# "Dirty Bomb"

## Recommended Posts

In other words, a nuclear device made to create mass amount of destruction.

If you watch TV. You'll probably heard if this, and its usually said AL-quida might try this. Well let me tell you something, even if this was possible (which its not) the nuclear radiation emitted from it wouldn't even be enough to light a firefly's ass. You wanna be worrying about a biological weapon going off.

I don't know where they get these daft ideas from? and the general public seems to believe in this stuff.

##### Share on other sites

about 5 years ago the CIA did a report which basically said dirty bombs (a bomb which spreads radioactive material but is not infact a nuclear reaction) would not kill very many people, and would be relatively easy to clear up.

But what is the purpose of this thread and why in relativity?

##### Share on other sites

the whole idea of a dirty bomb is to disperse an extremely radioactive material of a wide area. as the particle will be airborne for a while these can be inhaled where they will cause a lot of genetic damage leading to cancers/radiation sickness/death. the isotope might render an area uninhabitable for many generations. i don't think you are fully aware of how radiation actually affects the human body.

##### Share on other sites

Essentially, this kind of weapon is a terror weapon preying on public radiological ignorance. While it is well known that, even if detonated in a large population center, such a device would cause perhaps ten deaths from thyroid cancer within the next fifty years, this did not stop some degree of media hysteria.

During the 1960's, it is thought that the UK Ministry of Defence evaluated RDDs deciding that a far better effect was achievable by simply using more high explosive in place of the radioactives. Presumably, this indicates that the effect of the radiological component would be negligible.

In addition, any form of weapon designed to provoke biological damage other than death is banned under the Geneva Protocols, making the development, deployment and use by any State illegal.

##### Share on other sites
Well let me tell you something' date=' even if this was possible (which its not) the nuclear radiation emitted from it wouldn't even be enough to light a firefly's ass. You wanna be worrying about a biological weapon going off.

[/quote']

and you "know" this HOW?

##### Share on other sites

I don't see how this could be true. I agree with insane_alien on this one. If your breathing in radioactive substances, your going to get cancer. It's not a tough one to figure out.

##### Share on other sites

actualy it was:

You wanna be worrying about a biological weapon going off.

that prompted my question.

##### Share on other sites

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfrterrorism.org/weapons/dirtybomb.html Terrorism Q&A: Dirty Bombs

U.S. Dep't of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/emergencypreparedness/rdd_tech.html Radiological Dispersal Devices / Dirty Bombs

American Institute of Physics,

http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2002/038.html "Dirty Bombs" Much More Likely to Create Fear than Cause Cancer

Health Physics Society

##### Share on other sites
actualy it was:

that prompted my question.

The information is every where on the Internet google it.

##### Share on other sites

Thnx, Ill more than likely have a good read of those sites in the morning

##### Share on other sites

I don't see how this could be true. I agree with insane_alien on this one. If your breathing in radioactive substances' date=' your going to get cancer. It's not a tough one to figure out.[/quote']

So, if a nuclear explosion goes off you're telling me you'll be walking around in the same area as happy as Larry breathing the stuff in?

Well obviously you wouldn't plus the radiation wouldn't be sufficient enough to give you any long term effects.

##### Share on other sites
So' date=' if a nuclear explosion goes off you're telling me you'll be walking around in the same area as happy as Larry breathing the stuff in?

Well obviously you wouldn't plus the radiation wouldn't be sufficient enough to give you any long term effects.[/quote']

A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion...

##### Share on other sites
A dirty bomb is not a nuclear explosion...

Well on they TV, they sure do make it sound like one.

##### Share on other sites
So' date=' if a nuclear explosion goes off you're telling me you'll be walking around in the same area as happy as Larry breathing the stuff in?

[/quote']

ignoring the fact that a dirty bomb isn't, as Klaynos pointed out, a nuclear explosion, I expect, if a dirty bomb, we might not know aobut it before hand. I expect I be outside doing my usual thing, and prefectly suseptable to any nuclear radiation.

Until doctors are able to check people’s skin with sensitive radiation detection devices' date=' it will not be clear whether they were exposed.[/quote']

Checking the skin is not enough. There are plenty of other orifices in the body that radiation can get into.

##### Share on other sites

The term has also been used historically to refer to certain types of nuclear weapons. Due to the inefficiency of early nuclear weapons (such as "Fat Man" and "Little Boy"), 2% or less of the nuclear material would be consumed during the explosion. Thus, they tended to disperse large amounts of unused fissile material in the form of nuclear fallout. During the 1950s, there was considerable debate over whether "clean" bombs could be produced, and these were often contrasted with "dirty" bombs. "Clean" bombs were often a stated goal, and scientists and administrators said that high-efficiency nuclear weapon design could create explosions which generated almost all of their energy in the form of nuclear fusion, which does not create harmful fission products. While some proposed producing "clean" weapons, other theorists noted that one could make a nuclear weapon intentionally "dirty" by "salting" it with a material which would generate large amounts of long-lasting fallout when irradiated by the weapon core. In the post-Cold War age, this usage of the term has largely fallen out of use.

##### Share on other sites

I thought the fact that he mentioned it was a "dirty bomb" indicated it was not a nuclear device for the blast?

and that the blast was probably from some improvised and stupidly dangerous synth used as a means of scattering the material over a wide area.

we Know (or at least I took it as read that the everyone knew) that its NOT a Nuke!

and just a weapon suited for area denial.

##### Share on other sites
I thought the fact that he mentioned it was a "dirty bomb" indicated it was not a nuclear device for the blast?

and that the blast was probably from some improvised and stupidly dangerous synth used as a means of scattering the material over a wide area.

we Know (or at least I took it as read that the everyone knew) that its NOT a Nuke!

and just a weapon suited for area denial.

I would expect a dirty bomb to be used in a higher populated area, like Times Square on New Years, where it would do the most damage and cause widespread panic.

##### Share on other sites
I thought the fact that he mentioned it was a "dirty bomb" indicated it was not a nuclear device for the blast?

and that the blast was probably from some improvised and stupidly dangerous synth used as a means of scattering the material over a wide area.

we Know (or at least I took it as read that the everyone knew) that its NOT a Nuke!

and just a weapon suited for area denial.

The point I was trying to make was the average Joe on the street who has to be spoon fed information would assume its a nuclear device. For the way the media portrays the issue of a dirty bomb on TV.

##### Share on other sites

I was just pointing out that term has gone through a change of meaning over the years.

##### Share on other sites
the average Joe on the street who has to be spoon fed information would assume its a nuclear device. For the way the media portrays the issue of a dirty bomb on TV.

I disagree entirely, in fact I cant think of a Single program news/docu or Sci-Fi thats EVER portrayed a "dirty bomb" other than that which it is?

can you?

##### Share on other sites
I disagree entirely' date=' in fact I cant think of a Single program news/docu or Sci-Fi thats EVER portrayed a "dirty bomb" other than that which it is?

can you?[/quote']

Fox news. In 2002.

##### Share on other sites

not good enough, Ali. You have to provide a direct reference or quote. Why should we take your word for granted?

##### Share on other sites

Being in my mid fifties I have to say that up until rather recently the term was used to describe a radiation enhanced weapon (cobalt bomb) not a radiological dispersion weapon.

##### Share on other sites
Being in my mid fifties I have to say that up until rather recently the term was used to describe a radiation enhanced weapon (cobalt bomb) not a radiological dispersion weapon.

both are equaly Valid, "Radiation enhanced" doesn`t mean nor has ever meant that it ADDS to the actual explosive yield itself

##### Share on other sites

Not anymore, I don't think. The term 'salted bomb' has come into general usage for the former and 'dirty bomb' has been subsumed by the latter. At least in the media.