Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (5408)	10/16/2001 12:24:32 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>its rather difficult to 'shower' out a lung full of dust<< Re: dust from a "dirty" bomb. I bought everyone in the family half face masks with P100 filters, because dirty bombs are the scenario I am most worried about. I got them from a welding supply store. Anthrax seemed like a non-starter, although I admit I did stock up on a little doxycycline, just in case. I am not about to plunk down the bucks for a moon suit with a SCUBA tank for everyone in the house, so there's no point worrying about nerve gas. But a nice P100 filter seemed to strike just the right balance between paranoia and doing nothing. They are 99.97% effective against particulate matter as small as .30 microns. You can also get P95 filters at a hardware store (look in the paint department) which are 95% effective against the same size. Charcoal filtered respirators are obviously better, so that's what I make the kids carry in their back packs, but I also have some that look a lot like surgical masks. If all of this blows over and we never use them, I like to refinish furniture and fix up the house, so they won't go to waste. We live in the DC metro area - so I may be on the paranoid side but I sleep better at night. I grew up during the Cuban Missile Crisis and was scarred for life.

To: Michael Watkins who wrote (5408)	10/16/2001 10:46:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm sorry Michael, I have to, once again, take issue with this "dirty bomb" scenario. You posted an article from "thebulletin.com" detailing Iraq's attempts to build such a device, and implied that something like it could be exploded here. Yes, they did use "zirconium", but you failed to mention that in using it, it required exposure to a radioactive source, namely a nuclear reactor. "To make the radioactive materials, Iraqi engineers prepared special metals to irradiate in a reactor at Tuwaitha, Iraq's primary nuclear site. The document said the metal was mostly zirconium, which is often used in atomic reactors because it resists corrosion. The zirconium mixture also included hafnium, uranium and iron." Furthermore, once the material is irradiated, it must be used very quickly before radioactive decay makes them ineffective: "The main flaws of the weapon, the report said, were that its radioactive charges lost strength quickly. The irradiatiated charge had to be used within a week." And this thing the Iraqi's built was HUGE!!! "The bomb, 12 feet long and weighing more than a ton, according to the document, could be dropped on troop areas, industrial centers, airports, railroad stations, bridges and "any other areas the command decrees." Which all goes to show how difficult builing one, let alone smuggling it in, transporting it to the target, and employing it, would be. Thus, the sheer logistics of such an operation dictate that any such device would be small and rather ineffective. Hawk