700 Nuclear Batteries Targeted By Terrorists

Several hundred batteries containing the isotope strontium-90 are targeted by thieves and/or terrorists. They can be used in "dirty bombs" and they are unguarded in the middle of nowhere. 80 experts from 11 nations are discussing this problem as we speak...

Norway Post: Norway and Russia to replace nuclear batteries

Norway and Russia have agreed to replace several hundred nuclear powered lighthouses in the Barents Sea region. Thieves who have attempted to steal the nuclear batteries have created dangerous situations.

the thieves have several times tried to remove the batteries containing the isotope strontium-90, which may be used to make so-called "dirty bombs". If the batteries should fall into the hands of terrorists, the radioactive element therefore could be used to make such devices.

Work is underway to gather international assistance to help Russia replace 700 nuclear batteries in the region. More than 80 experts from 11 nations are gathered in Oslo to discuss the problem.

I don´t know how, but they have already tried to steal these batteries even though they are located in the freezing waters of the Barents Sea. 700 nuclear batteries, unguarded. Maybe they have already succeeded stealing some of them?

[edit on 2005/2/20 by Hellmutt]

If they were thieves,I'd say they're probably getting them and auctioning it to the highest bidder in the black market.If they are the terrorist,well,you know what happens and I won't elaborate much more.

Anyways,people will go to any lengths just to accomplish what they want.Take for example the Japanese in WWII,they volunteered to become kamikaze(Divine Wind) fighters just to ensure the Japanese are the victors.Though they did it out of desparation,"country,above self" is what motivates them to crash into the U.S battleships.

Well let's hope not,
If they are going to replace the batteries then we will know soon weather or not any are 'missing'.

I wonder what kind of damage 1 battery's worth of isotope strontium-90 in a dirtybomb could do?

Dirty bombs are purely a weapon to cause fear rather than actually much of a threat! A large amount of conventional explosives would cause far more damage and has the potential to kill far more people than a dirty bomb ever could.

The only people who would be of a slightly increased risk of cancer from exposure to the radiation would be people near to the location of the explosion and would be far more likely to die from the explosion rather than the radiation.

If a dirty bomb was set of in a large city such as London the risk of cancer from it or the rest of the population is virtually nill, the traffic pollution is far more dangerous than the radiation.

edit: spelling

[edit on 21-2-2005 by arnold_vosloo]

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo

Dirty bombs are purely a weapon to cause fear rather than actually much of a threat! A large amount of conventional explosives would cause far more damage and has the potential to kill far more people than a dirty bomb ever could.

Conceptually, a dirty bomb (or radiological dispersion bomb) is a very simple device. It's a conventional explosive, such as TNT (trinitrotoluene), packaged with radioactive material. It's a lot cruder and cheaper than a nuclear bomb, and it's also a lot less effective. But it does have the combination of explosive destruction and radiation damage.
High explosives inflict damage with rapidly expanding, very hot gas. The basic idea of a dirty bomb is to use the gas expansion as a means of propelling radioactive material over a wide area rather than as a destructive force in its own right. When the explosive goes off, the radioactive material spreads in a sort of dust cloud, carried by the wind, that reaches a wider area than the explosion itself.



ibs.howstuffworks.com...




[edit on 2-22-2005 by ProudAmerican]

thanks for the really detailed info TacOps . My point was that a dirty bomb would create more fear from the public due to ignorance of what the reality of one actually is. It is difficult to get an accurate idea of what the result of the detonation of one in a heavily populated area would be for the simple reason that no one has ever done just that. In addition the level of pollutants in an average city is just a dangerous to your health if not more so than the relatively small impact of the radiation which would disperse relatively quickly.

There best info I could find suggested that the risk of cancer would be a slight increase from the what would be considered the norm and the peopl most at risk would be person near to the explosion that would be directly contaminated and at worse suffer mild radation sickness but ceratinly not bad enough to cause death. The only risk of death would be from the explosion itself.

have a look at www.house.gov...

After reading what the members are writing here, these batts are scary little devils.

There was a piece on this stuff and 3-4 Russia back wood boys who slept beside two or three leaking cannisters on 60 Minutes a year or two ago. Russia, if remember correctly (minister of interior) said there were no more of the cannisters in operation as a means to generate portable power.

The units these men slept beside were placed between a couple of boulders by others, and the men looking for wind-shelter to sleep for the night came across 2-3 warn cans that they slept against, needless to say they were in serious physical trouble the next day. Each can was about the size of a five gallon container.

TacOps, there's another thread on the demise of world leading Biologists. If you can add any views to that thread too, would be most interested in reading them.

Dallas

To make a nuclear bomb you´ll need about 10-50 kilo of uranium. Uranium can be found on different garbage dumps in russia. Homeless people finds it and sell it on the black market. TERRORISM: Dirty bomb material found at tip (ATSNN). Today and tomorrow experts and politicians are having a meeting in Oslo discussing this problem. Among those present at this meeting is Hans Blix.

From: Norway to sponsor replacement of all nuclear lighthouses in north-west Russia

Norway and Russia have agreed to replace over hundred nuclear powered lighthouses in the north-west region during a conference in February.

Last month Norway signed an agreement of intent stipulating Norway will finance replacement of all the radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs, used as power sources for lighthouses and navigation beacons in the north-west Russia.

Rosatom concern promised to replace all the lighthouse nuclear generators in Russia by 2012.

This is not a new problem....



Nuclear lighthouses 03-14-2002

Nuclear lighthouses to be replaced 02-02-2003

Kola Peninsula lighthouses to use solar energy 08-05-2003

Two strontium powered lighthouses vandalised on the Kola Peninsula 11-17-2003

Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators 11-24-2003

Russian Parliamentarians reminded President about lost nuclear lighthouses 06-28-2004

Putin ordered to find lost nuclear lighthouses in the Pacific 11-04-2004

Norway pledged $3m for nuclear lighthouses decommissioning in Russia 11-22-2004

Strontium 90 has a half-life of nearly 30 years. If they keep talking about this for another 20 years, they'll only have to worry about half of the material. Unless it gets stolen...


International Partners to Discuss Removing Radiological Materials From Lighthouses (May 25, 2011)

Nonproliferation officials from around the globe are due to gather in Moscow on Friday to discuss continuing efforts to secure energy sources used to power Soviet-built naval structures, including lighthouses, that could be used in a radiological "dirty bomb,"

Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups have long expressed a desire to obtain unconventional weapons such as a radiological dirty weapon, which would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials.

The generators "contain a substantial amount of radioactive material and the sources are free for access by malicious intruders intending to used the sources ... for construction of dirty bombs," according to Heikki Reponen, head of expert services at Finland's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority.

Holy dead thread return batman.

Dirty bombs don't really scare me. I think there are less complex plans That would do a lot more damage and cause more terror.

reply to post by arnold_vosloo


BBC made a film several years back outlining a fictional "dirty bomb" attack on London

Posted on YOUTUBE in 9 parts

www.youtube.com...