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

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

That's the whole point of terror attacks - they don't have to be particularly dangerous to the population as a whole, they just have to be visible enough to SCARE the population. And, a dirty bomb would tie up more resources than a conventional bombing attack - everybody and everything going in and out would have to be decontaminated. New York City has police and fire departments larger than the entire militaries of some countries, but they were overwhelmed by 9/11/01 - imagine if, in addition to the immediate damage, EVERY PERSON who had been exposed to dust there had to be decontaminated (even worse than the existing health issues that are cropping up now)?