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