Comments on: Dem Nuclear Scare Tactics

By: az redneck

az redneck — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 18:17:15 +0000

As a former physics teacher, I can tell you that the technology has proceeded beyond dosimeter-type devices for some years now. The problem is that you can reduce their effectiveness with shielding (as in lead sheeting).
The good news is that weapons grade plutonium (a fusion type bomb) is the most difficult to find, while a “dirty” bomb (the most likely) contains emitting isotopes that are much easier to detect.
As with any agent, difficult detection does not mean impossible. There’s always a solution, but unfortunately also a means to bypass. True for chem/bio agents as well.
That don’t mean we quit!

By: For Enforcement

For Enforcement — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:41:54 +0000

OleJim, I’m not in any way a nuclear expert, so I just did a “plutonium geiger counter searce on Google to see what it would say. If I interpret what your point is, it is that plutonium can’t be normally detected with a geiger counter. I won’t question your ‘nuclear physicist’ friend (hell I don’t even know a nuclear physicist) but it does seem like there are several ways to detect extremely small instances of plutonium radiation, normally they are called things like dosimeters, coming in film and pocket types. These measure very trace amounts of plutonium radiation. One article also states that the right kind of geiger counter will pick up trace quantites of plutonium. Another article talks about detecting trace amounts of radiation in salmon with a geiger counter. And that is standing on the bank of the river. (I don’t personally believe that story, but it was signed by a nuclear scientist at Sandia National Laboratories) So, I guess anyone can believe or not believe whatever they want to. But I think the gist of the original story was that detection devices(not necessarily limited to geiger counters) were used to monitor these places around Washington. Rumor has it? I believe the government probably has good intelligence about nuclear devices in the US.

I will agree with AJ that if we wait for a bomb to be detected after it gets into a US port, we’ll probably be the conflagrated detector.
Every container should be certified prior to being loaded for shipment to the US. I don’t think that would stop the hand wringing on the part of Dems that just want a campaign issue.

By: OleJim

OleJim — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:36:30 +0000

And the basic physics of using Gieger counters to find a plutonium-based thermonuclear device is whistling in the graveyard. I posed the question to a nuclear physicist: Could a container be bombarded with some sort of monochromatic gamma source, excite the plutonium to then give off some characteristic gamma that could be found. He laughed. It was a nice theory, but in a practical world, that kind of procedure needs to be really, really close–thus the container is opened and inspected minutely before my bright idea would be conceptually workable.
Well, we remain worried about this potential, but rumor has it that the devices have already entered the country a few years ago. Unfortunately, the plutonium has a very long half-life.

By: For Enforcement

For Enforcement — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:50:07 +0000

WAIT!! WAIT!!! You forgot the most important thing we can do to prevent an attack.. We can TALK to them….

That is the typical Dem answer, carry on a dialogue. Sure carry on a conversation with Ahm a Nut Job and I’m sure he’ll change his mind about Wiping Israel and the US off the map. Sure he will. Ask a Democrat

By: luc

luc — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:23:55 +0000

It seems to me that such a campaign by the left is not only stupid but counterproductive as well, seen that it can be easily refuted by asking what steps are they proposing to prevent such an attack; Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan?