I hate to even guess at a scary possibility, but: Dirty bombs?

[Brotherjohn]

BBC says they were "minor explosions using detonators only" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm).

Is it possible that a group planning another bombing would accidentally only set off the detonators of their bombs, at four separate sites, simultaneously? I don't think that's very likely.

This begs the question: WHY set off a series of "minor explosions using detonators only"?

I guess one possibility is simply to instigate more terror and panic.

But another more sinister possibility, especially given all the nuclear material that turned up missing from Tuwaitha in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3002169.stm), is that these were dirty bombs.

God I hope not.

[southernleftylady]

1. I asked this question here..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4155282

[Brotherjohn]

2. Hmmnn. Sour smell, hazard suits, closing off a hospital. Of course...

... you'd expect they should take precautions with things like the suits. But I don't even remember hearing or seeing such suits after the first bombs.

And the hospital report... that sounds like just the thing that would happen if a bunch of people were being admitted with chemical/radiation symptoms.

But then another poster in your thread posted perhaps a (hopefully) more likely scenario: a copycat.

[EarlG]

3. Correct me if I'm wrong

But I've been led to believe that "dirty bombs" are something of a red herring, although rumors of their danger have been helpfully pushed by the media, of course.

In the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" the filmmaker does a segment on the fallacy of dirty bombs; I just did a quick Google search and turned this up:

Dirty bombs, also known as radiological dispersion devices, are old-school explosives packed with radioactive materials. Rumored to be a weapon of choice among Al Qaeda operatives, they have yet to be used. Luetzelschwab and other radiation-safety experts think the probability of a dirty-bomb attack is slim for several reasons.

First, he says, to build one of the bombs terrorists would need to get their hands on radioactive materials. While it's possible, especially on the world market, they would have to get the material through sensitive gamma-ray detection machinery at U.S. seaports and airfields. Building a dirty bomb stateside also would be tough since sources of radioactive material (hospitals, labs and nuclear power plants, for example) are highly protected under new homeland-security guidelines.

Second, Luetzelschwab notes, anyone building a dirty bomb or procuring radioactive material for one would be exposed to fatal doses of radiation.

Third, while the bomb's engineers would be subject to high-level radiation, most victims of a dirty-bomb explosion would only be exposed to low-level, dispersed radiation.

The bottom line: The risk of injury from the bomb's explosion is higher than the risk of injury from contamination. In terms of bang for your buck, dirty bombs just aren't worth it, Luetzelschwab says.

http://cfserv.dickinson.edu/cnExtra/detail.cfm?170

Your suggestion that "one possibility is simply to instigate more terror and panic" is more likely to be the answer. But obviously we shouldn't rule anything out.

[catnhatnh]

4. Yeah, but...

...dirty bombs are NOT anti-personnel bombs they are designed to deny access to a physical area to the enemy...wonder how London would function if it were denied the use of a half dozen major tube stations for a year or so? Or for that matter have we ever finished decontaminating the buildings involved in the anthrax attacks on Democrats (plus the National Inquirer after the Bush offspring photo)???

[Maddy McCall]

5. Could be bio instead of radiological.

It's possible. If so: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[Brotherjohn]

7. That was actually my first thought.

But then I got to thinking about Tuwaitha.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Well, I agree with most of those points. But these are suicide bombers.

I don't think anyone who would blow themselves up on a train would have any qualms about making a bomb that would kill them slowly.

And you're right, the relative doses most victims would receive would be minor (perhaps not even fatal). But think of the havoc it would cause. Remember this country after the Anthrax letters? Duct tape, anyone?

As far as getting it into the country, that does pose a problem. But lets say some radioactive material snuck out of Iraq from Tuwaitha (and that, I think, is completely plausible). Across the Syrian border to the Mediterranean (also plausible), and you have no more borders to cross. All you need is a boat (although the Strait of Gibralter might be monitored closely... I don't know).

I don't think a dirty bomb would be effective at causing much death or destruction, but I do think it would be effective at causing terror. And these are, after all, terrorists.

[jojo54]

10. Read this from the GAO. Not trying to contradict you but......

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05339.html

<snip>What GAO Found:

Nuclear power plants’ performance in controlling and accounting for
their spent fuel has been uneven. Most recently, three plants—Vermont
Yankee and Humboldt Bay (California) in 2004 and Millstone
(Connecticut) in 2000—have reported missing spent fuel. Earlier,
several other plants also had missing or unaccounted for spent fuel
rods or rod fragments.

I want pResident B*sh to be held accountable for this, especially the most recent incidents. I realize Homeland Security is still young, so to speak, but I'd think nuclear plants would be one of the first things protected IMHO.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. Oh man. The possibilities of heinousness are endless :^(

[Eurobabe]

9. in US? Well that's one way to completely derail Rovegate

wouldn't put it past them.