Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 25, 2021 at 13:19 comment added Uwe That plutonium isotope that may used for rtgs can not be used for bombs, it would be simply much too hot. For rtgs a short half live time is needed to get a high power density. For bombs a long half live time is needed to produce very little heat to stay cool.
Feb 25, 2021 at 12:33 comment added Russell McMahon " ... Plutonium-238 is given the highest relative hazard number (152) of all 256 radionuclides evaluated by Karl Z. Morgan et al. in 1963...." | Very interesting Wikpedia page. | My "suggestion" above re mixing it with food would be a rather effective use as a error weapon. Pu238 for RTG use produces about 0.6/ W/gram. A little goes a long way :-( wiki2.org/en/Plutonium-238
Feb 25, 2021 at 12:21 comment added Russell McMahon @Slarty - I think that comment may have been directed towards Loren Pechtel :-)
Feb 25, 2021 at 10:30 comment added Slarty @Russell McMahon You make Plutonium sound quite harmless.
Feb 25, 2021 at 3:05 comment added Loren Pechtel continued: Gamma emitters can kill without getting in your body--but if the bomb has enough to pose a hazard it simply kills the terrorists, they can't employ it. Beta emitters can't meaningfully harm you from outside the body. The only isotopes that actually pose an actual hazard are those that the body absorbs--and most of the stuff that poses a real risk has a short half life--it pretty much decays in the reactor cooling ponds.
Feb 25, 2021 at 2:57 comment added Loren Pechtel Dirty bombs are far more a fear thing than a realistic threat. Pu-238 is an alpha emitter, completely harmless unless it gets inside your body--and note that if it gets in your digestive system it pretty much just passes through. It's only deadly if you inhale particles of it--they sit there irradiating one spot until it turns into cancer. However, it's quite a challenge to turn a block of metal into something that would stay in the air long enough to be inhaled by someone not there at the time of release. The threat of plutonium is greatly exaggerated.
Feb 24, 2021 at 22:23 comment added Russell McMahon @DavidTonhofer A 'dirty bomb' is traditionally used to mean a fission bomb aimed at maximising radiation - but for terrorist us, scattering whatever nasty material you can find over a suitable area using more comventional means would qualify. Using it to eg contaminate food products by mixing it into the source material (flour? sauce? ...?) could potentially cause more harm ("terror") from the panic caused than the actual material-caused damage.
Feb 24, 2021 at 18:59 comment added David Tonhofer Making a "dirty bomb" sounds difficult though. Generally you need a whole fission reactor to burp to get people into a sufficient fright. Otherwise you just send in people in hazmat suitsm with radiation counters, hose everything down, and you are good to go.
Feb 24, 2021 at 13:07 comment added Solomon Slow @uhoh, Oops! You are right. I guess I copied the link from the wrong tab in my browser, and then I went with the link text. (I don't actually have anything to do with any plutonium isotope in my day-to-day life, so I don't normally have a keen awareness of which one is which.)
Feb 24, 2021 at 3:10 comment added uhoh @SolomonSlow it's 238-Pu that's used in RTGs as well as in old pacemakers!
Feb 24, 2021 at 3:08 comment added uhoh Nuclear Pacemaker Fact Sheet and Plutonium Powered Pacemaker (1974) and The History of Nuclear Powered Pacemakers it's 238-Pu, not 240-Pu
Feb 23, 2021 at 18:44 comment added Slarty 240-Pu can't be used to make a fission bomb true. A dirty bomb would sure be bad.
Feb 23, 2021 at 18:31 comment added Solomon Slow The plutonium isotope, 240-Pu, that is used in RTGs can not be used to make an atomic bomb. In fact, even a tiny amount of 240-Pu contamination can cause an atomic bomb to fizzle. Ironically, what poisons the atomic bomb is the fact that the stuff is so highly radioactive. But, terrorists don't need to make an atomic bomb. A "dirty" bomb would be plenty bad.
Feb 23, 2021 at 15:05 history answered Slarty CC BY-SA 4.0