it would prompt the cell/DNA repair mechanisms to start up and they would go on to fix even more damage that they found than that caused by the radiation. there is some experimental evidence for this, it is not just BS.