• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Someone chose the wrong truck to steal.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The information released is too fragmented to draw any real conclusion. Does anyone have the specifics like how old the teletherapy device was?

In any case breaching the actual capsule with nothing but air (or less if touching it!) between yourself and Co-60 is most certainly extremely dangerous!

You should read up on abandoned RTGs especially in Russia!
 
Rubycon said:
The information released is too fragmented to draw any real conclusion. Does anyone have the specifics like how old the teletherapy device was?

In any case breaching the actual capsule with nothing but air (or less if touching it!) between yourself and Co-60 is most certainly extremely dangerous!

You should read up on abandoned RTGs especially in Russia!
Click to expand...

You will scare the masses.

🙂
 
Ichinisan said:
What if it's a skyscraper that you need to demolish to clean the block? Easy?

Also, the incident in Colt45's link seemed like a pretty difficult and extensive clean-up. That only involved limited areas of contamination. Add a stick of dynamite and you have a MUCH bigger problem.
Click to expand...

Look up the two dirty bomb attacks the US did on Spain and Greenland.

This is with sufficient amounts to build several nuclear weapons.
Cleanup was difficult, but even in the 60s it was possible to do it.
Sure, in an urban area there's also some building debris and some evacuation involved, but in general clean up has been demonstrated as possible, even in remote, hard to reach locations.
 
Last edited:
Rubycon said:
The information released is too fragmented to draw any real conclusion. Does anyone have the specifics like how old the teletherapy device was?
Click to expand...
No information on what the source was, where it came from or where it was going to.

However, the official report states an activity of 110 TBq.
 
Broheim said:
I think the shielding could severely limit the radioactive spread of the bomb if the explosives where completely separate to the radioactive material. So you would either have to shield the entire bomb or have a primary charge big enough to completely breach the shielding inside the shielding complimented by a larger secondary charge that would then further increase the spread, either way drastically complicates the design of the bomb.
Click to expand...

The shielding would probably be lead, which is pretty wimpy structurally. Armor piercing bombs use a very strong hardened steel casing and there's no issue with getting them to blow apart.
 
Mark R said:
No information on what the source was, where it came from or where it was going to.

However, the official report states an activity of 110 TBq.
Click to expand...

That's significant but usually that's the initial activity when the unit is built. This device was probably pretty old.
 
Gibsons said:
The shielding would probably be lead, which is pretty wimpy structurally. Armor piercing bombs use a very strong hardened steel casing and there's no issue with getting them to blow apart.
Click to expand...

but in order to make it undetectable a bit of lead isn't going to cut it, the neutron shield (lead is ineffective for shielding neutron radiation) is going to provide a pretty substantial barrier. It would be very inefficient to place the bomb next to shielded radioactive material, the dispersal of material is going to be hindered by the it.

as for armor piercing weaponry, the charge is inside the casing; the explosion only have one way to go.
 
Broheim said:
but in order to make it undetectable a bit of lead isn't going to cut it, the neutron shield (lead is ineffective for shielding neutron radiation) is going to provide a pretty substantial barrier. It would be very inefficient to place the bomb next to shielded radioactive material, the dispersal of material is going to be hindered by the it.

as for armor piercing weaponry, the charge is inside the casing; the explosion only have one way to go.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about Cobalt, where are these neutrons coming from?
 
Gibsons said:
I thought we were talking about Cobalt, where are these neutrons coming from?
Click to expand...

well with pure cobalt-60 you're not going to have that problem (I think), but have a fat chance in hell of acquiring enough cobalt-60 for a dirty bomb, you're probably going to have to use several different isotopes to get enough.

even if you get enough, you still need to add substantial shielding, I don't think 10 cm is going to do it. That's a lot of lead.
 
¡Ay, caramba!

[CNN]The six live near where the dangerous material had been, though Copca said only one showed symptoms such as nausea and headaches consistent with radiation poisoning.

Wait.....so aren't those are the same symptoms of driking water in Mexico?
 
Last edited:
Broheim said:
well with pure cobalt-60 you're not going to have that problem (I think), but have a fat chance in hell of acquiring enough cobalt-60 for a dirty bomb, you're probably going to have to use several different isotopes to get enough.

even if you get enough, you still need to add substantial shielding, I don't think 10 cm is going to do it. That's a lot of lead.
Click to expand...

Co60 decays by beta (an electron, which you can stop with plastic) to Ni 60. The nickel then decays by gamma, which you'll need something like lead to stop effectively.

1cm of lead will attenuate Co60 by about 50% (see either page 3 or 4), so one inch would attenuate about 83%, 10 cm by about 99.9%. Assuming I didn't screw up on my calculator.

These numbers are based on having the detector as close as possible, if the detector is a few feet (or more) away, then you have to account for attenuation by the air (and anything else in between) as well.

Some things we don't know: How sensitive the detectors are (not all detectors are equal), how far away from the assembly they are, how well the cobalt might disperse from the blast (a fine powder/mist would be 'ideal' for lethality and difficulty of cleanup, solid chunks not so much).
 
Last edited:
so did these guys die?

Did they at least turn into the Toxic Avenger's Mexican Cousins?

Will they be taking over Tokyo any time soon?
 
Gibsons said:
Co60 decays by beta (an electron, which you can stop with plastic) to Ni 60. The nickel then decays by gamma, which you'll need something like lead to stop effectively.

1cm of lead will attenuate Co60 by about 50% (see either page 3 or 4), so one inch would attenuate about 83%, 10 cm by about 99.9%. Assuming I didn't screw up on my calculator.

These numbers are based on having the detector as close as possible, if the detector is a few feet (or more) away, then you have to account for attenuation by the air (and anything else in between) as well.

Some things we don't know: How sensitive the detectors are (not all detectors are equal), how far away from the assembly they are, how well the cobalt might disperse from the blast (a fine powder/mist would be 'ideal' for lethality and difficulty of cleanup, solid chunks not so much).
Click to expand...

those modern detectors are pretty damn sensitive, people returning from Japan in the wake of Fukushima have set them off, and we're talking people from nowhere near the plant carrying absolutely minute traces in their luggage (we're talking way below background radiation here).

the thing about gamma radiation is that it's apparently very easy to determine the source based on the energy signature, so something like Co60 radiation. which is a man made isotope, would instantly set off the alarms even in tiny itty bitty amounts.

An article I saw the first time I posted in this thread, where an expert said that terrorists possibly have advanced containers that could possibly be undetectable for shipping radioactive material, leads me to believe a bit of lead isn't going to make it undetectable.

like I said, it's possible, but I just don't think it's probable. All of the effort that would have to go into building such a device would probably be better spent on raiding some shit hole country's chemical weapons stockpile.
 
Broheim said:
those modern detectors are pretty damn sensitive, people returning from Japan in the wake of Fukushima have set them off, and we're talking people from nowhere near the plant carrying absolutely minute traces in their luggage (we're talking way below background radiation here).

the thing about gamma radiation is that it's apparently very easy to determine the source based on the energy signature, so something like Co60 radiation. which is a man made isotope, would instantly set off the alarms even in tiny itty bitty amounts.
Click to expand...
Only if it gets within range of the detector. Just don't take it within 2 miles of an airport. Or anywhere else you might think there's a sensitive detector.

I don't think it's likely anyone tries it, but given the radioactive material and some explosives, it's very very easy to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top