Archive for the ‘Terrorism’ Category

February 2, 2011
Nuclear Townhall
From the Editors



With the WIKILEAKS induced speculation regarding whether or not Al Qaeda is preparing “weapons of mass destruction,” let’s get straight what we’re talking about.
 


A “dirty bomb” that spreads radioactive material is not a “nuclear bomb.”
 
Anthony Martin, a columnist for the Washington-based Examiner, got off on the wrong foot this morning with the headline, “Wikileaks document shows Al Qaeda has nuclear bomb.”  That shows what happens when reporters play “telephone.”  Martin is reading off a story in The Telegraph of London, which contains a misleading diagnosis: “A leading atomic regulator has privately warned that the world stands on the brink of a `nuclear 9/11’".



The Telegraph story, reprinted in the Vancouver Sun and now rapidly making the rounds, goes on as follows: 



“Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing `workable and efficient’ biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West. . . . At a NATO meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaeda was plotting a programme of `dirty radioactive IEDs,’ makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.”



Here we go – stolen plutonium, rogue nuclear scientists, why did we ever get into this nuclear power stuff in the first place, right?



Wrong. Here’s how the story goes on:  Security briefings suggest that jihadi groups are also close to producing "workable and efficient" biological and chemical weapons that could kill thousands if unleashed in attacks on the West. . . . At a NATO meeting in January 2009, security chiefs briefed member states that al-Qaeda was plotting a programme of `dirty radioactive IEDs,’ makeshift nuclear roadside bombs that could be used against British troops in Afghanistan.”



What happened to the “nuclear 9/11?  As you can see, there’s a huge confusion of terms here.



A “dirty bomb” can involve radioactive material. It is not a nuclear explosion. It simply means scattering highly radioactive material with a conventional explosion. There are all kinds of dirty bombs. They can involve chemicals, biological agents or radioactive substances. Of the three, the radioactive materials are the least dangerous because its affects can be shielded by simple devices and occur over a long period of time. Toxic chemicals such as chlorine, cyanide or the botulin toxin are more immediately lethal. Biological agents such as anthrax, Japanese encephalitis or the Yellow Fever virus are probably the worst, since they can multiply. 



The consensus among scientists is that the dangers of a radioactive dirty bomb have been wildly exaggerated. Under “dirty bomb,” Wikipedia contains the following evaluation: 



“The fear of radiation is not always logical. . . . Dealing with public fear may prove the greatest challenge in case of an RDD event. Policy, science and media may inform the public about the real danger and thus reduce the possible psychological and economic effects.”


Defining the difference between “dirty bombs” and “nuclear weapons” will be a start.

Read more about it at the Daily Telegraph
 
 

Greenpeace, the world’s greatest public relations firm, pulled off another kindergarten show-and-tell yesterday when 40 activists dressed as the sun and wind “invaded” a Swedish nuclear plant to protest nuclear power.
 
The international group – which has an annual budget of $150 million, greater than the World Health Organization – is desperate because the Swedish Parliament is expected to lift the 30-year-old ban on new nuclear construction.
 
With 45 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear and the rest from hydro, Sweden has the lowest carbon emissions in Europe. Immediately after Three Mile Island, however, the Swedish electorate adopted a referendum to phase out nuclear over the next ten years and ban all future construction. The phase-out has been studiously ignored but rising electrical demand has now made new construction necessary as well.
 
In 2005, the small Centre Party, the only faction still actively campaigning against nuclear, abandoned its stance, saying a phase-out of existing reactors was no longer practical.  This left the field open to Greenpeace and its usual theatrics.
 
The resolution on lifting the ban will be voted tomorrow – June 17th – in the Swedish Parliament. It is expected to pass.

Read more at Dallas Blog

It may be impossible to keep up with all the misinformation that appears in newspapers, but Jack Gamble, a highly trained nuclear engineer, is giving it a try.

Last week on the op-ed page of The New York Times, Charles Faddis, who identifies himself as a former CIA agent, wrote a lurid fantasy of how the recent defection to Al Qaeda of a former New Jersey nuclear maintenance man posed a threat to every reactor in the country.

“It doesn’t take top-level clearance to know how to set off a nuclear meltdown,” intoned Mr. Faddis. “All it takes is information on perimeter security — information Mr. Mobley possesses about every plant where he worked.”

You don’t have to be a nuclear expert to sense something wrong here. All it takes is a little security information to cause a meltdown?  Why hasn’t the Mafia tried holding the country hostage by trying such an attack?  Or perhaps some street gang from Brooklyn? Still, those CIA credentials can be imposing.

Gamble brings a little informed intelligence to the situation. In a carefully reasoned, 1100-word essay, he explains that “not just anyone can cause a meltdown,” that reactors have redundant safety systems, and that a 9/11-style airplane attack on a reactor would result in a pile of aluminum fragments (illustrated with the famous 1990s DOE video). It’s the kind of sober assessment that would calm fears and further public understanding.

Unfortunately, Gamble’s thoughtful piece does not appear on the Times’ op-ed page but on Nuclear Fissionary, an excellent blog that doesn’t yet match the Times’ circulation figures.

If you want to read it and spread the word, however, you can find it here

- William Tucker