Donate SIGN UP

DIrty Bombs

Avatar Image
PaulYukochan | 07:41 Sat 02nd Oct 2004 | News
5 Answers
Are they feasible/possible? I saw an article (forgotten where) a while ago claiming that they are not actually dangerous, as the dust is not concentrated enough for long enough to cause radiation sickness.... etc etc. Did anyone else see this/does anyone else know anything about this?
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 5 of 5rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by PaulYukochan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
From what I have gathered, dirty bombs are more psychological than anything else. Thats not to say that people will get killed in the explosion etc but the fact that a "nuclear bomb" will have gone off makes things far worse.
I believe the show 'The Power Of Nightmares' considers the psychological effects of combating terrorism. It's on 9 p.m, BBC2, October 20th.
As I see it any building close to the bomb would probably have to me demolished and the land unusabe for many many years
-- answer removed --
A "dirty bomb" would typically use enriched uranium or plutonium with half lives of up to 90 years. This means that the dust from the explosion could continue to be dangerous for this time. Only very little dust needs to remain (around 11 in ten millionths) for danger to be present. A dirty bomb used (say) in Westminster, Heathrow or at Clapham Junction would probably not take many lives but would have catastrophic and long lasting economic and strategic consequences.

1 to 5 of 5rss feed

Do you know the answer?

DIrty Bombs

Answer Question >>

Related Questions