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]

The problem arises when the politicians realize it is more long-term politically profitable to do something quick, dirty, ineffective, but VISIBLE, that "feels good", than to take time to study the problem and do something that'll actually work. First, they get to grab the headlines while the issue's hot; and second, after the publicity dies down, the problem is still there to re-use again, and again, and again.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

I'm by no means apologizing for the polyticks. I do think we are culpable in who is there. If the amount of time people spent on some trivial pursuit were instead dedicated to politics it would be fun to watch. Just an hour a day.

It keeps the dictators away.