Nato concerned Isil is plotting nuclear attack on UK

[TheJimi]

llewop said:

yellowjack said:

I could try to explain it myself, but I'm not really an expert so this...

An International Committee Of The Red Cross document said:

The differences between nuclear agents and radiological agents relate to their different origin.

Nuclear agents are radioactive material generated from nuclear fission or fusion, such as those produced by detonation of a nuclear weapon or releases from damaged nuclear power plants.

Radiological agents are radioactive material generated as by-products and waste from the mineral processing industries, produced for use in industrial applications and medical therapy, or occurring naturally in the environment.

Hmm

I hate to disagree with you, but not quite the definitions I would normally use, or have seen used.

Nuclear = nuclear event from the device, so nuclear weapon or IND (improvised nuclear device), or I suppose an attack on a nuclear facility, such as a reactor

Radiological = dispersal of radioactive material, or exposing a source in a way to harm. Hence often called RDD - radiological dispersal device

The same material, uranium for instance could be used in both devices, but the nuclear event would produce a whole new set of issues vs just scattering the U around

What you've said and what he said are largely the same thing. That's the way I read it anyway.

[llewop]

TheJimi said:

What you've said and what he said are largely the same thing. That's the way I read it anyway.

Maybe just me then! The Red Cross definition suggests (to me anyway) that used fuel blown up with explosives would be nuclear, I'd call that an RDD

Nuclear would be detonation of fissile material and a nuclear event, so neutrons, pressure wave etc

[Hugo a Gogo]

how does one 'spray uranium' around the place?

these radioactive sources are pretty much all heavy lumps of metal, how do you get them to disperse?

working them into dust with a grinder or something, you'd be dead before getting started

[s2art]

Hugo a Gogo said:

how does one 'spray uranium' around the place?

these radioactive sources are pretty much all heavy lumps of metal, how do you get them to disperse?

working them into dust with a grinder or something, you'd be dead before getting started

Dunno. How about dissolve in acid and spray the resulting solution?

[otolith]

In the Goiânia accident, the radioactive source was caesium-137 chloride. A salt of a radioactive metal would be easily dispersed.

[Hugo a Gogo]

you can dissolve uranium in nitric acid, but you don't get super-radioactive acid spray, you get uranyl nitrate salts

[s2art]

Hugo a Gogo said:

you can dissolve uranium in nitric acid, but you don't get super-radioactive acid spray, you get uranyl nitrate salts

Of course you do, if the Uranium in question contains enough of the right isotopes.

[otolith]

Depleted uranium rounds tend to fragment and deflagrate on impact producing a lot of particulates - I wonder if a shaped charge could do something similar to it?

I wonder how many watchlists this thread is getting me onto?

[Some Gump]

Hugo a Gogo said:

how does one 'spray uranium' around the place?

these radioactive sources are pretty much all heavy lumps of metal, how do you get them to disperse?

working them into dust with a grinder or something, you'd be dead before getting started

You could attach it to a crow, maybe?

[yellowjack]

llewop said:

yellowjack said:

I could try to explain it myself, but I'm not really an expert so this...

An International Committee Of The Red Cross document said:

The differences between nuclear agents and radiological agents relate to their different origin.

Nuclear agents are radioactive material generated from nuclear fission or fusion, such as those produced by detonation of a nuclear weapon or releases from damaged nuclear power plants.

Radiological agents are radioactive material generated as by-products and waste from the mineral processing industries, produced for use in industrial applications and medical therapy, or occurring naturally in the environment.

Hmm

I hate to disagree with you, but not quite the definitions I would normally use, or have seen used.

Nuclear = nuclear event from the device, so nuclear weapon or IND (improvised nuclear device), or I suppose an attack on a nuclear facility, such as a reactor

Radiological = dispersal of radioactive material, or exposing a source in a way to harm. Hence often called RDD - radiological dispersal device

The same material, uranium for instance could be used in both devices, but the nuclear event would produce a whole new set of issues vs just scattering the U around

Disagree away, I'll not be offended because I didn't write the ICRC documnet. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this particular subject. I just used the ICRC document because I thought they'd be fairly competent at explaining things better than me, and because their training document is open source, whereas military pamphlets all tend to have protective markings on them, and warn you not to "disclose the contents in full or in part outside of Her Britannic Majesty's Government without authority". That, and you can't link to them on the web.

The way I understand it, Radiological events involve (usually) smaller amounts of material which releases it's energy steadily. Useful if you want to use it for good stuff, but grim if you throw it around in public. Nuclear events happen when you gather material together and create a condition where you persuade it to release all of it's energy all at once. Useful only if you want to cause destruction on a large scale.

[s2art]

yellowjack said:

Nuclear events happen when you gather material together and create a condition where you persuade it to release all of it's energy all at once. Useful only if you want to cause destruction on a large scale.

Unless you want to build an Orion type spacecraft.

[otolith]

Some Gump said:

You could attach it to a crow, maybe?

Or a swallow. Perhaps in a coconut.

[Sylvaforever]

Tony Starks said:

I'm going to come across as a complete dofus here, but whats the difference between Radiological and Nuclear?

Wheres Zod when you want him? Bravely running away??

Edited by Sylvaforever on Friday 6th May 22:23

[PoleDriver]

Latest news flash!
Isil are definitely planning an unclear attack on UK!

[Timmy40]

otolith said:

Some Gump said:

You could attach it to a crow, maybe?

Or a swallow. Perhaps in a coconut.

I think it's been established beyond doubt ( not that I want to give away trade secrets ) that the best method is to insert pea sized pellets of uranium paste into the rectums of pigeons.

Swallows indeed!

[PoleDriver]

African swallow?

[otolith]

PoleDriver said:

African swallow?

Non-migratory!

[Talksteer]

otolith said:

In the Goiânia accident, the radioactive source was caesium-137 chloride. A salt of a radioactive metal would be easily dispersed.

However if you disperse it you reduce the dose that any one person would receive down to levels which would be unlikely to cause serious harm. In fact I suspect that you'd have to be close enough that fragments would be deadly as the dust cloud to be getting deterministic effects from the radiological contamination.

In Goiania the people substantially irradiated were in extended close contact with a large % of the radioactive source. In the dirty bomb attack the radiological element will be detected pretty quickly so people aren't going to be sitting around ingesting the material aside from potentially those ingesting the dust cloud initially generated.

I for one would welcome and encourage ISIL to put the maximum effort into developing dirty bombs. The effort would be substantial, the chances of their most competent technicians being irradiated would be high, the chances of their being caught would be high (detection of the device and those who've handled it is relatively easy at ports and airports) and it would require increased coordination which again would increase the chances of catching/killing members of the organisation.

In short it would reduce their capacity to cause greater harm by other means.

[red_slr]

Radiation detected in Germany. Not thought to be from a nuclear accident and seems to be coming from eastern Europe.

[AreOut]

Ukraine.