Dirty War (on HBO NOW)

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

In could not find this in a search. If you have not heard of this HBO Special, it is about a dirty bomb, and what could happen.

On a personal note, I find this show very scary, and eye opening to say the least.

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

READYAmerica U.S. Department of Homeland Security
http://www.ready.gov/index.html

[petercooper]

http://www.raesystems.com/

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=RAE

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RAE

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

Thank you!

[FReepaholic]

...Nope......what happened?...

Dunno. I noticed a couple of guys/gals going at each other about smoking and stuff. Maybe it got out of hand.

[1066AD]

Hoping my son records it as we don't get HBO.
I watched "24" instead :)

[finnman69]

Just watched this, amazing. Scary, but also eye opening, I think I learned a little more about the organization of terrorist cells.

See this thread also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327417/posts
Four Star Fright: NY Post Gives “Dirty War” Rave Review (BBC biological terror flick on HBO tonight)

[JeffAtlanta]

Dirty Bombs are based on the rabid fear of radiation. The greatest threat from a dirty bomb is the panic itself.

That's pretty much the angle the movie took - it did make areas of London uninhabitable for up to 30 years though. Property values in the city as a whole plummeted as well. A dirty bomb would probably have the effect of convincing up to 1/3 of the population to move out of the city.

As you said the threat is more psychological than physical.

There was a very thought provoking line in the movie. When interrogating one of the planners, an interrogator pointed out that the bomb would hurt more muslims as the west would be sure to retaliate. The terrorist was unfazed and replied, "We expect retaliation - it unites us and divides you."

[finnman69]

Dirty bombs are for the most aprt harmless, unless of course they seed the explosives with something really nasty like anthrax or cesium.

[finnman69]

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm

Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat
Henry Kelly testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 6, 2002 on the threat of radiological attack by terrorist groups. This excerpt is taken from the text of his written testimony, based on analysis by Michael Levi, Robert Nelson, and Jaime Yassif, which can be found by clicking here.

Surely there is no more unsettling task than considering how to defend our nation against individuals and groups seeking to advance their aims by killing and injuring innocent people. But recent events make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil acts seriously. Our analysis of this threat has reached three principle conclusions:

Radiological attacks constitute a credible threat. Radioactive materials that could be used for such attacks are stored in thousands of facilities around the US, many of which may not be adequately protected against theft by determined terrorists. Some of this material could be easily dispersed in urban areas by using conventional explosives or by other methods.
While radiological attacks would result in some deaths, they would not result in the hundreds of thousands of fatalities that could be caused by a crude nuclear weapon. Attacks could contaminate large urban areas with radiation levels that exceed EPA health and toxic material guidelines.
Materials that could easily be lost or stolen from US research institutions and commercial sites could contaminate tens of city blocks at a level that would require prompt evacuation and create terror in large communities even if radiation casualties were low. Areas as large as tens of square miles could be contaminated at levels that exceed recommended civilian exposure limits. Since there are often no effective ways to decontaminate buildings that have been exposed at these levels, demolition may be the only practical solution. If such an event were to take place in a city like New York, it would result in losses of potentially trillions of dollars.
Background
Significant amounts of radioactive materials are stored in laboratories, food irradiation plants, oil drilling facilities, medical centers, and many other sites. Cobalt-60 and cesium-137 are used in food disinfection, medical equipment sterilization, and cancer treatments. During the 1960s and 1970s the federal government encouraged the use of plutonium in university facilities studying nuclear engineering and nuclear physics. Americium is used in smoke detectors and in devices that find oil sources.

With the exception of nuclear power reactors, commercial facilities do not have the types or volumes of materials usable for making nuclear weapons. Facility owners provide adequate security when they have a vested interest in protecting commercially valuable material. However, once radioactive materials are no longer needed and costs of appropriate disposal are high, security measures become lax, and the likelihood of abandonment or theft increases.

We must wrestle with the possibility that sophisticated terrorist groups may be interested in obtaining these materials and with the enormous danger to society that such thefts might present. Significant quantities of radioactive material have been lost or stolen from US facilities during the past few years and thefts of foreign sources have led to fatalities. In the US, sources have been found abandoned in scrap yards, vehicles, and residential buildings.

If these materials were dispersed in an urban area, they would pose a serious health hazard. Intense sources of gamma rays can cause acute radiation poisoning, or even fatalities at high doses. Long-term exposure to low levels of gamma rays can cause cancer. If alpha emitters, such as plutonium, americium or other elements, are present in the environment in particles small enough to be inhaled, these particles can become lodged in the lungs and damage tissue, leading to long-term cancers.

Case Studies
We have chosen three specific cases to illustrate the range of impacts that could be created by malicious use of comparatively small radioactive sources: the amount of cesium that was discovered recently abandoned in North Carolina, the amount of cobalt commonly found in a single rod in a food irradiation facility, and the amount of americium typically found in oil well logging systems. The impact would be much greater if the radiological device in question released the enormous amounts of radioactive material found in a single nuclear reactor fuel rod, but it would be quite difficult and dangerous for anyone to attempt to obtain and ship such a rod without death or detection. The Committee will undoubtedly agree that the danger presented by modest radiological sources that are comparatively easy to obtain is significant as well.

The impact of radioactive material release in a populated area would vary depending on a number of factors, such as the amount of material released, the nature of the material, the details of the device that distributes the material, the direction and speed of the wind, other weather conditions, the size of the particles released (which affects their ability to be carried by the wind and to be inhaled), and the location and size of buildings near the release site. Uncertainties inherent in the complex models used in predicting the effects of a radiological weapon mean that it is only possible to make crude estimates of impacts; the estimated damage we show might be off by an order of magnitude.

In all three cases we have assumed that the material is released on a calm day (wind speed of one mile per hour) and that the material is distributed by an explosion that causes a mist of fine particles to spread downwind in a cloud. People will be exposed to radiation in several ways.

They will be exposed to material in the dust inhaled during the initial passage of the radiation cloud, if they have not been able to escape the area before the dust cloud arrives. We assume that about twenty percent of the material is in particles small enough to be inhaled. If this material is an alpha emitter, it will stay in the body and lead to long term exposure.
Anyone living in the affected area will be exposed to material deposited from the dust that settles from the cloud. If the material contains gamma emitters, residents will be continuously exposed to radiation from this dust. If the material contains alpha emitters, dust that is pulled off the ground and into the air by wind, automobile movement, or other actions will continue to be inhaled, adding to exposure.
In a rural area, people would also be exposed to radiation from contaminated food and water sources.
The EPA has a series of recommendations for addressing radioactive contamination that would likely guide official response to a radiological attack. Immediately after the attack, authorities would evacuate people from areas contaminated to levels exceeding those guidelines. People who received more than twenty-five times the threshold dose for evacuation would have to be taken in for medical supervision.

In the long term, the cancer hazard from the remaining radioactive contamination would have to be addressed. Typically, if decontamination could not reduce the danger of cancer death to about one-in-ten-thousand, the EPA would recommend the contaminated area be eventually abandoned. Several materials that might be used in a radiological attack can chemically bind to concrete and asphalt, while other materials would become physically lodged in crevices on the surface of buildings, sidewalks and streets. Options for decontamination would range from sandblasting to demolition, with the latter likely being the only feasible option. Some radiological materials would also chemically bind to soil in city parks, with the only disposal method being large scale removal of contaminated dirt. In short, there is a high risk that the area contaminated by a radiological attack would have to be deserted.

[alnick]

http://www.ready.gov/index.html

[OneTimeLurker]

Said 3.5 square miles uninhabitable. That's a whole lot of space in a downtown area. That alone would be devistating.

[alnick]

NO instruction, except, live your life as usual and if you see anything suspicious, call 911. Yep, that'll save a whole lot of lives!

http://www.ready.gov/radiation.html

[finnman69]

Example 1:
Cesium (Gamma Emitter)

Two weeks ago, a lost medical gauge containing cesium was discovered in North Carolina. Imagine that the cesium in this device was exploded in Washington, DC in a bomb using ten pounds of TNT. The initial passing of the radioactive cloud would be relatively harmless, and no one would have to evacuate immediately. However, residents of an area of about five city blocks, if they remained, would have a one-in-a-thousand chance of getting cancer. A swath about one mile long covering an area of forty city blocks would exceed EPA contamination limits, with remaining residents having a one-in-ten thousand chance of getting cancer. If decontamination were not possible, these areas would have to be abandoned for decades. If the device was detonated at the National Gallery of Art, the contaminated area might include the Capitol, Supreme Court, and Library of Congress, as seen if Figure 1.

Figure 1. Long-term Contamination Due to Cesium Bomb in Washington, DC.
Inner Ring: One cancer death per 100 people due to remaining radiation (5% increase)
Middle Ring: One cancer death per 1,000 people due to remaining radiation (.5% increase)
Outer Ring: One cancer death per 10,000 people due to remaining radiation (.05% increase): EPA recommends decontamination or destruction

Example 2:
Cobalt (Gamma Emitter)

Now imagine if a single piece of radioactive cobalt from a food irradiation plant were dispersed by an explosion at the lower tip of Manhattan. Typically, each of these cobalt "pencils" is about one inch in diameter and one foot long, with hundreds of such pieces often being found in the same facility. Admittedly, acquisition of such material is less likely than in the previous scenario, but we still consider the results, depicted in Figure 2.

Fig. 2 Long-term Contamination Due to Cobalt Bomb in NYC - EPA Standards.
Inner Ring: One cancer death per 100 people due to remaining radiation (5% increase)
Middle Ring: One cancer death per 1,000 people due to remaining radiation (.5% increase)
Outer Ring: One cancer death per 10,000 people due to remaining radiation (.05% increase): EPA recommends decontamination or destruction

Again, no immediate evacuation would be necessary, but in this case, an area of approximately one-thousand square kilometers, extending over three states, would be contaminated. Over an area of about three hundred typical city blocks, there would be a one-in-ten risk of death from cancer for residents living in the contaminated area for forty years. The entire borough of Manhattan would be so contaminated that anyone living there would have a one-in-a-hundred chance of dying from cancer caused by the residual radiation. It would be decades before the city was inhabitable again, and demolition might be necessary.

For comparison, consider the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, in which a Soviet nuclear power plant went through a meltdown. Radiation was spread over a vast area, and the region surrounding the plant was permanently closed. In our current example, the area contaminated to the same level of radiation as that region would cover much of Manhattan, as shown in Figure 3. Furthermore, near Chernobyl, a larger area has been subject to periodic controls on human use such as restrictions on food, clothing, and time spent outdoors. In the current example, the equivalent area extends fifteen miles.

Fig. 3 Contamination Due to Cobalt Bomb in NYC - Chernobyl Comparison. More...
Inner Ring: Same radiation level as permanently closed zone around Chernobyl
Middle Ring: Same radiation level as permanently controlled zone around Chernobyl
Outer Ring: Same radiation level as periodically controlled zone around Chernobyl

[JeffAtlanta]

Said 3.5 square miles uninhabitable. That's a whole lot of space in a downtown area. That alone would be devistating.

True - also, who would want to work or live right across the street from the boundary. Its one of those psychological things - no matter where the boundary is laid, no one wants to be very close to it.

[rdcorso]

We can be sure that the terrorist will be successful setting of a dirty bomb,nuclear bomb or a biological attack one of these days.The reason we can be so sure is that we are making it easy for them by leaving our borders open for them to come right in with whatever type of device they want.It makes about as much sense to me as the people crying to spare the life of someone on death row and demanding the state starve Terry Schiavo to death.What a sick world we live in.

[finnman69]

another informational note, in the movie I believe the fire brigade commander of the first responding unit reported back his dosimeter read over 250 milisievert (50 rem) before he took his hood off. Obviously he continued to fight the fires and rescue the injured and breathed in quite a bit of of alpha and gamma particles.

1 Sievert=100 rems. 400 Rems is fatal to about 50%.

Acute Radiation Exposure
Effects of Large, Whole-Body Radiation Doses

Effect Dose (rems)
No observable effect 0-25
Slight blood changes 25-100
Significant reduction in blood platelets and
white blood cells (temporary) 100-200
Severe blood damage, nausea, hair loss,
hemorrhage, death in many cases 200-500
Death in less than two months for over 80% >600

[TFine80]

Queens looks pretty safe, even Astoria.

Thank God.

[RichardW]

It repeats early tomorrow morning. Set your DVR.

[Smogger]

It was an excellent and eye opening movie. I highly reccommend it.

Then I reccommend you check your urban survival kit, get one if you dont have one. There are some nice ones on ebay.

[GottaLuvAkitas1]

"We can be sure that the terrorist will be successful setting of a dirty bomb,nuclear bomb or a biological attack one of these days.The reason we can be so sure is that we are making it easy for them by leaving our borders open for them to come right in with whatever type of device they want."

I just went on my 1st cruise Jan 1-8th, and was shocked how UNPROTECTED our borders are from Mexico. People all around me were commenting on it.
To emphasis how pathetic it was, as I listened to them I could tell a lot of the shocked and outraged people were Liberals.