Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

17 lbs of radioactive uranium has gone missing in China

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:13 PM
Original message
17 lbs of radioactive uranium has gone missing in China

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/woalert_read.php?cid=13069&cat=dis&lang=eng


Eight kg (17 lb) of radioactive uranium has gone missing in China, delaying the verdict in a trial of four men charged with attempting to sell it on the black market, state media said on Friday. A court in Guangzhou, capital of China's southern province of Guangdong, heard the four tried to sell the material, which can be used in making nuclear weapons, between 2005 and January 2007. The men were arrested in January after a potential buyer in Hong Kong reported them to the authorities, the paper said. However, despite having the four men in custody, police were unable to locate the uranium. "The men claimed it had been lost because it had been moved around so much between potential buyers," the paper said. A verdict had yet to be reached "as the court said the trial would continue until authorities tracked down" the uranium. Under Chinese law, the illegal trade in uranium carries a sentence of between three and 10 years in prison. In exceptional cases, it can carry the death sentence. "The radioactive substance uranium does not explode when it is in its raw state, but it is very harmful to people's health," Jiang Chaoqiang, director of the Guangzhou No 12 People's Hospital, told China Daily. "Therefore it needed to be found as soon as possible.")
----------------------------


as soon as possible
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. OMG TERRA TERRA! We gotta bomb Quebec now!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sanctified Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
2. Better go check my childrens toys. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. And the dog's food. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. checking pajamas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excuse my ignorance, but just how much is "17 lbs" of radioactive uranium?
How many, if any, bombs could this stuff make?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. None
17 pounds is not much. You could make what people call a 'dirty bomb' but that is really sort of a joke too. Oh, and all uranium is radioactive, if its not we call the stuff lead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. I think at least one
The OP's excerpt doesn't say if it's fissionable U235 or non-fissionable U238, but assuming it's U235, I think you could make one implosion-type A-bomb with it.

Implosion-type bombs are hard to make in somebody's basement, but it can be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BadgerLaw2010 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Not with 17 pounds of non-HEU you won't.
You need 50 KG of 85% HEU to make a bomb. Getting HEU from normal uranium is way beyond a basement bomb project. Ask Iran about that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. That's why I used the disclaimer
If it's not mostly U235, it's not going to explode.

If it is mostly U235, in other words, highly enriched uranium, you might be able to make an implosion-type bomb.

You need 50kg of uranium to make a gun-type uranium bomb. You need considerably less to make an implosion-type nuke.

The most difficult part of making a nuclear bomb is getting the fissionable material. You can't get weapons-grade plutonium without first making a nuclear reactor (which runs on non-highly-enriched uranium) and explosing U238 to the neutron stream. And you can't get weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium without centrifuging an ungodly amount of uranium ore for an ungodly amount of time. Neither of those are doable by any terrorist organization.

Assuming it's weapons-grade uranium, China has already done the hardest stuff. Making the necessary detonation system is also hard, but doable. Ask the North Koreans.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Uranium is useless if it's not weapons grade uranium.
If it's simply unrefined uranium that you pull out of the ground, forget it. The best you could do is make a dirty bomb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poll_Blind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
5. On a related note, new line of Glow-in-the-dark teething rings announced! n/t
PB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. LOL. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
6. Probably in the trunk of some unknowing working stiff's '79 Ford Pinto. nt.
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 12:20 PM by Mr_Jefferson_24
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. So that would be the ignition source, the '79 Pinto?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. I'd say if somebody ass ends that car at more...
...that 10 mph, we've gotta dirty bomb incident.

It's a little known fact that in the Iraqi desert battlefields during operation Desert Storm in the '91 Gulf War, hundreds of RF controlled '79 Ford Pintos were driven backwards at high speed into enemy armored vehicles -- they were called HLTBs (Henry's Little Tank Busters).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. How the hell can you lose 17lbs of radioactive uranium???
How the hell can you poison dog food? How the hell can you poison toothpaste? How the hell can you poison baby's toys? How the hell can you poison children's clothing with formaldehyde? China needs to get their shit together...or maybe they have?:scared:

Where was KKKRove when this uranium came up missing? ;)

Dirty bombs anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Pretty easily actually
If you really want to get a disturbing picture of lost radioactive materials you should look into how much material (not only uranium - which in many ways is one of the least important materials) we can not account for (lost) at Hanford, Oak Ridge, and Idaho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Oh great.
Now I feel so much better.:( One would think that would be a high priority as far as security goes. sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Not to mention Rocky Flats.
Last I heard, there was enough residual plutonium in the ductwork for several dirty bombs... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
20. Oh, it's not that hard. It's probably the size of a softball.
maybe smaller. Uranium is DENSE!!!

The density of uranium is 19.1 g/cm³. 17 pounds is 7,272 grams, so the uranium occupies about 381 cm³. The volume of a sphere is (4πr³)÷3

381 = 4.189*r³

r³ = 90.95

r = 4.497 cm

4.5cm = 1.77 inches

Hmmm... a ping-pong ball is only 3.8 cm across, and a golf ball is 4.3. Wow, it's even smaller than I thought!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm glad they got caught.
I wonder how easily it was to obtain. It's not supposed to be left out in the open like candy in a grocery store on the days parents are most likely going to bring in their children...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
13. Time to start checking imported Chinese goods for radioactivity.
I suspect it "disappeared" into some manufacturing facility as an economical alternative to proper disposal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Scary but funny
I can't imagine the outrage a scandal like that would get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porphyrian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
18. Don't worry, it's all in toys and toddler clothing. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. We will be eating it within 30 days..
in some contaminated food they send us. If I wake up glowing
in the dark, I will let every one here know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
22. As opposed to "non-radioactive uranium"? God, I hate shitty headlines
Edited on Fri Aug-24-07 01:14 PM by hatrack
It's uranium - of COURSE it's radioactive.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
24. When handling that bag of kibble, use an oven mitt
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
25. Enrichment level?...
If it's unenriched uranium, then 17lbs ain't gonna do squat.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarcasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
27. Does Walmart have the radioactive uranium ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. Yeah, it's in those "Special Edition" cartons of the X-Box.
How else can they look extra green and glowing? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Anyone know the density of Uranium? And how large a piece of it
would equal to 17 pounds?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFriendlyAnarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Someone did the math up thread. Said it would be about a golf ball.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Thought as much. thanks :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheFriendlyAnarchist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-24-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. Ah, my bad, its RADIUS was the diameter or a golfball.
So two golfballs :) A little under a baseball I'd wager.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC