How To Safeguard Loose Nukes 167
Lasrick writes "The Bulletin has an interesting article about the likelihood of terrorists obtaining nuclear material. 'Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has logged roughly 2,000 cases of illicit or unauthorized trafficking of nuclear and radioactive material. Thirty illicit radioactive trafficking incidents were reported in the former Soviet region alone from 2009 to 2011. As Obama said in December, "Make no mistake, if [terrorists] get [nuclear material], they will use it."'"
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:2, Informative)
You're forgetting, panic = ratings
It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:2, Informative)
If we didn't keep building nukes, forcing other countries to keep building nukes to compete, then there wouldn't be so many nukes out there. Sure, we here in the USA might be able to keep our stuff out of other peoples hands, but we can't control Russia, China, UK, or France, and that's not talking about what Israel, India or Pakistan really have. Of course, North Korea is now maybe testing weapons.
Not to mention the USA policy of bullying other nations into doing what it wants? I think the problem is that the USA government knows that everyone is getting fed up with them and people are going to start doing something about it.
Re:It's the USA's fault there are so many nukes (Score:3, Informative)
The USSR built nearly twice as many warheads as the US.
Informative chart [wikipedia.org]
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:4, Informative)
"The Federation of American Scientists...says a bomb made using just one piece of radioactive cobalt [of the sort used in food irradiation] could make [New York] city uninhabitable for decades, and seriously contaminate one thousand square kilometres of the states of New Jersey, Connecticut and New York." [independent.co.uk]
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Informative)
Neptunium-237 [fas.org] is weapon-usable as well.
Re:Radioactive material != Nuclear weapons (Score:5, Informative)
I read that and I find that rather stupid. I'll tell you why.
You see, I just spent part of this week getting a new Cobalt-60 source exactly like is described in the article installed in the facility where I work. 2500 Curies. You definitely don't want to be around it when it is exposed. If you were to steal it, grind it up, and evenly dust it over a thousand square kilometers, you'd have 2.5 Ci per sq kilometer, or 2.5 microCuries per square meter, or about 3700 dpm/m^2.
Just so that you know, the typical standard of cleanliness when cleaning up an area which has been exposed to a Co-60 spill is about 200 dpm per 100 cm^2, or about 20000 dpm/m^2. In other words, the dirty bomb scenario described in the paper would be barely within the limits of detection, and if someone performed a contamination test, the area would register as "clean".
Now, of course, in real life the dust would not be spread evenly, but then we aren't talking 1000 sq km as the article said, now are we? In real life, it would also be fairly easy to clean up as well, at least to a livable standard.
I get really tired of dealing with all the locks, alarm systems, etc. that are now required just to have one of these sources on site. I totally understand and approve safety precautions like interlocks, etc. But having to get a key to unlock the key box to get the other key that unlocks the bunker where the source is, when it takes 12 hours to install or remove the source, just so that phantom terrorists don't steal it is a daily pain in my ass.