Slashdot Mirror


Plutonium Shipment to France on the Way

duesi writes "According to BBC News a British vessel is carrying 140 kg of weapons grade plutonium from the US to France to turn it into nuclear fuel. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that this is a dangerous thing... Similar shipments have happened before, for example in 1999 and 2002 but BBC writes that this is the first time weapon grade plutonium has been shipped ever."

97 comments

  1. That IS dangerous... by GypC · · Score: 5, Funny
    You never know when Islamist terrorists will take over one of those plutonium ships with one of their nuclear subs or aircraft carriers...

    Or disguise themselves as veteran British seamen and seize the bridge.

    1. Re:That IS dangerous... by turgid · · Score: 2, Funny
      You never know when Islamist terrorists will take over one of those plutonium ships with one of their nuclear subs or aircraft carriers...

      I was just thinking, they must be carrying a packet of wire wool and a spare tin of paint to clean the charred,black,sooty smudge off the hull that the suicide bombers will leave when they crash their inflatable dinghy into the ship shouting, "Death to the Infidel! God is great!"

    2. Re:That IS dangerous... by momerath2003 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Allahu Akbar! It's a trap!

      --
      I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
    3. Re:That IS dangerous... by turgid · · Score: 1
      Or disguise themselves as veteran British seamen and seize the bridge.

      They'd be found out straight away. When it's their turn to make the tea, they'll get it wrong. You just can't fake proper tea.

    4. Re:That IS dangerous... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1

      I predict that terrorists will sneak aboard by disguising themselves as a rock band. From there, when all the officers, and the skeleton crew in in one place ready to boogie, the band overwhelms the crew and takes control of the ship. Fortunately, since the material is only 140kg, they need not go to the effort of producing a complex winching mechanism, they just pick up the suitcases, get back on the chopper, and fly away.

    5. Re:That IS dangerous... by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      Your sig is bugging me... Is it a misheard line from Elvis Costello's "Oliver's Army"? Or what?

    6. Re:That IS dangerous... by turgid · · Score: 1
      Your sig is bugging me... Is it a misheard line from Elvis Costello's "Oliver's Army"? Or what?

      Yes :-)

    7. Re:That IS dangerous... by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      No offense or anything, but you really need to try some coffee ;)

  2. tell everyone! by alatesystems · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, that's great, just tell everyone so they can go attack it. That's really smart. If I were the shipper or receiver, or any territory between which this parcel traveled, I would want it to be at least SOMEWHAT of a secret.

    Oh well. Security through obscurity is better than no security at all.

    Chris

    1. Re:tell everyone! by christopherfinke · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the exact same thing - security through obscurity is somewhat useful when the public doesn't actually need to know about the insecure event. What good reason is there to report this?

    2. Re:tell everyone! by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's great, just tell everyone so they can go attack it. That's really smart. If I were the shipper or receiver, or any territory between which this parcel traveled, I would want it to be at least SOMEWHAT of a secret.

      For all you or I know the shipment was complete three weeks ago and this news is just a smokescreen. Wouldn't surprise me at all.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:tell everyone! by dykofone · · Score: 1

      Come on, this is the oldest trick in the book. They announce a big shipment of plutonium going out, when the boat is really just carrying some harmless lead. The real plutonium is meanwhile thrown in the back of an SUV and driven down the highway.

    4. Re:tell everyone! by turgid · · Score: 1
      What good reason is there to report this?

      None. The BBC just likes a good nuclear scare story, and John Large likes a bit of self-publicity.

    5. Re:tell everyone! by jerde · · Score: 1

      real plutonium is meanwhile thrown in the back of an SUV and driven down the highway.

      Down that new highway to France?

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    6. Re:tell everyone! by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      The Channel Tunnel is capable of carrying freight. If they are willing to transport nuclear material is another matter.

    7. Re:tell everyone! by jerde · · Score: 1

      The Channel Tunnel is capable of carrying freight. If they are willing to transport nuclear material is another matter.

      Um. Yes.

      But I'm unaware of a tunnel/highway from the United States to France, which is the route this nuclear material is following.

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    8. Re:tell everyone! by smurf975 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's right here: http://www.atlantictunnel.com/hist.html

      Ten years after tunnelling recommenced, the US and UK excavation projects had reached the combined distance of exactly 1825 miles - just over half way.

      So its there just not ready.

      --
      -- I don't buy it, I grow it.
    9. Re:tell everyone! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Granted the article says that there is not going to be a military convoy with these boats, but I'd lay money that there will probably be either a US destroyer and/or a US sub within a mile or two of this thing at all times. Considering the paranoia that is gripping the US leadership at this time, I can't imagine that they would let that much plutonium just float along unguarded, they just wouldn't anounce it. Also, if the boat is hijacked, you can bet that the US Navy, the British Navy, and probably a few others will be all over that boat before it gets anywhere near land. I don't see any reason to worry.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    10. Re:tell everyone! by nicholaides · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that if some terrorists are looking to get their hands on this stuff, that BBC is going to be the one to tip them off? How do you think BBC know's about this super-secret plutonium transfer? (I didn't RTFA). I'm sure whoever it is who wants to steal some plutonium knew long before the BBC.

      --
      http://ablegray.com
    11. Re:tell everyone! by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      My mistake. I did read the article. I just got all mixed up when it's a British vessel carrying stuff from the US to France.

    12. Re:tell everyone! by Ckwop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's great, just tell everyone so they can go attack it. That's really smart. If I were the shipper or receiver, or any territory between which this parcel traveled, I would want it to be at least SOMEWHAT of a secret.

      Oh well. Security through obscurity is better than no security at all.

      My guess is that it is a classic case of misdirection. You say "We're moving this nice chunk of plutonium on this ship here - look at all our heavy security" when in fact you've cut it all up in to small pieces and stuck it through the postal system.

      I'd be very suprised if there's any plutonium on that ship at all. It looks like they almost wanted the BBC to report it.

      Simon.

  3. Not the way I would do it by brejc8 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The critical mass of plutonium is 10 - 100 kg. (I assume weapons grade plutonium would be more towards the 10kg range).
    I would split it up into 5kg bars and do a few trips. If there is a crash or whatever it wouldn't go critical. And it's not enough for a bomb is someone nicked it.
    5kg / 19,816 kg/m^3 in cm^3 is ~ 250cm^3 which is 5 by 5 by 10 cm.
    Pretty strange that the entire consignment is smaller than a shuttle case.

    1. Re:Not the way I would do it by brejc8 · · Score: 1

      Oops wrong link for the critical mass. It should be this one

    2. Re:Not the way I would do it by Retric · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1st off just send it via nuke sub. After all they already have the security to keep people from taking the nukes so you add little risk.

      2nd I know 10kg of plutonium is not that large as it's basically as heavy as led. But your not going to ship it all in one container it's much much safer to ship in several containers than one large pile.

    3. Re:Not the way I would do it by turgid · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, the plutonium is being transported as plutonium oxide rather than pure metal. I'd imagine that probably makes it difficult or impossible to achieve criticality, but then I know nothing very much about nuclear weapons.

  4. In other news... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to see that this is a dangerous thing...

    In other news, people do dangerous things every day... Like transport sulfuric acid in train tankers through residential neighborhoods. Some things are dangerous. That's life.

    Environmentalists say it presents a major terrorist target.

    Shouldn't environmentalists be worrying about the environment? How come the article doesn't say anything about *security experts* being worried about this? Couldn't they have found any?

    Greenpeace says the plutonium should be disposed of as nuclear waste to avoid the transport and proliferation risks.

    Right, because being stored in a hole somewere will be safer than reprocessing it and using it. We're much better off with all this weapons grade material sitting around than not existing....

  5. Maybe not the first time. by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this is the first time weapon grade plutonium has been shipped ever

    It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it, but isn't necessarily the first time that weapon grade plutonium has been shipped.

    Big difference.

    1. Re:Maybe not the first time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it, but isn't necessarily the first time that weapon grade plutonium has been shipped.

      Actually, the public knows about at least two other instances of shipping weapons-grade Plutonium. They were around half a century ago, and one shipment was to Nagasaki and one was to Hiroshima.

    2. Re:Maybe not the first time. by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it

      This is hardly the first time the public knew about it. Weapons grade plutonium is shipped about routinely; in weapons.

      We put on boats. We fly it around in aircraft. We haul it in trucks on public roads. Shipping significant quantities of weapons grade plutonium has been routine for over half a century.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    3. Re:Maybe not the first time. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1
      Of course, if the environmentalists are so concerned, they have 2 options to explore.

      1. Leave all the plutonium on the nuclear warheads.. This is comming from decommissioned Nuclear missles, this should be seen as a good thing..

      2. Try to get the laws in the us changed so that we can do reprocessing here at home. Then we wouldn't have to ship our plutonium overseas. And we could refine and reuse our used uranium from our power generating nuclear reactors too. That sure would make Nevada happy. (less waste to dump in yucca mtn, and less radioactive!) It's recycling, what hack job environmentalist doesn't like recycling?

      Of course, plutonium is shipped all over the world, every day, much larger quantities. its just that their still in the missles, inside subs, planes, etc..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    4. Re:Maybe not the first time. by djsmiley · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking about this on a more... scientific note.

      Which would people have it on? A boat which sinks (its GONE NOW) or in a plane, which when it blows up.... like we have seen happen twice in the last month will proberly end up spraying it everywhere...

      Or just incase this wasn't amusing enough for you, i heard n.a.s.a has fitted it with parachutes in case of falling.... who wants to be the first to jump out a helicopter and catch this one?!

      --
      - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    5. Re:Maybe not the first time. by MrWa · · Score: 1
      It's the first time that the PUBLIC knows about it, but isn't necessarily the first time that weapon grade plutonium has been shipped.

      Didn't the US ship some back in the 40's?

    6. Re:Maybe not the first time. by Kehvarl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I belive you are correct, and I understand that it was shipped to and processed in Japan.

    7. Re:Maybe not the first time. by dave_f1m · · Score: 1

      Only one of those was Pu.

    8. Re:Maybe not the first time. by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      I find it disturbing that this gets the highest moderation assigned to a post of mine to date... it's.. not that funny.

    9. Re:Maybe not the first time. by turgid · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Moderators smoke mysterious substances.

  6. Sellafield by spikestabber · · Score: 1

    You gotta wonder what the brits got planned with those many TONNES of weapons grade PU they got in the bunker at Sellafield. That place aint no power plant!

    1. Re:Sellafield by turgid · · Score: 3, Informative
      You gotta wonder what the brits got planned with those many TONNES of weapons grade PU they got in the bunker at Sellafield. That place aint no power plant!

      Sellafield has never been a "power plant" it's just the ignorant, stupid, sensationalist British media and such that refer to it as one.

      Sellafield is an enormous site. I think that somewhere in the region of 15000 people work there on a daily basis.

      Sellafiled contains many things, including the ill-fated (criminally badly designed) Windscale reactors (whose sole purpose was plutonium production), the Calder Hall power station (mainly for providing site electricity and steam and the very first Magnox in the world, now shut down for good), various separation and containment facilities including the notorious "open pond", reprocessing facilities, the WAGR (Windscale Advanced Gas-cooler Reactor - absolutely brilliant piece of engineering, now decommissioning), the MOX Demonstration Facility, THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) plus a load of other stuff.

      Most of it isn't top secret and can be visited by the public. I went once on business. Very interesting. For those of us too young to remember the Cold War Era, it's absolutely incredible to see what's there.

      Try clicking on the above link. I think BNFL has now got a clue and realises that IE isn't the only browser in existance...:-)

  7. Not necessary by cgenman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Captain Malcolm Miller, head of international transport at BNFL, said they were the "safest sea transports" he had ever seen. A naval escort had not been requested and was not necessary, he added.

    Can you say "Doomed?"

    1. Re:Not necessary by mentalflossboy · · Score: 1

      Sounds eerily reminscient of the Titanic. "Oh, we're invincible, don't worry."

      Doomed indeed.

      --
      "I make people like me... WITH VIOLENCE!" - ATHF
  8. Penny Henny by b-baggins · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unreal. I find it ironic that it's the French who actually have the (insert body part) to actually use nuclear power. Everyone else is just too terrified to even mention the word nuclear, unless it's to make fun of people mispronouncing it.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    1. Re:Penny Henny by phoenix.bam! · · Score: 1

      I second that. The French do have balls. How to beat terrorists? Use nuclear power! Kills two bird with one stone. No more dependency on oil plus less radio active matrial to go around!

    2. Re:Penny Henny by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

      The French are also the ones that built Iraq's nuclear reactor Osirak(which Israel blew up after Iran failed to.)

    3. Re:Penny Henny by RWerp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The French (and other nations opposing the invasion of Iraq) were not afraid of fighting terrorists (Germany, for example, sent a large contingent to Afghanistan) They just prefer to use other methods than blowing up a functioning state and inviting the terrorists from all over the world for a party.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    4. Re:Penny Henny by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I'd dispute that Iraq was a "functioning state": it was already quarantined from the rest of the world by UN-imposed sanctions. People in it were starving by the thousands because the government refused to accede to the demands that would have lifted the sanctions.

      That's still not necessarily sufficient reason to invade it without clear evidence of imminent danger; I don't disagree with your overall argument. There are plenty of more dysfunctional but non-oil-bearing states that we never raise a hand against. I'm just quibbling with your description of Iraq as functional. It may be worse now as a terrorist playground, but the best you could describe it as beforehand was "functioning" and I'd dispute even that.

    5. Re:Penny Henny by b-baggins · · Score: 1

      Because we all know it's much better to have the terrorists attacking civilians at home than trained soldiers overseas.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    6. Re:Penny Henny by RWerp · · Score: 1

      What we have in Iraq is terrorists attacking non-US civilians. Much better? For the US, certainly. For the Iraqis --- I doubt it.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    7. Re:Penny Henny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why it's better to ignore Osama and Al Qaeda, who have killed 3,000 US civilians, to go after Iraq, the one Arabic country that *isn't* working with or funding Al Qaeda.

      Oh, and then to utterly bungle the occupation, too.

  9. Shh!!! by El · · Score: 1

    Obviously it's a honeypot designed to lure in terrorists so they can capture them! The actual plutonium is being delivered by a lorry driven through the chunnel...

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  10. Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

    With Plutonium, it burns in oxygen much like Magnesium does. To make a dirty bomb with weapons grade plutonium you don't need critical mass, or even for that matter technology- just shave the bar with a knife, mix the shavings with gunpowder, and use it as the warhead on a mortar. Set it off upwind of a city, and you've got the ultimate cheap terrorist neutron bomb.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by turgid · · Score: 1
      Set it off upwind of a city, and you've got the ultimate cheap terrorist neutron bomb.

      Where are the neutrons coming from?

    2. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by eht · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think he was refering to the effect neutron bombs have on cities, the people are gone but the buildings are still there.

    3. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Where are the neutrons coming from?

      Sorry- misspoke, nutrons are higher energy. Should have said Alpha and Gamma Particle Bomb- though the design idea is the same, kill loads of people and leave the buildings intact. That was my intent when comparing it to the higher-energy-state neutron bombs- effects, not actual physics.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by turgid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Sorry- misspoke

      :-)

      I think the danger from a dirty bomb is more likely to be contamination and ingestion by people, plants and animals of the radioactive substances. This would lead to a long-term exposure to smallish amounts of radiation which, over many years, would result in an increase in cancer cases (and therefore deaths).

      Because the legal thresholds for what counts as "contamination" are very low, such a weapon would render large areas uninhabitable. I for one certainly wouldn't want to live somewhere a dirty bomb had been detonated.

    5. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the danger from a dirty bomb is more likely to be contamination and ingestion by people, plants and animals of the radioactive substances. This would lead to a long-term exposure to smallish amounts of radiation which, over many years, would result in an increase in cancer cases (and therefore deaths).

      Depends on how much, and what the wind distribution is- igestion by people once burnt can be acomplished by large amounts of plutonium oxide ash in the atmosphere- it's still radioactive.

      Because the legal thresholds for what counts as "contamination" are very low, such a weapon would render large areas uninhabitable. I for one certainly wouldn't want to live somewhere a dirty bomb had been detonated.

      Yep- the point being that you don't actually have to destroy buildings to make a city uninhabitable.

      I find this form of bomb to be FAR more accessible as a WMD than the other form- it's hard to figure out how to get a mass to go critical in comparison.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    6. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      The primary real danger from a dirty bomb (outside of the immediate blast radius) is that the populace panics in their haste to get away.

      Big scared crowds tend to break things, trample one another, and lose their normal respect for things like charity towards their fellow human beings, not to mention law, property, and traffic regulations.

      Plus it gives all the assholes an excuse to drive their Hummers on the sidewalk and over your lawn.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    7. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by turgid · · Score: 0

      Indeed :-)

    8. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually Plutonium is not that radio active. It would make a very poor dirty bomb. The danger of from Pu is that is extermly toxic chemicaly. The stuff is very poisonous.
      It is not that it is so radioactive it is a heavy metal and is very toxic.
      Unless you have enough to make an atomic bomb. What people do not get is that if they do not stick it in reactor and use it for fuel it will just sit around for a few thousand years waiting for someone to make a bomb out of it.
      Converting it to electricity is the best thing to do with it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plutonium has no noticable chemical toxicity compared to it's radiotoxicity. 20mg inhaled for example will kill within a month, 100mg will kill within a week due to the effects of the alpha emission on the lungs. As a comparison it is perfectly possible to inhale this amoung of hydrogen cyanide - 100mg of HCN gas is extremely unlikley to kill you although it will make you very ill.

      A high explosive bomb (such as a terrorist bomb laced with Pu) will convert up to 50% of the plutonium inside to particles that will lodge in the lung and cause these effects. This is the reason that terrorist dirty bombs work - the radiological effects are significant and present significant immidiate hazards.

      Long term danger is present from much lower doses. 100 micrograms in the lung will assure you of contracting lung cancer a few decades later, every 1 microgram increases the lung cancer risk over a lifetime by 1%

      As for the comment that is it "not that radioactive" then yes sure, it's not as bad as say Po-210 but with a half life of 24000 years for Pu-239 it will elevate it's own temperature to well over the boiling point of water by radioactive heating (for a mass approaching criticality)

    10. Re:Don't need critical mass to make a bomb by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it won't leave buildings there. Neutron bombs were made for battlefield use, to kill people in tanks and infantry carriers.

      A neutron bomb is the same as a thermonuclear, but the U-238 casing is left off, allowing neutrons to escape.

      Wikipedia article

  11. Highly poisonous by scowling · · Score: 0

    Y'know, for me, the concern would have nothing to do with the ship being raided and the plutonium stolen to make bombs.

    For em, the issue is that plutonium is astonishingly poisonous. One microgram of ingested plutonium will cause cancer half the time over some short period of time (I don't remembe the specifics, only what I recall from the Guinness Book of World Records).

    140kg of plutonium is enough to cause cancer in the entire world population about ten times over.

    Just blow the ship up. Fish will eat the plutonium. We'll eat the fish. Millions die.

    (Paranoid? Yeah, a little.)

    --
    www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
    1. Re:Highly poisonous by turgid · · Score: 4, Informative
      For em, the issue is that plutonium is astonishingly poisonous.

      That's actually an urban myth. Read about it at the wikipedia.

      140kg of plutonium is enough to cause cancer in the entire world population about ten times over.

      Depends what you mean by "cause cancer." Tt is generally accepted that exposure to ionising radiation icreases your risk of developing cancer by an amount depending on the type of radiation, its strength and the time you are exposed to it. This is a very complicated subject, and people make careers out of understanding it and supervising radiation workers. Technically, exposure to any sort of ionising radiation at all increases your risk of developing a fatal cancer. For example, every banana you eat (which contains naturally-occuring potassium-50) slightly increases your risk. Having a dental X-ray increases your risk somewhat more, and so does flying in an aeroplane.

      I'm not sure what the dose rate is from weapons-grade plutonium, but people are able to handle it in the lab, and people are able to stand next to nuclear warheads, all without turning green and losing their hair.

      The dangers of plutonium are greatly exaggerated. I knew a man who ingested some. They figured out that the likeleyhood of him catching cancer from it was very small.

      Smoking cigarettes is far more dangerous.

    2. Re:Highly poisonous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plutonium is chemically poisonous, although nowhere near as nasty as botulism toxin or the nastier organics such as arrow-poison frog toxin, desolation angel mushrooms, or brussel sprouts :^P. The main danger with non-critical mass Plutonium is inhalation since it is an alpha emitter and will cause lung cancer when inhaled.

    3. Re:Highly poisonous by eingram · · Score: 1

      Yes, thank you!

      A few facts from a book that never leaves my desk (called Nature's Building Blocks):

      It is dangerous because of the alpha particles it emits, but alpha particles are unable to penetrate even some of the thinnest materials.

      Pu-238 is used as an energy source in heart pacemakers (also used for some instruments on Apollo 14, and on both Voyager missions).

      I knew a man who ingested some. They figured out that the likeleyhood of him catching cancer from it was very small.

      I'm assuming it was plutonium oxide? I think it also mentions the body absorbs about .4% but it can be dangerous if that little amount ends up in your bone marrow.

    4. Re:Highly poisonous by eingram · · Score: 1

      Nope, make that .04%! Even better! :)

    5. Re:Highly poisonous by turgid · · Score: 1
      I can't remember whether it was plutonium oxide and how much he ingested. We used to work in a nulcear power station, and he was in Health Physics. I can't remember the exact figures, but I had a really low occupational dose from radiation being mainly an office worker (Reactor Physics). We worked at one of the UK's oldest Magnox stations (and hence most "dosey"). To give you an order of magnitude estimate, they figured out that his dose from ingested plutonium over 50 years would be about a tenth (IIRC) of my exposure from being present on site over 5 years. To put that in perspective too, it was approximately equivalent to natural background radiation from a very low-dose area c.f. some places where you can get several 10s (or well over 100) mili Sieverts a year from radon exposure alone.

      You ralrely get any perspective from news stories on matters nulcear.

    6. Re:Highly poisonous by the-other-bill · · Score: 1

      Technically, exposure to any sort of ionising radiation at all increases your risk of developing a fatal cancer. For example, every banana you eat (which contains naturally-occuring potassium-50) slightly increases your risk.

      Actually, it's potassium-40 -- but I suspect you just typoed that one. However, there are cases where the cancer risk drops way down when you are exposed to a certain "alarming" elevated level of radiation. Check out http://www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/chen.pdf/ or, better yet, just google for the phrase "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?"

      It tells the story of that Taiwanese apartment complex that was built with the Cobalt 60 contaminated rebar. 10,000 folks live there for 20 years and ended up with cancer rates about 4% of what was expected for that population. Sooner or later, we're going to start paying attention to what the universe is trying to tell us.

      My money is on later.

    7. Re:Highly poisonous by sribe · · Score: 1

      For em, the issue is that plutonium is astonishingly poisonous. One microgram of ingested plutonium will cause cancer half the time over some short period of time (I don't remembe the specifics, only what I recall from the Guinness Book of World Records).

      Plutonium is also astonishingly dense, and not water-soluble. Somehow the greens never seem to notice ;-)

    8. Re:Highly poisonous by Alosja · · Score: 1

      If they should drop the plutonium in the water (very unlikely) it still woundn't be any problem. Tons of Uranium are already "floating" around, both from rivers and from nuclear disposalplaces. So, i think this will go very well :) Sending plutonium to France however, that could be dangerous ;)

      --
      A little stupidity is as unlikely as a little pregnancy
    9. Re:Highly poisonous by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that NASA scientists have documented bacterial cells churning out tons of DNA-repair enzymes under heavy radiation, which allows them to live on spaceship hulls that have been sterilized with UV light.

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
  12. Whats the problem? by Inominate · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Both have a squad of armed police on board from the UK Atomic Energy Agency Constabulary.
    The ships carry naval cannons, have satellite monitoring, twin engines and hull protection.


    These are _armed_ ships, with armed security. An attack on them would require a warship. So north korea or iran or some other nation is going to attack and try and seize this ship? A couple terrorists with guns and a speedboat isn't going to cut it.

    I fail to see how this is any more dangerous than the transportation of any hazardous chemicals, or gold bullion, except it seems to be rather more secure.

    Hooray for sensationalist alarmist stories!

    1. Re:Whats the problem? by Thrymm · · Score: 1

      Exactly! The only real worry would be if they steered into a tropical storm/hurricane and somehow sank. Then there would be environmental issues.

    2. Re:Whats the problem? by RWerp · · Score: 1

      A couple terrorists with guns and a speedboat isn't going to cut it.

      Unless they are the speedboats used to attack USS "Cole".

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    3. Re:Whats the problem? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      First, the USS Cole wasn't carrying nuclear material, so shooting at some dumb smuck getting close to the boat was not a top priority. They say the boat come in, they had their guns trained on the boat, they just didn't want to fire and potentially kill some foolish civilians trying to get a photo. I imagine that the people guarding the tanker will be far more liberal in their use of force.

      Second, the Cole didn't sink, and you can bet that what they are transporting in nuclear material on has a double haul and probably would take a much longer time to sink.

      Third, even if the ship did sink, even if they didn't simply remove the plutonium before the ship sank, that still doesn't change the fact that it is a safe bet that the plutonium is in a casing that isn't going to burst open.

      No terrorist are going to steal the plutonium. At worst, they can sink the ship. Honestly, I would be much more worried about naval ships sinking and making a mess with their nuclear reactors then a few well contained and protected hunks plutonium. If terrorist really are so stupid as to go after such a dumb target, more power to them. Better they die doing something worthless the find a real target.

    4. Re:Whats the problem? by UranusReallyHertz · · Score: 1

      Not really. Its probbably in water tight containers, and we could probbably retrieve it.

      --
      Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
    5. Re:Whats the problem? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Or go around ;)

  13. But your scenario doesn't work by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    The Pu in question has already been converted to plutonium oxide; there is nothing to burn, and it is extremely stable.

    1. Re:But your scenario doesn't work by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Sorry- missed this bit- you're right. While the fireworks are still good for material dispersal, the plutonium oxide has already been melted and reformed- and can't be turned back into powdery ash.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  14. That is the irony, isn't it? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Greenpeace would rather have the plutonium "disposed of as nuclear waste" while it is still weapons-grade material, rather than truly converted to nuclear waste and made useless for fisson bombs first.

    This is one reason why, despite being an environmentalist, I have little use for today's environmental "movement". The groups who go to great efforts to paint themselves green turn out to be watermelons.

    1. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by turgid · · Score: 1
      This is one reason why, despite being an environmentalist, I have little use for today's environmental "movement". The groups who go to great efforts to paint themselves green turn out to be watermelons.

      :-)

    2. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's clear what the unspoken meaning is though. They're throwing out red herrings to inderectly support their anti-nuclear power agenda. They don't directly care about potential terrorist threats, they are just anti energy consumption. People like this aren't really environmentalists. Their goal isn't truly to protect the environment, but to enforce a particular lifestyle on others. The members of these organizations have either bought into that policy, are essentially cattle following the group, are horribly misinformed about what is actually best for the environment, or are just plain stupid. Whenever a chance presents it self, the oportunity should be taken to expose groups like greenpeace (and especially greenpeace) as social engineering organizations with goals that are not merely environmental, or in many cases not actualy envorinmental at all. As long as a single person still views what a group like Greenpeace says as credible, there is one too many people believing them.

    3. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by Suidae · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they are just anti energy consumption. People like this aren't really environmentalists.

      What? I'm anti energy consumption. That doesn't mean I think we should all live in caves, just that we (Americans in particular) are extraordinarily wasteful with our energy. There is nothing wrong with being anti energy comsumption.

      If I were king I'd make incandescent lights illegal, replace all coal-fired power plants with those new pebble-bed reactors and build nuclear waste reprocessing plants all over so we can extract every last erg from the nuclear fuels we have. And yes, they can put it in my back yard.

    4. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      There is nothing wrong with being anti energy comsumption.


      There's a difference between being anti energy consumption, and being against wastefullness. You sound like you're the latter. Anyone truly anti-energy consumption would just kill themselves and all life since it takes energy consumption to live (or so says the laws of thermodynamics).

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:That is the irony, isn't it? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      replace all coal-fired power plants with those new pebble-bed reactors

      That one comment makes you thousands of times more rational than the Greenpeace agenda would allow. When I describe them as anti-consumption, I mean that as them being in an entirely different league than where you are. Replacing incandescent lights wouldn't lower your quality of life enough to satisfy them. You shouldn't need that power plant, no matter what fires it.

  15. Bits from the article by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Environmentalists say it presents a major terrorist target.

    So let's protest to be sure it makes international news and everyone with an internet connection will know about it.

    Both have a squad of armed police on board from the UK Atomic Energy Agency Constabulary. The ships carry naval cannons, have satellite monitoring, twin engines and hull protection.

    "Ok Abdullah, here's the plan: we'll sneak in really quiet so they don't kill us with their 30mm cannons. We then kill a dozen armed guards, disable the automatic satellite tracking, then avoid all of the spy satellites, AWACS, aircraft carriers, and submarines from every infidel country that will be looking for us, and book it 5000 miles for home in this giant freighter. Are you done sharpening your boxcutter?"

    But critics say the shipment would be safer if carried on a naval frigate.

    I hope it's not the environmentalists making that criticism. The ships are owned by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL). They were designed to safely and securely transport the stuff. It's not like you just want to toss the stuff in the dry storage on a frigate.

    Captain Malcolm Miller, head of international transport at BNFL, said they were the "safest sea transports" he had ever seen. A naval escort had not been requested and was not necessary, he added.

    He ain't worried, and he's in the middle of it.

    Irish Environment Minister Martin Cullen told the BBC that "any accident could have catastrophic effects." He wants assurances that they will not pass near Irish waters.

    An understandable concern, I suppose. I would expect that the fuel is sealed up in a pretty durable container that would contain any leaks long enough for recovery if the ships sank.

    Ireland, with New Zealand, Peru and Chile, is co-sponsoring a proposal at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seeking detailed information for coastal states on all movements of nuclear material in international waters.

    Seems like a good idea. It sounded, however, like BNFL was being pretty generous with relevant information on this trip, even though they don't have to.

    Greenpeace says the plutonium should be disposed of as nuclear waste to avoid the transport and proliferation risks.

    Ok, so it's unacceptable to burn it, move it, or leave it sitting in storage. Let's take Greenpeace's advice, then, and dispose of it as nuclear waste in a way that will keep it safe for 10000+ years in a chemically stable, glass form, in concrete and steel casks, a couple thousand feet underground in Yucca Moun...oh wait, they're protesting that also.

  16. Reprocessing? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Reprocessing is the chemical separation of fissionables from fission products in spent fuel. None of that is going on; the fissionables came from the warheads in pure form (metal), have already been converted to ceramic (oxide), and could probably be mixed into partially-enriched uranium oxide and sintered into fuel pellets right here. I am aware of no legal barrier to this (which does not mean there is not one).

    I suspect that the real barrier is the refusal of publicity- and litigation-shy US nuclear plant operators to have anything to do with nuclear weapons, even their ultimate and permanent disposal. By the end of a fuel cycle, conventional PWRs are deriving a majority of their power from fission of Pu-239 bred from the U-238 in the fuel pellets. Despite that fact, "environmentalists" can still panic the ignorant public with talk of power from plutonium.

  17. LOL by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

    Pity they didn't have those machines when they built the chunnel... Could have had it done in a week... Funny site.

  18. Non-nukes know nothing by PickyH3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's funny, the difference between what people in the [nuclear] industry know, and what many of you think you know.

    1. Re:Non-nukes know nothing by Jormundgandr · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that little bit of condescension. Care to enlighten anyone?

      --
      -sig removed for tax purposes-
  19. All Pu is "weapons grade" by aminorex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As opposed to Uranium which is difficult to isotopically separate, essentially all Pu is
    usable in an implosion device, so simple chemical
    separation suffices. It is a bit trickier to
    detonate plutonium, because of the precise timing
    requirements for the compression charges, but the
    upside is that it's a lot easier to go thermonuclear,
    if you've got the tritium.

    --
    -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    1. Re:All Pu is "weapons grade" by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Mostly true, but different grades of plutonium have differing degrees of difficulty and yield for a nuclear weapon. Like uranium, the plutonium is not all one isotope. For a weapon you want a high amount of PU-239. From Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility:

      These other isotopes create some difficulties for design and fabrication of nuclear weapons.

      * First and most important, plutonium-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, meaning that the plutonium in the device will continually produce many background neutrons, which have the potential to reduce weapon yield by starting the chain reaction prematurely.

      * Second, the isotope plutonium-238 decays relatively rapidly, thereby significantly increasing the rate of heat generation in the material.

      * Third, the isotope americium-241 (which results from the 14-year half-life decay of plutonium-241 and hence builds up in reactor-grade plutonium over time) emits highly penetrating gamma rays, increasing the radioactive exposure of any personnel handling the material.


      The end effect is a lower yield because of the potential for PU-240 to cause pre-ignition. It's still a nuclear weapon with horrific consequences of course.
      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:All Pu is "weapons grade" by nucleargeek · · Score: 1

      All Pu is not weapon grade!
      Pu is obtained by neutron capture on 238U. The problem is that 239Pu(the usefull one) can also capture neutrons to produce 240Pu that is not as stable as 239Pu and produces unstable/unsafe weapons.
      So in order to produce weapon grade Pu the U must be left in a flux of neutrons long enough to produce 239Pu, but it must be taken out before the 240Pu starts to build up. That's why the IAEA inspectors in charge of nuclear non-proliferation track the loading and unloading of nuclear fuel in civilian reactors, to make sure that the fuel stays long enough in the reactor to produce enough 240Pu to spoil possible military usfullness.

    3. Re:All Pu is "weapons grade" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. IF you have more than about 6.5% Pu-240 then it's not weapons grade - and commercial reactor fuel is usually way way above that at the end of a fuel cycle. Typically it gets to at least 15%, and probably much more in a long cycle in a PWR or other light water reactor.

      If you have a large amount then you will tend to get a fizzle - if you ran the Nagasaki bomb with an excess of Pu-240 (bear in mind it only had about 0.5% Pu-240 due to the rush production at Hanford in the war) then you would get a yield of about 500 tonnes, not 15kT

      Also there is no need for tritium for a thermonuclear weapon. Tritium is used in boosted fission devices, but it's thirteen year half life makes it inconvenient, and it's expensive to produce in quantities. Fusion weapons use deuterium in the secondary stage, not tritium.

  20. Hypocrasy by cakefool · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This is the same French nation the American government has such an intense hatred of?

    Funny how you sever all links with a country to the extent of renaming french fries, then go crawling for help when you want your Plutonium reprocessing.

    Which incidently leads me to the following -

    Nation A is shipping weapons grade nuclear material to nation B, where it will be processed and returned to A

    If A OR B != America
    THEN GoToWar ==1
    ELSE ??

    Hypocrisy - its great

  21. What a waste by JediTrainer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The shame. Wasting all that precious fuel on some nuclear reactors. I mean, how many DeLoreans can we power with 140kg of plutonium?

    --

    You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
  22. WRONG by stratjakt · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows that 10kg of plutonium is much heavier than 10kg of lead.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:WRONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, which is heavier, a ton of bricks, or a tonne of feathers?