Slashdot Mirror


Cobalt-60, and Lessons From a Mexican Theft

Lasrick writes "George Moore and Miles Pomper examine the theft of a truck containing Cobalt-60 and find that, while Mexico did the right thing and reported the theft promptly, they were under no obligation to do so according to international rules and the IAEA. This was true even though the stolen material was 3,000 curies, making it a Category 1 source (the most dangerous). Quoting: 'At a distance of 30.5 centimeters (1 foot) from an unshielded source with an activity level of 3,000 curies, the dose to a bystander would be about 37,000 Rem per hour (a measure of radiation exposure). This means that anyone within a foot of the source when it was out of its shield was being exposed to about 10 Rem per second, a level that would typically kill half of a population exposed to it for 30 seconds. ... The number of fatalities will not be nearly as high as it would have been if the source capsule had been left in a public place. Cobalt 60, like other high-risk radiological sources, is more lethal when it is kept intact as a high-strength source than it would be if spread using a radiological dispersal device such as a so-called “dirty bomb.” Nonetheless, had the Mexican source been used in a dispersal device, the economic consequences could have been extremely significant.'"

17 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. They Dont Call It Goblin Metal for Nothing. by auric_dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An account of what happened and what could have happened via Steve Weintz https://medium.com/war-is-boring/26b40dd869fb

  2. So In Effect... by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Had a terrorist put this under a seat cushion in a bus terminal, they could kill hundreds, perhaps thousands before it would eventually be tracked down.

    Damn dirty bombs, sneak attacks are more deadly.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:So In Effect... by ElementOfDestruction · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think they have a lot of seat cushions in Mexican bus terminals?

      Give me a break. Terrorists wouldn't waste their time - they'd use it as a dirty bomb for the media attention, they wouldn't be a pest and try to kill 1 person a day randomly over the next 12 years. Where's the attention in that?

    2. Re:So In Effect... by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cut open the hand holds on a NYC subway and put it in there, then seal it back up. 1 a day would be hundreds. They'd track it down to a specific car within a day or two, and you could probably get it out that night. So kill hundreds in a subway, shutting down the system for a while, then take it back and do your dirty bomb the next day.

    3. Re:So In Effect... by mjwalshe · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its not an immediate lethal dose you die in several days in a gruesome way - Stargate had an episode where one of Dr Jackson had this happen to him "Meridian" is the episode its a fairly realistic depiction of death by massive radiation exposure.

    4. Re:So In Effect... by ImprovOmega · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure such a terrorist would even live long enough to plant such a device. If it's strong enough to kill people who are sitting next to it, it will at least sicken, if not kill, the person who plants it.

    5. Re:So In Effect... by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Radiation "suits" aren't really a thing. There are some out there, but the only one's I've seen are similar to EOD suits. You're probably thinking of Level A HazMat suits which are chemical protective suits. People toss around NBC or CBRNE, but not all the words really go together, it's more about grouping together a bunch of very rare - yet very dangerous - threats.

      Chemical and Biological can be paired up pretty easily because a lot of the protective equipment can be used for either.

      Radioactive came to be separated from Nuclear because dirty bomb became such a buzzword. The actual fatalities from a dirty bomb would be relatively low, but the public's general fear of anything radioactive makes it a good choice for terrorists (using the strictest definition of terrorist).

      Nuclear now specifically refers to a nuclear detonation and it shares some effects with Explosives except it has the added "benefits" of fallout.

      Explosives is nothing new, but it gets lumped in with the rest because it's not an average threat for first responders.

    6. Re:So In Effect... by gagol · · Score: 4, Informative

      It protects from radiation POISONING, not radiation exposure. Unless you are willing to wear a couple feet thick concrete vest, you will be exposed to harmful radiation. The best method to mitigate it, is to limit exposure (see how workers of Chernobyl cleaned the roof of the reactor, good read).

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    7. Re:So In Effect... by fluffy99 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Correct. First known instance of a criticality accident happened at Los Alamos in 1945. Exposure was 510 rem plus additional exposure immediately after. He was pretty sick within hours, but it took him 25 days to die. A similar accident with the same material a year later killed the scientist in 9-days.

    8. Re:So In Effect... by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey, you guys sent me this same notice, but no one has shown up.. I'm getting bored. Can you please hurry up? :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    9. Re:So In Effect... by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'll post this again since it's relevant. A hospital worker in Israel exposed himself to a cobalt-60 radiation source for 1-2 minutes while trying to fix a sterilizer. The IAEA report of the incident is pretty detailed, including photos and x-rays documenting his injuries and eventual demise a month later.

      During the Cold War, the Soviets had vastly more tanks than NATO. So one of the common hypothetical scenarios was an unstoppable Soviet invasion led by their tanks. The NATO response plan included detonating airburst nukes over the advancing army. While these would directly kill only a few near the hypocenter, soldiers in a much larger area would receive a lethal dose of radiation. These so-called walking dead would survive to fight a few more days or weeks before succumbing to their injuries. I suspect this scenario and particularly the term "walking dead" played some part in the genesis of the modern zombie movie. The movie widely credited with creating the zombie horde theme (Night of the Living Dead) was filmed in the late 1960s during the height of the Cold War.

  3. 61 by puddingebola · · Score: 5, Funny

    '61 was a much better year for Cobalt. Cobalt-60 far overrated, and people are paying too much for it on the open market.

    1. Re:61 by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Funny

      people are paying too much for it on the open market

      Typical knee-jerk Cobalt60-skepticism here on Slashdot. Everyone wants to compare it to tulip mania and yell "bubble", and won't believe that the recent price run-up is because people are genuinely finding it useful as a non-state-controlled currency. USD's days are numbered; in the future, coins glow blue.

    2. Re:61 by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      I opened 750ml bottle of Cobalt '60, but less than 1ml of it was still fresh.

  4. Re:So the Dirty Bomb was more Media FUD by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not exactly. A dirty bomb wouldn't kill very many people, not directly, anyways (or at least not in the short term, although it'd raise the cancer rate considerably). What it would do is be one of the best weapons of terror ever used. Radiation freaks people out, because they don't understand it, can't see it, and can't really do anything about it. Terrorism don't have to cause damage to be effective, all they have to do is cause terror. The people/government does the rest.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  5. Re:So the Dirty Bomb was more Media FUD by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yet with a dirty bomb attack the only people likely to benefit are those already in power by gaining more power as a result. As with any weapon of mass destruction the only defence is attack, so once someone attempts to use it against you the only future defence is all out attack. So only useful for false flags, as in the Anthrax attack target at US politicians by, well, US politicians, in order to drive the vote for the Patriot Act or as it is in reality the non-Patriot totalitarian police state Act.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  6. Re:Similar incident in Brazil in 1987 by xyzzymage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There was no warning pictogram on the layer that the victims interacted with, which was found at the scrapyard that the thieves had sold the dismantled machine to. When the capsule was brought to a hospital, the staff couldn't figure out whether it was dangerous until a visiting nuclear physicist borrowed equipment from a government lab to check.

    The only person that 'played with' or smeared it on their skin was a six-year-old girl who died after eating a sandwich some of the grains/powder had fallen onto.

    Evidently only the initial scavengers/thieves were uneducated & poor. The guy that found the cesium-137 didn't handle it in a way that suggested a lack of money (sharing it, wanting to have it turned into a ring for his wife, offering rewards for helping extract it, etc.). The city the families lived at the edges of is similar to a standard major North American city and has a similar educational system, so chances are that they were as educated as anyone up here.