On dirty bombs

[unixronin]

We are continually threatened by our government with the spectre of a terrorist "dirty bomb" using cobalt-60 or some comparable radionucleide.  However, an actual examination of the problem¹ reveals that to yield a actual significantly dangerous level of contamination over any significant area, such a "dirty bomb" would have to contain sufficient cobalt-60 that the terrorists constructing and deploying it would be dead within a few minutes in its proximity.  This poses, shall we say, logistical problems in gathering and assembling such a mass of radioactive material.

The conclusion from this appears to be that such a "dirty bomb" is, indeed, largely a pure terror weapon, to be feared primarily because ... well ... people are afraid of it.

Discuss.

Some references:

• ABC News on dirty bombs
• A reporter for the Guardian tries to learn how to build a dirty bomb

[1]  The actual article was in New Scientist, if memory serves, but I can't find it online, so wandering upstairs to find the issue and verify that is somewhat moot.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yup ... frankly, most of these threats are really all about scaring people into a disproportionate reaction to what is, ultimately, a relatively trivial threat.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

In such a hyper over driven environment as now I can see where Kurt's scenario would be highly effective.

I think if his had happened when the story was written we might be .. more robust at thwarting it without the lost of liberties.