posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:19 AM
Originally posted by CarbonBase
I hope it wasn't cobalt. please don't let it be that. That stuff is SO NASTY!. And please, don't let it be a bunch of kids! Whoever was driving that
van is going to be having some long sleepless nights. To our friends in the UK, we'll pray this is found recovered soon.
You didn't read the linked article. It says the material in the cannister is Iridium 192, not cobalt 60. This item is used in industrial NDT
(non-destructive test) of weld joints that require the highest level of quality we can achieve. The types of weld joints that require the least amount
of internal flaws possible. It is called radiography, and is similar to an x-ray of your body to look inside at what cannot be seen from the outside.
There are many types of weld joints, both commmercial and military, that require such a high level of quality.
Let me preface this by stating I am not in the radiography industry but have had some training relative to the safety aspect of this topic.
The radioactive source inside this cannister is much smaller than the cannister itself...about the size of a pencil eraser, maybe slightly larger....
attached to a device similar to a drain snake...atleast that is the case with ones with which I am familiar. This type of NDT is normally
accomplished at times when the least number of people are around for obvious reasons. The "pill" inside is highly radioactive and can cause severe
skin burns and internal cell damage if exposed for a period time, although I do not know what that time frame is. Like I said, I am not a radiography
technician. This is the information I recieved in my basic training with respect to this type of NDT.
While not good for this pill to be in an uncontrolled area, if the article is correct, it has a short half-life. It would be interesting to understand
to whom it belongs, and what their procedures are for its control.
If anyone on ATS works in this industry reads this, please feel free to correct anything I have written that is not accurate.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason given)
edit on 19-2-2013 by Hugues de Payens because: (no reason