ran@bentley.UUCP (RA Novo) (07/29/85)
Recently, a terrorist threatened to pollute the NYC water supply with weapons grade plutonium. That's pretty bizarre! My question is: If you had enough plutonium to effectively contaminate the New York City reservoirs, and decided to make bombs instead, what could you blow up? Besides, I think the mayor himself made up the plutonium scare in sight of the recent drought, just so people would drink less water. -- Robert A. Novo "Captain! They put creatures AT&T Bell Labs in our ears! They made us say Piscataway, NJ things that weren't true!" ...bentley!ran
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/30/85)
In article <541@bentley.UUCP> ran@bentley.UUCP (RA Novo) writes: >My question is: If you >had enough plutonium to effectively contaminate the New York City reservoirs, >and decided to make bombs instead, what could you blow up? >Robert A. Novo Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily transported). -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
judd@tove.UUCP (Judd Rogers) (07/31/85)
Actualy, Plutonium is not especialy poisonous but it is a heavy metal
and salts (emphasis on salts) of Plutonium are very difficult to remove
from the body. Since it is also radioactive it will cause a realy
horific case of cancer after a few years.
--
Beware the Imp of Perversity!
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!judd@tovelmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (07/31/85)
> Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not > particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily > transported). Ah, you want to talk about a real poison, not this wimpy metallic stuff. Plutonium (as a poison) is not much worse than many heavy metals. Now, lets talk about botulism toxin - there's a real brew.
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/02/85)
In article <499@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >In article <541@bentley.UUCP> ran@bentley.UUCP (RA Novo) writes: >>My question is: If you >>had enough plutonium to effectively contaminate the New York City reservoirs, >>and decided to make bombs instead, what could you blow up? >>Robert A. Novo > >Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not >particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily >transported). Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous (the most poisonous substance known to man) ONLY IF IT IS INHALED. This is not to suggest, however, that you win money in bars by betting that you can ingest a gram of plutonium without injury -- unless you wish to market yourself as a nightlight. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (08/02/85)
> Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not > particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily > transported). This is pure bull. Have you any idea how big the New York City water supply IS? The evidence is, in fact, that the threat was carried out. At least the radioactivity of the water increased slightly after the threat was made. No smily-face, this is straight from the news. The increase caused no significant increase in risk, as the background radiation in New York is very high (concrete being slightly radioactive) to begin with. And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. That can be carried in a briefcase. The whole bomb can be fit into a backpack. In fact the army has a low-weild backpack bomb.
abh6509@ritcv.UUCP (Ralph Nadier) (08/02/85)
> Recently, a terrorist threatened to pollute the NYC water supply with > weapons grade plutonium. That's pretty bizarre! My question is: If you > had enough plutonium to effectively contaminate the New York City reservoirs, > and decided to make bombs instead, what could you blow up? > Besides, I think the mayor himself made up the plutonium scare in sight of > the recent drought, just so people would drink less water. > An invisible speck of plutonium when inhaled can cause lung cancer in bad-ass short measure. Its still 95% fatal. I suppose ingesting Pt. could cause a pretty bad case of bad taste. Andrew
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/02/85)
> Recently, a terrorist threatened to pollute the NYC water supply with > weapons grade plutonium. That's pretty bizarre! My question is: If you > had enough plutonium to effectively contaminate the New York City reservoirs, > and decided to make bombs instead, what could you blow up? > Besides, I think the mayor himself made up the plutonium scare in sight of > the recent drought, just so people would drink less water. > -- > Robert A. Novo "Captain! They put creatures in our drinking water!" I think that plutonium salts are poisonous enough that it would take noticeably *less* plutonium to poison everyone in NYC than whatever plutonium's critical mass happens to be. Of course, I could be wrong. It happened once before. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/02/85)
In article <296@tove.UUCP> judd@tove.UUCP (Judd Rogers) writes: >Actualy, Plutonium is not especialy poisonous but it is a heavy metal >and salts (emphasis on salts) of Plutonium are very difficult to remove >from the body. Since it is also radioactive it will cause a realy >horific case of cancer after a few years. Sounds pretty poisonous to me. Also, a gram of the stuff puts out an awful lot of radiation. In any kind of quantity the stuff is murder. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
ran@bentley.UUCP (RA Novo) (08/05/85)
The reason that I mentioned plutonium in the recent article is that I have spread some all over the net, via this article. As you read this, you are being thoroughly irradiated. "Come Cad, let us devise a trap to capture Underdog! Simon Barsinister Mad Scientist Labs Bellvue Hospital, New York, NY General Disclaimer: Any references to mad scientists, or dogs in the above article is purely coincidental. Any facts or opinions expressed above are the property of the author (no one else wants them anyway) and any similarity to the opinions of Bell Labs or anybody else is purely coincidental. Anyway, I plan to take over the world, so who cares about anyones opinions but mine anyway! HOHOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHA! -- Robert A. Novo "Captain! They put creatures AT&T Bell Labs in our ears! They made us say Piscataway, NJ things that weren't true!" ...bentley!ran
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/06/85)
In article <217@kitty.UUCP> peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes: >> Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not >> particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily >> transported). > >This is pure bull. One atom of plutonium can cause cancer. A hundreth of a mole (6.02 x 10^20) atoms is about a gram. That could be carried by anybody -- safely. >And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. THIS is pure bull. If you have ONE times critical mass it will blow up, you lunkhead! That's what critical mass MEANS! Bombs contain LESS than critical mass so that they're stable. The activation energy is supplied by a conventional bomb set off as to compress the matter an "fool" it into thinking it's critical mass. Take a high school physics course. I did, and look where it got me! >That can >be carried in a briefcase. The whole bomb can be fit into a backpack. In >fact the army has a low-weild backpack bomb. Fine, why don't I just fill your briefcase with plutonium and see how long you can carry it around before you drop dead. 8 grams of plutonium will boil a liter of water in about a minute. I don't think you want to carry around a breifcaseful. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
greg@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg McMullan) (08/06/85)
FLAME ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > >>> Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not >>> particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily >>> transported). >> >>This is pure bull. > > One atom of plutonium can cause cancer. A hundreth of a mole (6.02 x > 10^20) atoms is about a gram. That could be carried by anybody -- > safely. One atom of plutonium can cause cancer, but the probability is infinitesimal. If you want to cause cancer with small numbers of radioactive atoms, I would think that you could do much better than plutonium by choosing a more common isotope and/or one that concentrates by chemical processes in critical parts of the body. Some examples: - Strontium 90, which is made in nuclear explosions and some in reactors, and which concentrates in the bones, being chemically similar to calcium. - Iodine 131 (I think, my references aren't here now), which is a decay product of uranium 235, and thus is made in reactors. This one concentrates in the thyroid, which is why it is used to diagnose thyroid problems by doctors. (It has a short half life, so not much harm is done.) - Carbon 14, which is made by natural processes (I believe cosmic rays, mostly, but I'm not sure), and is a major ingredient in DNA and RNA, and so is a very good candidate for causing cancer, anyway. >> And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. > > THIS is pure bull. If you have ONE times critical mass it will blow up, > you lunkhead! That's what critical mass MEANS! Bombs contain LESS than > critical mass so that they're stable. The activation energy is supplied > by a conventional bomb set off as to compress the matter an "fool" it > into thinking it's critical mass. Take a high school physics course. I > did, and look where it got me! This is a common misconception. What critical mass REALLY means is that on average, one neutron in the assembly will cause exactly one fission neutron to be created. Specifing a certain mass as "critical mass" without giving other relevant factors (what shape your material is, how dense it is, what chemical form it is in, what other materials are around it, how isotopically pure it is, etc) is meaningless. A nuclear reactor is a large assembly of material, some radioactive, that is kept exactly critical, within very close tolerances, except when changing power level, and it categorically CANNOT explode atomically. Bombs are assemblies of material which are not critical until the chemical explosives around the radioactives are set off, when the materials rearrange themselves into a configuration which is more than critical (supercritical) for a short time. The explosoves do not provide any significant amount of energy in terms of activation, and the bomb is not "fooled" into anything. It contains a small number greater than one times the criticsl mass of radioactives (when in the intermediate state - after the high explosives go off, but before the chain reaction has really gotten going). Try taking a nuclear engineering survey course (22.001 at MIT is a good one), or even an introductory reactor design class. >>That can >>be carried in a briefcase. The whole bomb can be fit into a backpack. In >>fact the army has a low-weild backpack bomb. > >Fine, why don't I just fill your briefcase with plutonium and see how >long you can carry it around before you drop dead. 8 grams of plutonium >will boil a liter of water in about a minute. I don't think you want to >carry around a breifcaseful. I'm not sure where your 8 minute figure came from, and I don't have the time to check it right now, but the dangerous form of the energy to humans (as long as it isn't released to quickly, which would not be the case for a usable suitcase bomb before detonation) is neutrons, which can be significantly attenuated by relatively small amount of many plastics, which aren't very dense, so your suitcase bomb would probably contain maybe 8 or 10 kg of Pu, 1 or 2 kg of high explosive, 8 kg of polyethelyene, and some other structural materials. If we allow 5 kg for the structural materials and suitcase, we have a 25 kg bomb that might yield something on the order of a kiloton, (probably between .1 and 5 kT), and would not be extremely radioactive from the outside. See _The Curve Of Binding Energy_ by John McPhee, I think, for more information, and better details. FLAME OFF Sorry about the length of this factual posting to net.bizarre, but this exchange hit a sensitive spot, and I haven't slept enough recently. >Charles Forsythe >CSDF@MIT-VAX Greg McMullan (Soon to receive a bachelor's in nuclear engineering from MIT, so I know what I'm talking about.) uucp: !genrad!mit-eddie!greg arpa: greg@grape-nehi%mit-mc or g.mcmullan@mit-eecs%mit-mc us snail: 500 memorial drive cambridge, ma, 02139[-4326] (617) 225-8942
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (08/07/85)
> > Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not > > particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily > > transported). > > This is pure bull. Have you any idea how big the New York City water > supply IS? The evidence is, in fact, that the threat was carried out. > At least the radioactivity of the water increased slightly after the > threat was made. ... > > And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. That can > be carried in a briefcase. The whole bomb can be fit into a backpack. In > fact the army has a low-weild backpack bomb. Strange but true: The amount of plutonium needed to make a bomb is a lump about the size of a baseball. Heavy though. The military has nuclear weapons that can be fired from small (a few inch diameter bore ) cannons. You know, like on tanks. The only problem with transportation is that the stuff really likes to burn. It will spontaneously combust in air; producing plutonium oxide fumes that ARE real toxic. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (08/08/85)
> >> Nothing, probably. Plutonium is VERY VERY VERY poisonous, but not > >> particularly explosive (the amount needed to make a bomb is not easily > >> transported). > > > >This is pure bull. > ... > >And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. > > THIS is pure bull. If you have ONE times critical mass it will blow up, > you lunkhead! That's what critical mass MEANS! Bombs contain LESS than ... > > Fine, why don't I just fill your briefcase with plutonium and see how > long you can carry it around before you drop dead. 8 grams of plutonium > will boil a liter of water in about a minute. I don't think you want to > carry around a breifcaseful. Why don't *both* of you turkeys get your physics straight before opening your mouths? There are several isotopes of plutonium, ALL of which are alpha emitters. Do you know what an alpha particle is? You can safely shield the radiation from plutonium with aluminum foil! It is indeed true that plutonium is one of the most toxic materials known to man, but it has to get *inside* the human body for it to be toxic. Plutonium-239 is the weapons-grade isotope, and is not the form of plutonium known for maximum heat emission based upon spontaneous decay. Plutonium enriched 80% in Plutonium-238 is the isotope used for heat generation in thermoelectric power generators, and its thermal specific power is 0.56 watts/gram. 8 grams is 4.48 watts. Do you have any idea how long 4.48 watts will take to raise the temperature of water from 20 to 100 deg C and boil it? Try around 1 *week* (assuming you had no external heat loss)! Larry Lippman Recognition Research Corp. Clarence, New York UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry {rice,shell}!baylor!/ syr!buf!/ VOICE 716/741-9185 TELEX {via WUI} 69-71461 answerback: ELGECOMCLR "Have you hugged your cat today?"
andy@lasspvax.UUCP (Andy Pfiffer) (08/09/85)
In article <554@bentley.UUCP> ran@bentley.UUCP (RA Novo) wrote: > >"Come Cad, let us devise a trap to capture Underdog! > >Simon Barsinister >Mad Scientist Labs >Bellvue Hospital, New York, NY "Simon says, 'DRY UP!'" -- ========================================================= USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,cmcl2,vax135}!cornell!devvax!andy ARPA: andy%devvax@Cornell.arpa MAIL: Theory Center/265 Olin Hall "What do you mean Cornell University I watch too much Ithaca, NY 14853 TV?" PHONE: (607) 256-8686 =========================================================
petrick@lll-crg.ARPA (Jim Petrick) (08/10/85)
Can YOU say "alpha-emitter"?
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (08/12/85)
All this talk about plutonium reminds me of an awful movie that was on HBO not to long ago. In this turkey, the Russians come to the US to grab some plutonium out of a convoy to take through Canada back to Europe. What I want to know is why didn't they just buy some locally? Or steal it closer to home (England, France, Sri Lanka, etc.)? And why did they go to Canada instead of JFK? And why am I paying $20.95 per month to watch these rotten movies?
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/13/85)
Fine. Thanks for the flame. Noting that you need less than a critical mass
of plutonium to make a bomb doesn't change the effect of my comment. In any
case, I was talking about a rifle-type bomb, where 2 subcritical masses are
brought together. They only made one of those because it was cheaper to do
it the now standard way using an explosive detonation. It's still EASIER to
build a hiroshima-bomb than a nagasaki-bomb.
Particulate plutonium is pretty bad if it gets trapped in your gut. It also
precipitates out of water pretty fast. Plutonium salt doesn't, but also
doesn't tend to get trapped. Now if you stuck a bit of plutonium into some
sort of protein that'd do the job pretty well.
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (08/13/85)
> > Fine, why don't I just fill your briefcase with plutonium and see how > long you can carry it around before you drop dead. 8 grams of plutonium > will boil a liter of water in about a minute. I don't think you want to > carry around a breifcaseful. > Yet another thing to note: Plutonium is rather heavy. I suspect a briefcase-full would be fairly tiresome to carry around. -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (08/13/85)
This is truly bizarre. Net.bizarre is fast assuming the shape, smell, taste, and feel of net.physics. Good thing we aren't stepping in it. -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
bruce@garfield.UUCP (Bruce Keats) (08/13/85)
In article <778@lll-crg.ARPA> petrick@lll-crg.UUCP (Jim petrick) writes: >Can YOU say "alpha-emitter"? alpa-mitter ... alma-emother ... alfal-mother ... I guess not.
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/14/85)
In article <377@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >...I was talking about a rifle-type bomb, where 2 subcritical masses are >brought together. This WON'T work! How many sub-critical masses do you know that would allow themselves to be seen together? Most sub-critical masses are social climbers, spending their summers in Francium trying to pick up some alpha particles. Most of them feel that's they're better off hanging about with noble gasses that don't react to them at all, than sticking together for a more explosive situation. The result? Higher bomb prices for the American consumer! >It's still EASIER to build a hiroshima-bomb than a nagasaki-bomb. Let's see YOU do it! I bet you couldn't built a hiroshima-bomb without a lot of government funding! I've never heard such a bold claim! This stupid Plutonium debate has been going on too long! Get your facts straight, Peter! Plutonium is ONLY available in an off-the-shelf disposable spray-can. Any terrorist group wanting to built a bomb from it would have to get the granulated variety, only available to foodservice organizations. In order to do this, they would have to get a permit -- and the US government does not give permits to unlicensed terrorists. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I was going to say something really profound, but I forgot what it was." -Rev. Wang Zeep
barb@oliven.UUCP (Barbara Jernigan) (08/20/85)
> And to make a bomb all you need is a couple times critical mass. That can > be carried in a briefcase. The whole bomb can be fit into a backpack. In > fact the army has a low-weild backpack bomb. Once you get the plutonium (no easy feat) it is simple enough to make a nuclear bomb -- surviving the experience however . . . (i.e. radiation poisoning). THAT'S WHAT SCARES ME about terrorism -- how many of us are willing to suicide because we think we are RIGHT????? ___________________ ______________\ ___________ | ______ / . / / o .ooo. ./ /. . o@ooo0 .ooooo. .ooooo. .oooo oo..oo oo...ooo ooo..ooo \ Barb .oo oo oooooo oooooo ooo ooo