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."
Or disguise themselves as veteran British seamen and seize the bridge.
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
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.
Mouse powered Chips, Open source Processors and Lego
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....
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.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
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!
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?"
The ______ Agenda
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.
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
Where are the neutrons coming from?
Stick Men
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!
I think he was refering to the effect neutron bombs have on cities, the people are gone but the buildings are still there.
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.
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.
Stick Men
:-)
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.
Stick Men
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.
The Pu in question has already been converted to plutonium oxide; there is nothing to burn, and it is extremely stable.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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.
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
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.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Pity they didn't have those machines when they built the chunnel... Could have had it done in a week... Funny site.
It's funny, the difference between what people in the [nuclear] industry know, and what many of you think you know.
Yes, thank you!
.4% but it can be dangerous if that little amount ends up in your bone marrow.
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
Nope, make that .04%! Even better! :)
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-
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.
You ralrely get any perspective from news stories on matters nulcear.
Stick Men
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.
/ or, better yet, just google for the phrase "Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer?"
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
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.
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.
Everyone knows that 10kg of plutonium is much heavier than 10kg of lead.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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
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
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
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-