It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canister Of Cesium 137 Missing In Kazakhstan - Part Of Next False Flag?

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Kazakh authorities are searching for a canister of radioactive cesium 137 that has gone missing in the western part of the Central Asian nation. Local authorities in the western Manghystau region said on September 2 that a metal cylinder containing the substance had been lost in the region on August 27 while being transported by car. They have warned residents not to open the container if it is found because it could be deadly. Cesium 137 is a radioactive isotope used in the nuclear industry and in medicine. It can sharply raise the level of radioactivity in an area it contaminates. Kazakhstan's National Security Committee (KNB) has joined the investigation and search for the container.

hisz.rsoe.hu...


How does a Canister of Cesium 137 just go missing?

First off I would like to explain the obvious and point out that the reasons behind this missing canister could be completely innocent with no foul play whatsoever but with all the "Terror Alerts" in Europe, Australia and the USA over the last few days I found this news was difficult to ignore.



Report: Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US BorderRed

www.nationalterroralert.com...


Australia, Britain on heightened terror alert

www.straitstimes.com...


Many of us have heard about he infamous "Dirty Bomb" and how terrorist cells plan on using them on Western targets. We usually hear about these threats from our media or government. As we all know our media and government cannot always be trusted and a lot of their news/warnings are completely made up and serve an agenda. They have tried to make us live in complete fear since the attacks of September 11th 2001. Our rights have been taken away under the disguise of protecting us. There have been several attacks on Western targets since then such as Madrid and London.

Many people believe that these attacks were conducted by certain shadow governments and blamed on fabricated groups or scapegoats such as Al-Qaeda. Can you blame these people for at least considering that their governments participated in these attacks or at the very least had previous knowledge? The evidence supporting that they at least knew about these attacks is overwhelming and that's not even counting the evidence that implies their participation.

So this brings us back to the missing Canister from Kazakhstan...

With all these expected terror attacks which our media and governments have been warning us about, would it be far fetched to at least consider that this canister of Cesium 137 could be meant to be a component in a dirty bomb to use on a Western target?

Let it be clear that I acknowledge there are real terrorists out there who do wish harm upon the West and would attack us if they could, but I find it more than coincidental that all the attacks on Western soil usually have connections that lead back to certain governments and their secret agencies, some examples of this would be the USA, Israel and the UK involvement in 9/11, London and Madrid.

If you would like more information about these connections please use the ATS search engine to read the threads in regards to these attacks as there is lots of useful information.

Let's hope that I'm over-analyzing this missing canister of Cesium 137. If a certain group or organization were to blow up a canister of Cesium 137 in a densely populated area the damage could be very bad.




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: real_one
I believe you are totally over analizing this...weapons go missing much like many of the suitcase bombs that went missing after the cold war. For all we know those small nukes are still in circulation.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Only a matter of time.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

You are correct, I could be completely over analyzing this as previously mentioned it's just that the timing of this incident seemed a little too perfect in my opinion.

If a bomb were to go off in a few days somewhere in Europe or the USA it could easily be blamed on religious extremists from Iraq or Syria who have links to terrorist cells in Kazakhstan.

I know there are flaws in my theory such as there's already tons of radioactive material in circulation and if Western governments were behind such a plan they could just find the stuff anywhere they want but it makes it the "false flag" more credible if something such as a missing canister of Cesium 137 goes missing shortly before the attack.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: real_one

Unfortunately the term false flag will for ever cast a shadow of dought on all terrorist/military that occur for most on ATS and elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco
a reply to: real_one

Unfortunately the term false flag will for ever cast a shadow of dought on all terrorist/military that occur for most on ATS and elsewhere.



I know what you mean.

People are so used to things not making sense that they can't help but question every single story they are told, and rightfully so if you ask me. This reminds me of the whole boy who cried wolf scenario, when a legitimate terror attack conducted by legitimate terrorists with no connections to any government organization actually happens, people will still blame CIA, Mossad and all the other usual suspects.

Personally, I question everything but seek the truth and do not let my preconceived notions guide me while I conduct my research. All I mean is that we must stay vigilant and expose the lies and promote the truth whenever possible even if it means speculating from time to time.

There is nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't present your theories as fact or misrepresent them to misinform others.



posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: real_one

Interesting spot, so star for that.


I do think in this particular case that you may be over analysing, although i do get where you are coming from with the timing. The reason i say this is that, basically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, security has been lax at all sorts of facilities in the former USSR.

For example, Worse than Chernobyl this linky is about a Soviet nuclear waste facility where anyone can walk onto site and help themselves to whatever, should they so wish.

I have read all sorts from Kazakhstan since 1991, particularly from facilities near to the Aral Sea, of villagers walking into former military facilities and walking out with whatever they fancy. Worryingly, there are also accounts of this happening in Afghanistan!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: real_one

ignoring the silly doom porn " false flag " crap

why has no one asked :

what mass was the lost sample ?

yet ???????????????????????



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: real_one

ignoring the silly doom porn " false flag " crap

why has no one asked :

what mass was the lost sample ?

yet ???????????????????????



Okay, I'll bite.

How big was the cannister?

And how big is the accumulated mass of radioactive waste reported missing in total?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Interesting stuff, but a couple of notes -

1. Cesium 137 is usually used for calibration and radiotherapy purposes. It's not really a weapons grade material from what I can gather. Too unstable.

2. Dirty Bombs are, in reality, dreadful ways to weaponise nuclear material. The bomb itself will most likely do more damage than any radioactive materials dispersed by it.

This said, I'd prefer for people not to be detonating dirty bombs!



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: KingIcarus


The bomb itself will most likely do more damage than any radioactive materials dispersed by it.

This said, I'd prefer for people not to be detonating dirty bombs!



I'm sure you're right...............as far as the first five years go, but after that the numbers of casualties could skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands.

The casualties from the "explosion" are insignificant.

Seriously, are you trying to make the claim that the potential lethality of a dirty bomb is trivial?

An airliner load exploded midair over a major city could eventually kill millions.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

I'm certainly not saying that the lethality of a dirty bomb is in question, I'm just pointing out that it's a very poor mechanism for comtaminating areas and people in a way that can't be reasonably contained or decomtaminated.

Obviously a lot would depend on how much and what type of nuclear material was dispersed, but you'd need very large amounts indeed to create a contamination zone that couldn't be controlled by any Western government. It'd obviously be a very serious incident costing millions to decontaminate, but unless you were caught in the actual physical blast you'd be unlikely to suffer many ill effects at all assume you took the correct steps and accepted the assistance provided. Even the long term effects are almost universally accepted as minimal.

"Exposure at the low radiation doses expected from an RDD would increase the risk of cancer only slightly over naturally occurring rates. Long-term health studies on the survivors of the 1945 nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki indicate that for those who received radiation doses from 0 up to 10 rems, less than 1% of cancers in that population were attributable to radiation."

To give that some context, a full body CAT scan is the equivalent of 1 rem - and there was no hope at all of decontaminating Hiroshima and Nagasaki to anything approaching modern standards.

RADIOLOGICAL ATTACK, DIRTY BOMBS AND OTHER DEVICES (DHS)

As per your example, a jetliner carrying a dirty bomb being detonated over a major is unlikely to ultimately kill 'millions' because of the disperal rate. A dirty bomb is not a nuclear weapon. Whilst no doubt it would elevate background levels of radiation, but even if it doubled those levels the effects would be minimal - if obviously undesireable. The main problem would be the nightmare scenario of the plane itself going down over a city.

Here's some more info from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

No-one is disputing the danger of dirty bombs, but the risks are actually pretty limited. It's just something deserving of a little perspective.

edit on 6-9-2014 by KingIcarus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: KingIcarus
a reply to: Psynic

The main problem would be the nightmare scenario of the plane itself going down over a city.




Hahaha!

That link to The Department of Homeland Security is as ridiculous as the old public service announcements to "Duck and Cover" at the sight of a mushroom cloud.

An airliner filled with medical and industrial radioactive material exploding at altitude over a major city would do hundreds of times more damage than "millions of dollars" worth.

If downtown NYC became an exclusion zone the costs would soar into the BILLIONS.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: real_one

Didn't I read somewhere recently about a dirty bomb on Moscow and an EMP on Chicago......
Maybe I'm just nuts. I'm sure I read this.....



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Well, I've no idea how much it would cost to decontaminate something like that - but your point was about casualties, not costs. I stated it would be massively expensive - although I maintain the dispertion rate would be so large at altitude that the contamination would be negligible.

If the DHS source is so poor, I challenge you to produce a credible report that supports the notion that a dirty bomb of any kind would be able to make NYC an exclusion zone.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: KingIcarus


If the DHS source is so poor, I challenge you to produce a credible report that supports the notion that a dirty bomb of any kind would be able to make NYC an exclusion zone.



That would be unpatriotic.

Wiki says the risks of developing cancer later in life would be no worse than smoking FIVE packages of cigarettes a day!

FIVE packages. Would anyone be expected NOT to get cancer after smoking FIVE packages of cigarettes a day?



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

That's actually quite misleading as it refers to the natural radioactivity of tobacco - the 'radioactive health risk'. There is no suggestion that the health effects of smoking 100 cigarettes a day are comparable to a dirty bomb, only that smoking 100 cigarettes a day would expose you to a comparable amount of radiation. Radiation is not - by a long stretch - the most carcinogenic element of cigarettes... such radiation is present in all ground-grown things, and variable based on where it's typically grown. I'm slightly surprised wiki have allowed that content as it's presented misleadingly.

From the same wiki page quoting the NRC - the study link doesn't work, but their site seems down in general atm.

"A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal"

In the event of a Dirty Bomb, the area and people involved would be decontaminated, significantly reducing the individual risk.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
There never has been, and probably never will be, a terrorist use of a "dirty bomb".
It is just another mythical doom device marketed by the war on terror recipients of huge sums of taxpayer cash, and the only time one has been built and detonated, has been by the US DoE for a study.


I'd rate it right up there with the scary "suitcase" nukes that have supposedly been in terrorist hands for the last couple of decades, or dragons, or a deathstar! Still, gives the tv talking heads something scary to talk about with a concerned tone and the tv terrorism "experts" some fodder for a doomporn book.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
There never has been, and probably never will be, a terrorist use of a "dirty bomb".
It is just another mythical doom device marketed by the war on terror recipients of huge sums of taxpayer cash, and the only time one has been built and detonated, has been by the US DoE for a study.


I'd rate it right up there with the scary "suitcase" nukes that have supposedly been in terrorist hands for the last couple of decades, or dragons, or a deathstar! Still, gives the tv talking heads something scary to talk about with a concerned tone and the tv terrorism "experts" some fodder for a doomporn book.


I'll get back to you about this after the 11th.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join