To: Tailgunner Joe
High-grade uranium is not necessary for this project; ordinary, low-grade nuclear waste will be deadly enough.
If it's "low grade," how is it deadly? A bunch of paper booties from a nuclear power plant contaminated with slightly radioactive dust is not something to strike terror into the heart of man, nor is high-grade uranium a particularly dangerous substance for environmental contamination. My in-laws' granite countertop probably gives off more radiation than a uranium-based dirty bomb would.
I wish these reporters would educate themselves before spouting this kind of nonsense.
posted on 10/29/2003 9:53:51 AM PST
Low Grade doesn't mean it's totally impotent - it just isn't suitable for making nukes that go kapow. Drink an ounce of water that is 25% cyanide and you will be just as dead as if it were pure cyanide.
posted on 10/29/2003 9:57:17 AM PST
"I wish these reporters would educate themselves before spouting this kind of nonsense."
I'm no expert in physics or radiation, but I do know 1 thing: Fear sells.
posted on 10/29/2003 10:10:12 AM PST
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
You are wrong.
Not talking of low-grade Uranium, but of low-grade nuclear waste, which is amalgam of toxic substances. Low concentration of Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Cobalt-60, Strontium-90, etc. will do bad things if placed next to explosive, and that is classic definition of dirty bomb.
posted on 10/29/2003 11:41:09 AM PST
by Alter Kaker
(Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
"If it's "low grade," how is it deadly?"
low grade = not weapons grade.
Both are stil very deadly.
posted on 10/29/2003 11:58:52 AM PST
(Behold the Power of CHEESE!)
The one to worry about is plutonium. That stuff is really nasty...
posted on 11/27/2003 3:42:28 AM PST
(The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson