Slashdot Mirror


Radioactive Material Stolen In Iraq Raises Security Fears (reuters.com)

mdsolar writes with a link to a Reuters report that begins: Iraq is searching for 'highly dangerous' radioactive material stolen last year, according to an environment ministry document and seven security, environmental and provincial officials who fear it could be used as a weapon if acquired by Islamic State. The material, stored in a protective case the size of a laptop computer, went missing in November from a storage facility near the southern city of Basra belonging to U.S. oilfield services company Weatherford WFT.N, the document seen by Reuters showed and officials confirmed. A spokesman for Iraq's environment ministry said he could not discuss the issue, citing national security concerns.

93 comments

  1. a year ago? by neo8750 · · Score: 1

    That shits long gone now...

    1. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a year ago?

      That shits long gone now...

      If it was stolen a year ago, then yes, you're probably right. (In fact, if it's highly radioactive, it probably has a short enough half-life that a fair amount of would be *really* gone after a year).

      But the summary actually says "last year", so that could be as recent at a month an a half ago (assuming the Western calendar, of course). So

    2. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Long gone, but useful. They can therefore run a "dirty-bomb scare", and justify military operations. You don't want someone scattering radioactive waste on your children, do you?

    3. Re:a year ago? by pahles · · Score: 1

      It was stolen in November according to TFA...

      --
      Sig?
    4. Re:a year ago? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's half life is approx 73 days so it should be 1/2 gone by now. It's a beta & gamma emitter so good for a dirty bomb as you really don't want to inhale/ingest those beta particles.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    5. Re:a year ago? by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Informative

      It has a half life of 73.8 days (Ir-192). So already it is half as radioactive as it used to be. While it would take a long time (4 years) for the sample to fully decay, the exponential nature of radioactive decay means that most of those 4 years are spent going from a very small amount of radioactivity to zero radioactivity thanks to diminishing returns. Also if you bear in mind that with a bomb you would be spreading this material over a very large area (because terrorists like to think big, so they would probably go for as spectacular an explosion as they could manage), a depleted sample would not provide much more than background radiation after a few half-lives. If you're going to build an effective dirty bomb you really want to steal something with a much longer half-life.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily... Imagine Dragons is still around.

    7. Re:a year ago? by thermopile · · Score: 5, Informative
      Iridium-192 sources like the one stolen are typically sold in the US at activities between 50 and 100 Ci. They're used to take "x-rays" of pipe welds to look for porosity, evenness, cracks, etc.

      The actual seed source is about as big as a pencil eraser, maybe a little smaller. Thus, it would be hard to repurpose as a dirty bomb - it's a lump and all it would do is fly somewhere else in an explosion.

      Radioactive sources are lost all the time. This website from the NRC keeps a log of all lost sources. While losing a source like this in Iraq is unfortunate, it's not uncommon.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

    8. Re:a year ago? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Yeah but don't tell the press that - then they wouldn't be able to run with "zOMG RADIASHUN!" stories. If I was a bad guy wanting to do some harm I'd probably have more success stealing a cobalt-60 core from a linear accelerator and instead of building a bomb with it, leaving it in a wall somewhere in a busy train station or something...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good news is the thieves also are contanimated most likely (and hopefully sterile now).

    10. Re:a year ago? by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      Despite the source not wanting to discuss this due to "national security concerns", it's almost certainly a nuclear density gauge. If you really wanted one of those, you could steal it from any number of construction or mining firms in whatever country you're in.

      It's also far more likely to have been misplaced rather than stolen, it's a generic-looking piece of engineering gear that someone probably set aside and that got lost among the piles of other gear lying around. Think "contractors misplace demolition hammer" in terms of how momentous this story is. If it wasn't for the magic words "Iraq" and "nuclear" this would never have made the news.

    11. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't really ingest beta particles, you mean ingest a beta emitter.

    12. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's half life is approx 73 days so it should be 1/2 gone by now.

      That's not how Radioactive Decay works.
      And without knowing specifically what isotope of what element it started out as, you have no way of knowing if it decayed into a stable isotope or another radioactive one.
      Either way what you're left with is still going to be extremely toxic, radiation or not.

    13. Re:a year ago? by rwise2112 · · Score: 2

      Ir-192, as the article states has a half-life of 73 days, and decays to stable platinum and osmium. So, yes, it's about half gone.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    14. Re:a year ago? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Just looking at the wiki page for iridium and there appear to be two types of it at element 192. The one with the 73.8 day half life decays by beta emission, the one with a 241 year half life is a gamma emitter. Since they were using it for the gamma emissions, I would guess it has a significant amount of the latter isotope.

      Being a gamma emitter, it probably would make a decent dirty bomb. That said, it probably also would cause very few deaths from radiation (dirty bombs are all about the fear, really). Would be a bitch to clean up, though.

    15. Re:a year ago? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      You might think that a strong gamma source would be quite visible to appropriate detectors; I have heard from reliable sources that when the radiation detector were installed at the boarder, the Canadians had to seam clean all of the trash trailers, before they could get them through customs, even empty they were too radioactive to be allowed over.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:a year ago? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to school. It's EXACTLY how radioactive decay works. The 'provenance' of an element (what isotope of what element it started out as) has NO bearing on the decay products of the element...you see that's the nice thing about an ELEMENT...its properties are 100% its own & has nothing to do with how the element 'became' the element. e.g 'hydrogen is hydrogen is hydrogen' how you got an H particle doesn''t fucking matter to its properties.

      So a 73 day 1/2 life means exactly what a 'half-life' means...eg. 'half the material will decay to daughter products in 73 days'...and in this case the daughter products are not radioactive.

      The longer this goes without an incident or without finding the material the 'safer' everyone gets. Eventually you can ignore any risk as there won't be enough radioactive material left to make a hoot of difference.

    17. Re:a year ago? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

      So in a few years it ends up harmless yet valuable, hmmm you know that may be all there is to the story.

  2. Oilfield services company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they need radioactive material? Any ideas?

    1. Re:Oilfield services company by Grench · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're typically used in wireline logging (real-time collection of down-well data, used for measuring the mineral content of strata being drilled through - this is how they're able to tell there are hydrocarbons present). They also use them to measure flow rate.

      This Wikipedia article is reasonably good:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      "As of 2003 the isotopes Antimony-124, argon-41, cobalt-60, iodine-131, iridium-192, lanthanum-140, manganese-56, scandium-46, sodium-24, silver-110m, technetium-99m, and xenon-133 were most commonly used by the oil and gas industry because they are easily identified and measured.[3][5] Bromine-82, Carbon-14, hydrogen-3, iodine-125 are also used.[3][4]"

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    2. Re:Oilfield services company by StatureOfLiberty · · Score: 2

      You think WFT is a typo?

  3. Highly dangerous? by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article:

    belonging to U.S. oilfield services company Weatherford WFT.N

    Going out on a limb here, but that'll likely be a source for pipe inspections or similar jobs? Read: relatively small quantity, and no way that would be bomb-making material. Even if it fell into the wrong hands, then at worst such material could be used as ingredient of a small-scale dirty bomb: a conventional bomb with 'special sauce' to cause a "radioactive!" scare. For that purpose probably more dangerous to anyone trying to do so, than for the people in a target area.

    Granted, in terms of victims / environment / health hazards that could still do some damage. But in the greater scheme of things, I'd take "highly dangerous" with a grain of salt here.

    1. Re:Highly dangerous? by Shinobi · · Score: 0

      Or you could use it to poison food or water sources etc. Only retarded geeks think nuclear bombs is the only thing that counts when it comes to radioactive materials.

    2. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know whether iridium 192 (reportedly what was in there) has a similar effect, but having a cup of tea with polonium can be pretty nasty...

    3. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the article:

      belonging to U.S. oilfield services company Weatherford WFT.N

      Going out on a limb here, but that'll likely be a source for pipe inspections or similar jobs? Read: relatively small quantity, and no way that would be bomb-making material. Even if it fell into the wrong hands, then at worst such material could be used as ingredient of a small-scale dirty bomb: a conventional bomb with 'special sauce' to cause a "radioactive!" scare. For that purpose probably more dangerous to anyone trying to do so, than for the people in a target area.

      Granted, in terms of victims / environment / health hazards that could still do some damage. But in the greater scheme of things, I'd take "highly dangerous" with a grain of salt here.

      Cobalt-60 and Caesium-137 are highly dangerous if ingested in significant quantities. Curiously neither are toxic as such, you just get a distributed full body radiation dose.

    4. Re:Highly dangerous? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're going to poison the water, I'm sure there are more effective and easier substances you could use than radioactive materials.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Highly dangerous? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yes, you could try to poison water source with something like this, but even if one were to devise a method to dissipate this in a water supply, it would likely have zero measurable health effects on those who consume the water.

      As far as bomb building, the bomb itself is what might be deadly, and again, the spread contamination would no likely result in any measurable health impacts to anyone.

      Dirty bombs are simply not practical. Those smart enough to make an effective one know that there are much easier ways to harm masses of people, so they wouldn't waste their time. The only ones putting forth the dirty bomb scare are the ignorant and the fear mongers.

    6. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Cobalt and Caesium can be toxins, it's just that you could use non-radioactive versions for that effect.

      Or in Caesium's case, you could use sodium or potassium instead.

      Radioactive poisoning, however, is different from chemical.

    7. Re:Highly dangerous? by rmdingler · · Score: 0
      Could be. Halliburton lost, then found, a rod containing radioactive Americium-241/Beryllium they were using for well testing in West Texas.

      A spokesman for Iraq's environment ministry said he could not discuss the issue, citing national security concerns.

      Hearing the gov't rep from Iran say it kind of brings home the phrase's absurdity.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not be effective from a health point of view, but the political reaction that would follow would probably be unprecedented. Thus, a dirty bomb may make a very viable terrorist weapon, even if it is not much more dangerous than the explosive used to build it.

    9. Re:Highly dangerous? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The representative you quoted is from Iraq.

    10. Re:Highly dangerous? by djscoumoune · · Score: 0

      Iraq is already poisoned by radioactive materials from uranium ammunitons that the US has used. Studies show many birth problems, cancers. An article I found about congenital anomalies in Fallujah https://www.rt.com/op-edge/who...

    11. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      such material could be used as ingredient of a small-scale dirty bomb

      See, there are WMDs in Iraq after all! ;)

    12. Re:Highly dangerous? by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      RT is not a source for health physics studies. The Wikipedia article has some decent references, in summary, no causal link was found by reputable researchers.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    13. Re:Highly dangerous? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Like lead?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:Highly dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except firing shells you are energizing ~some~ of the formerly depleted material from some quantity of time on a routine basis. It is actually a health hazard due to being a heavy metal regardles of radiation too.

    15. Re:Highly dangerous? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I had heard that there might be some causal link - but I did not click your link. I'm deferring to you and not going to argue with Wikipedia.

      That said - it's not with the Iraqi people. It was about the folks we sent in, US troops, to clean it up, walk among it, and then go back and clean up the radioactive materials left behind without proper PPE.

      It was on NPR quite a while back. I didn't track it down, I didn't follow it up, I have no idea the veracity. If your link doesn't mention that, or doesn't get into it, then I've no idea - it wasn't that long ago, I'm not sure they'd be able to make that conclusion at this time? I know it was a concern, they mentioned it. I want to say this was like 2007?

      So, I just figured I'd toss it out there. I'll defer to you and Wikipedia. I'd not think that the confidence would be all that high with just that short of a time-frame after the event? I just seems a bit short - we don't know what they've got for cancers before they die, they're not dead yet. But, if they develop them, will they be able to link 'em?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. What kind of weapon, since the amount is so small? by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A fear weapon aimed at panicky fools and the media that preys on and inflames their ignorance with hysterical half-truths.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  5. Time for a media freak out! by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The security failure is a bit worrying but I doubt this is really that big a threat. If it was so radioactive that it could kill lots of people from acute radiation sickness, then it will be very hard to smuggle anywhere without being detected. Certainly much harder than just a big cache of conventional weapons/explosives. On the other hand, a radiation weapon where ISIS then announces that those exposed may have a 50% increased chance of dying from cancer in the next 30 years seems rather preferable to a bunch of nutters unloading assault rifles into a crowd.

    This is really just a continuation of the 'OMG freak out about nuclear thing' that has been with us since the 60s. Nuclear can be bad, but there is also radiation all around us, and we do know how to detect and manage radiation risks. People still live next to Chernobyl and Fukushima did actually melt down, yet Japan was still there when I visited last year.

    1. Re:Time for a media freak out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be sure that you actually landed in Japan? It was probably just a film studio set made to look like Japan might, if it still existed.

    2. Re:Time for a media freak out! by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      (...) radiation all around us, and we do know how to detect and manage radiation risks.

      Wrong! Most people still refuse to wear sunscreen.

      (...) and Fukushima did actually melt down, yet Japan was still there when I visited last year.

      Good to know, thanks!

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    3. Re:Time for a media freak out! by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      If that was a movie set, it would have been destructed by a Kaiju before he left.

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    4. Re:Time for a media freak out! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Don't you realize that this is the sum of all fears?!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Time for a media freak out! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Sunscreen is overrated. Sure it prevents you from radiation burns from too much UV-B, but you're also out in the sun too long exposed to other radiation, some of which is more likely to cause cancer than UV-B. I'd rather be out in the sun less time and collect the Vitamin-D I get from UV-B radiation, personally. Also some of it is toxic and may cause cancer on its own. Not to mention it kills the reefs, so you're not supposed to go into the water near reefs until it soaks into your skin.

    6. Re:Time for a media freak out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perfect.
      I like the posts talking about dangers of solar radiation in comments for a nuclear FUD article put forth by mdsolar.

  6. straits of hormuz profitseize transpiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the brawl that ends it all... just like in the movies? even the bible? hang on to our hemispheres.. in the moms we trust

  7. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fear weapon aimed at panicky fools and the media that preys on and inflames their ignorance with hysterical half-truths.

    In other words, same old shit from a political and news reporting standpoint.

    After all, they're speaking to lemmings, proving they've done the market analysis as to what's effective.

  8. Sources and others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These materials are for wireline logging just as the post above mentions.
    I recall a few years back when Cesium went missing from an old X-ray machine in Mexico - possible that Daesh / ISIS / ISIL have hospitals already inside the towns that they have occupied and what about the threat from these?
    What about the radioactivity of depleted uranium when it burns? Isn't there some nastiness associated with burning that stuff?
    Thanks.

  9. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    So what is it here that you think are the "hysterical half-truths"?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  10. mdsolar again by bluegutang · · Score: 0

    Once again user "mdsolar" is back to spread FUD about alternatives to his solar energy business. In this case the "logic" is particularly absurd: some radioactive material is unaccounted for -> terrorists could make a radioactive bomb -> all radiation is bad -> nuclear energy also involves radiation -> you should use solar.

    Perhaps it's time for user "mdnuclear" to post about how the sun is dangerous because some people in Australia got skin cancer?

  11. got an anonymous tip... by sad_ · · Score: 2

    ... about a certain Emmett L Brown.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:got an anonymous tip... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! So thats where my plutonium got to.
      Last I heard someone was trying to retrofit the modified flux capacitor with reverse engineered technology swiped from CERN to a Hyundai i10, and use a Pi Zero, broken calculator and some IV-18 tubes for the time circuits because they were too much of a cheapskate to do it properly. SO when they end up in Salem in the 1700's I will be laughing hysterically.

      -Emmett L Brown.

  12. Radioactive material stolen from Iran raises... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This story does seem like it's intended to undermine the credibility of the Iranian nuclear deal amongst the generally ignorant populous of the west. Some radioactive elements get lost by an oil company in a non-conspiratorial setting... and political players ceased on that to make Iran into a potential WMD distributor.

    1. Re:Radioactive material stolen from Iran raises... by bigwheel · · Score: 1

      The story was about Iraq - not Iran.

    2. Re:Radioactive material stolen from Iran raises... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the generally ignorant populous of the west.

      the generally ignorant populace of the west.

  13. It is the usual mdedia/DHS scare mongering by aepervius · · Score: 2

    A dirty bomb is only fearful as much as the population fears it. In effects a dirty bomb is pretty much useless as far as effects goes. It ain't a nuke folks. At worst it contaminate a wide area of a few hundreds feet with a bit of radioactive materials which you have to clean off. Basically to have a health effect you have to have people ingest it , or to have it in huge quantity enough that exposure become dangerous. Spread it /dilute it enough to have a wide area and it loses its effects, OR have it effects, and the area/volume become so small as to not eb a concern. the only concern is the PANIC folk would have because dumb politician and media have used for year RDD as a kind of scarecrow. The PANIC would be what would massively kill people.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:It is the usual mdedia/DHS scare mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riiight.... because there's no way a small group of individuals couldn't come up with some way to do this. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head.

      The real story here is that it's not a large volume and its yield makes it almost useless. Dirty bombs can be a real threat and it doesn't take a genius to put together the elements needed to make it so.

    2. Re:It is the usual mdedia/DHS scare mongering by Creepy · · Score: 1

      They said in the article this stuff is a gamma emitter (which also means it's a different isotope of iridium than most people know about), so no, you don't have to ingest it. A dirty bomb made with an alpha emitter would need to be ingested to be most effective (because dead skin stops it). Beta is a mixed bag. In any case, you are correct that dirty bombs definitely don't have the range or killing power of a nuke by a long shot.

  14. WMD's in iraq !!! by bug1 · · Score: 1

    It was just a matter of time until they found them... er, i mean, lost them.

  15. Timeline of the November 2015 isotope theft by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    This is really just a continuation of the 'OMG freak out about nuclear thing' that has been with us since the 60s. Nuclear can be bad, but there is also radiation all around us, and we do know how to detect and manage radiation risks.

    Small package of radioactive tracer material left unattended.
    Dude walks past and notices,hey, this shit isn't nailed down.
    Dude thinks, maybe I can score some bucks off of this.
    Dude takes it and stashes it somewhere.
    Dude starts asking around, who wants to buy [this thing?]
    Everyone says, "Don't let the Americans know you got that. They're fucking crazy!"
    Dude just gives up.
    Company searches for the thing. It's gone.
    Company believes in responsible (wince) disclosure.
    Company is wincing because Americans shrug at the theft of high explosives.
    But theft of enough radioactive material to slightly irradiate an area brings on a shit storm.
    Time passes. Still not found.
    Someone in the Iraqi ministry realizes that they can fuck with America's mind by leaking the story.
    The fucking with America's mind begins.
    Rueters is chosen for the leak because they are staffed with whimpering radiophobes and never seek out the opinions of physicists and nuclear materials experts to corroborate the risk or put potential dose or usage into proper perspective.
    Rueters releases 'exclusive' wire story with few real details.
    Everyone dusts off their 'dirty bomb' files and updates them to threat du jour.
    $ perl -pni.bak -e 's/Bin Laden/ISIS/sgi'
    Headlines are created posing the new threat.
    Half of the stories are deliberately obfuscated so there is confusion whether a fission or 'dirty' bomb is being discussed.
    The dozen or so follow-up interviews where real experts shrug off (or laugh at) dirty bomb threat are left in archives.
    Google creates a handy new ID=0ahUKEwiCnOigpYHLAhVCKCYKHXhIDZkQqgIIKTAA to group the stories so you can see the silly headlines.
    Someone at Slashdot does not like nuclear power, because they like solar energy.
    It doesn't really make sense because to hate nuclear energy is to love natural gas, but there it is.
    So let's ride the cresting wave of hysteria and fear.

    Oh, how long can evil ISIS hold out? How can they possibly resist the diabolical urge to build the single little 'dirty bomb' that no one could ever completely prove would not erase our very existence? Will their tortured minds give in to uncontrollable desires? Can ISIS withstand the temptation to build the 'dirty bomb' that even now beckons to them in these shrill, childish headlines? Will they succumb to the maddening urge to (slightly) irradiate a small area? At the mere! [world press slaps its ass on ISIS' head] Building! [world press slaps its ass on ISIS' head] of a [world press slaps its ass on ISIS' head] single! [world press slaps its ass on ISIS' head] Bomb! The beautiful shiny 'dirty bomb'! The jolly, candy-like 'dirty bomb'! Will they hold out, folks? Can they hold out?

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
    1. Re:Timeline of the November 2015 isotope theft by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      News Ramen:

      Combine equal parts radioactive, missing, and Iraq.

      That's all you do. It stirs itself.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  16. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's easy. Nebulously talking about "hysterical half-truths" is just fearmongering by spreading a new hysterical half-truth.

  17. no way, totally wrong by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > $ perl -pni.bak -e 's/Bin Laden/ISIS/sgi'

    Nah, these are morons we're dealing with. They did ctrl-f, not Perl.

    Otherwise, spot-on.

    1. Re:no way, totally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, these are morons we're dealing with they did mouse to edit->find not ctrl-f

  18. Re:WMD's in iraq !!! - Operation Avarice by schwit1 · · Score: 1
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

    http://www.breitbart.com/natio...

    The CIA, working in coordination with U.S. troops, bought and destroyed hundreds of nerve agent rockets during the occupation of Iraq.

  19. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Even if you think it is safe, it won't stop your property being massively devalued. Dirty bombs will hit you where it hurts - in the wallet.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  20. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "officials who fear it could be used as a weapon if acquired by Islamic State."

    "UP TO 10 Grams of Ir-192","fatal to someone exposed for a period of hours to days."

    So a quick back of the envelope calculation. Assuming your dirty bomb gives 100% even distribution of the material that would leave about .0001 grams of material per square foot in a single city block. Oh the horror indeed. US Cities with pollution problems are probably worse than that.

    If I'm ever in Iraq/n I am much MUCH more worried about all the depleted uranium rounds the US has used over the years.

  21. The news article is more dangerous than material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The news article is more dangerous than material

    Look at the feat it generated already. FEAR.. far more deadly than a small bit of material that emits radiocative particles and is fully decayed in 4 years.

    The WORST you could do is take it onto an aeroplane and have it emit through the closed cycle air ventilation then 200 people get continimated along with the plane.

  22. Nike Free Running 2016 Pas Cher by zhenjianfan · · Score: 1

    expérience réussie, soit, Nike Free Running lui - mme ou quelqu'un d'autre tant que le pied, peut devenir une nouvelle paire de chaussures dans la bonne direction.L'anglais pour nous duper, la Chine aussi clairement agrave; l'ancienne preacute;décesseurs réussie de nouvelles chaussures encore un tour. | magazine The Economist récemment proposé dans les marchés émergents structurels "ralentir" Paul Krugman, lauréat du prix Nobel, publié dans le New York Times "Chine" a heurté le mur "," Nomura, intitulé "Rapport de la Chine si la prédiction d'éternuer": l'échelle de plus de 8 milliards de dollars si L'économie chinoise en 2014 est inférieure à celle de la ligne de mots de la croissance attendue de 6,9% un point de pourcentage de plusieurs autres grandes économies touchés?La conclusion est que le taux de.

  23. Half-life 73 days by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    Iridium 192 is apparently industrial gamma source. "Up to" 10 grams were taken. Not seeing much reason for hitting the panic button here.

    1. Re:Half-life 73 days by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Exactly.. Things like this are bouncing around in the back of hundreds of Pickups rumbling around west Texas right now. Yes, they are dangerous if you take them out of their containers, mostly to the idiots who do stupid things like breaking out the hacksaws, hammers and blow torches on things marked a radiation hazard. Making a "dirty bomb" out of 10oz of this stuff is more likely to harm the bomb maker than anybody else.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Half-life 73 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not 10oz, 10g so about 1/30th of 10oz ;)

  24. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    So you basically have a difficult time understanding risk factors.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  25. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, he's entirely correct. Ten grams of pretty much anything cannot be used to make a weapon of mass destruction. At this point it's only 5 grams due to its short half-life. Even if they had stolen plutonium or HEU, you need far more material than that for a critical mass. This amount of radioactive material could probably kill one or two persons, if ingested. Otherwise it's not really an issue.

  26. Re:WMD's in iraq !!! - Operation Avarice by dave420 · · Score: 2

    Hundreds of rockets, most of which were empty or with dummy warheads. The nerve agents found in a few were massively degraded (due to their shelf life being greatly exceeded). So we're still waiting for the WMDs we were promised.

  27. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by dave420 · · Score: 1

    He doesn't. Unless you are scared of background radiation, you shouldn't be scared of this.

  28. Re:WMD's in iraq !!! - Operation Avarice by bobbied · · Score: 0

    Yea, dang that Sadam lied to us before the war started about having those things and being willing to use them, never mind that he had used them before on his own people... BTW, he is dead now... Keep grinding that political ax, it's been more than a decade now.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  29. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Fox News, then?

  30. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    Not for long. The first land developer who realizes that the land is cheap just because of pointless fear will redevelop it on the cheap, probably even begging for some money out of the government to "help" them.

    We nuked the shit out of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They're not ghost towns today, they're cities with significant populations. You'd need an output like Chernobyl to really cause area denial like this, and this isn't even close to the sort of material you'd need for that effect.

  31. Was it handled by a British spy? by DavidMZ · · Score: 1

    I hear they lose stuff all the time.

    1. Re:Was it handled by a British spy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but they look really cool, get all the ladies and make daring escapes while soused on martinis, so you gotta give them some leeway.

  32. Re:WMD's in iraq !!! - Operation Avarice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to gargle 50% "degraded" mustard gas, go right ahead. You'll still be a lot more than 50% dead.

  33. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    A fear weapon aimed at panicky fools and the media that preys on and inflames their ignorance with hysterical half-truths.

    So, like, every terrorist weapon?

    At least those used so far. I hope it never moves beyond that.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  34. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Nutria · · Score: 1

    So, like, every terrorist weapon?

    That's the most ignorant thing I've read this month (and there's a lot of ignorance on YT).

    At least those used so far.

    Suicide vests and truck bombs (which actually kill and maim people) spring instantly to mind.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  35. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Suicide vests and truck bombs (which actually kill and maim people) spring instantly to mind.

    Suicide vests and truck bombs do kill people occasionally. The cost of dealing with the fear of suicide vests and truck bombs outweigh the actual consequences. I mean, it's always ghoulish to compare someone's death to thousands of people inconvenienced. But, as a society, we kinda have to figure out how much to spend to save someone's life.

    And, with terrorism, we always overspend. We could provide free healthcare or construct safer cars and get more bang for our buck.

    The reason that we do that is that terrorists use fear and the media to target the sense of security of millions. The few who get injured or killed are just the mechanism.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  36. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Nutria · · Score: 1

    None of what you just wrote has anything to do with the stupidity that you previously wrote: At least those used so far. I hope it never moves beyond that.

    35 years ago, truck bombs went beyond just fear. Suicide vests... 25 years ago? Bombs in British postal boxes 40+ years ago.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  37. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Truck bombs didn't move beyond "just fear" "Just fear" is the larger consequence of then the deaths that actually happened. The US left Beruit over 283 deaths? No, the US left over fear.

    Moving beyond that means that the actual deathtoll is worse than the fear it engenders. Given the news coverage nowadays, that's likely going to be the result of a WMD.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  38. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Nutria · · Score: 1

    So there's only terrorism and WMDs?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  39. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Umm... no. Terrorist's biggest weapon is fear. The only weapon I can think of more effective than that is a WMD.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  40. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Nutria · · Score: 1

    But "OMG!! Terrorists with a WMD!!" is the whole purpose of this article.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  41. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    But the whole purpose of the conversation thread you're participating in is that they only have enough for a relatively weak dirty bomb, explicitly not a WMD. The whole thread is about how the weapon is a lot more fear than real.

    Yay, context.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  42. Re:What kind of weapon, since the amount is so sma by Nutria · · Score: 1

    I didn't write that *I* believe it. I wrote that the *article* said it.

    Boo, lack of reading comprehension.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1