What's Being Done About Nuclear Security

KrisCowboy writes "Wired.com has an interesting article about Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's speech about the defensive measures being taken at the Nuclear Energy warehouses. 'Atomic storehouses, vulnerable to terrorist attack, will be emptied of their radioactive loads,' he promises. Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast."

Comments

Hafnium bombs? You're worried about hafnium bombs?

[Behrooz]

Keeping in mind the recent Slashdot story about a Hafnium bomb, more security measures are needed, and fast

Talk about going off-topic. Isotope bombs, which are not even feasible at this point and require a pretty massive technological base to even think about playing with, really aren't what we should be worried about regarding storage of nuclear research materials. In fact, I'd say the nuclear materials and research inside the US are probably better locked-down than just about anywhere else.

Hell, the most-likely nuclear terrorism scenario in my estimation is someone purchasing a radiation-therapy machine and randomly zapping people with lethal doses from inside a truck-mounted setup. Given a cool million to purchase some used medical equipment, you don't even need to try to steal nuclear material from federal facilities.

Re:Whatever

[AKAImBatman]

But it could blow up on the way there! Remeber Challenger?

1. Challenger was not carrying nuclear materials.
2. Depleted nuclear materials cannot blow up.
3. Non depleted fissionable materials cannot blow up without being packed inside a traditional explosive.
4. Fissionable materials are stored in neutron inhibiting material to prevent fission.
5. Accidental fission results in lots of heat and radiation. No boom.
6. Old style reactors could experience boiler explosions. (e.g. Chernobyl) This is on the order of an industrial disaster rather than a nuclear bomb.
7. Fission bombs need to be carefully shaped and triggered by explosives to blow up.
8. Fusion bombs (e.g. H-Bombs) require a fission bomb + a closed neutron reflector + a container of hydrogen/tritium. Remove any of these and fusion cannot occur.

Any questions?

Re:Ironically...

[gantzm]

I'm not sure, what exactly was your point? That we shouldn't be trucking this stuff around, or that individuals shouldn't have access to rifles that fire .50 Cal rounds ?

If you believe the problem is the rifle, you are in for a big surprise. Preventing access to those rifles will stop nothing. Any group that is willing to hijack a truck full of nuclear waste is probably more than capable of assembling a small machine shop and building their own weapons.

If I wanted to crack one of these waste caskets I'd build a small bore canon (maybe 2.5 inches) that fired a round (maybe 2 inches) in a nice sabot to really speed things up. One doesn't need fancy self loading canons, just a pile of 10 single shot canons strapped in the back of a pickup.

But, maybe your point was just not to be trucking to stuff around in the first place.

Re:fearmongering

[1Oman]

Yeah we all know that nuclear power plant security is infallible. But wait maybe its not. But I'm sure they will find this stuff or maybe not.
And then there is always this to worry about.

Nuclear weapons are just too much hassle...

[AchilleTalon]

given what you can do with chemical and bacterial weapons much more cheaper to produce with ready available chemical products or some bacterian material you can steal much more easily and so much difficult to track down.

Re:Ironically...

[loraksus]

maybe your point was just not to be trucking to stuff around in the first place.


yeah. Many targets.

A copper plate with a fair bit of rdx / tnt behind it would also work. 1 pound accelerated to mach 4 or so should do about enough damage to anything to make it leak.

Re:Ironically...

[pyrrhonist]

50 BMG will penetrate damn near anything and will have a nice range to boot.

Okay, I've read a couple of your responses, and you really need to check your facts before posting.

Other Sandia tests evaluated a terrorist attack, subjecting a container to a device 30 times more powerful than a typical anti-tank weapon. The test resulted in a quarter-inch-diameter hole through the primary containment wall. The NRC estimates that the hole produced by the test would have resulted in the release of less than 10 grams--one-third of an ounce-- of used fuel. The container's protective shielding would prevent a large release of radiation.

So basically, a 50 caliber projectile won't do shit to these containers.

Re:fearmongering

[shadowbearer]

You think India -- the world's largest democracy (in terms of population) and a generally civilised and well-educated society -- is a security risk because they (may) have nuclear weapons?

May have??

India conducted it's first nuclear test in 1974.

SB

Re:Whatever

[AKAImBatman]

1. TRGs are insanely heavy.

That's sort of the point. :-) Usually the RTG has a few pounds of plutonium, a pound or two of electronics, then about 50 or so pounds of shielding.

2. Allthough they are made to withstand a train crash or a plane crashlanding, I don't think they can take a Challenger style explosion and then a free fall from 5000+ meters. I remember reading something about them beeing vulnerable to certain angles of impact.

No, these are designed for unprotected reentry, unlike the "black boxes" used for determining the cause of aircraft accidents. The Nimbus B crash was actually very much like the Challenger incident. Even if the radiological material was released in the impact, its environmental impact would be near zero. Plutonium is an Alpha emitter and thus cannot penetrate the skin. It's only dangerous when it's ground up into a fine powder and inhaled. Thankfully, this is a very difficult thing as plutonium is VERY solid stuff.