Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:52 pm UTC

Here's a little link to a story about a guy who had pretty much completely assembled a dirty bomb. I mean, there was a little more work to do, but he had the parts it seems to me.

the article wrote:The report says Maine authorities detected radioactivity emanating from four jars labeled "uranium metal" as well as found two jars of thorium. Upon further analysis, the four jars of uranium metal held depleted uranium 238 while the jars of thorium contained thorium 232. The FBI comments included within the report say literature on constructing dirty bombs was found as well as information relating to cesium-137, strontium-90, and cobalt-60.


Hmmm, that's odd, it hasn't been driving the 24/7 news networks wild. How could that be?

Via SchneierHey that rhymes!
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby william » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:18 pm UTC

It's a white guy. Everybody knows white people can't be terrorists.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby frezik » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:28 pm UTC

White Supremacists are closer (in a relative sense) in ideology to Rush Limbaugh than any Muslem extermists are, so it's harder to get a sense of "other" and dehumanize them. It's much easier to do the same for people who live half way around the planet and have little shared culture. Rationally, extremisim of any ideology forms a terrorist threat, but it's too easy for psychology to get in the way.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

PurpleMint
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:06 am UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby PurpleMint » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:46 pm UTC

"Pretty much completely assembled?" Actually, the isotopes he had weren't nearly potent enough for a bomb. There's a correction at the bottom of the article. Plus he only had the raw ingredients for the explosive mixture.

Did his wife know about this? (EDIT: yes she did. gotta read slower) Because I expected her to list it as her main reason for shooting him.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Brooklynxman » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:47 pm UTC

I see no difference between domestic terrorists and foreign, in my eyes they are the same.

Fuck you news media.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Indon » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:56 pm UTC

PurpleMint wrote:"Pretty much completely assembled?" Actually, the isotopes he had weren't nearly potent enough for a bomb. There's a correction at the bottom of the article. Plus he only had the raw ingredients for the explosive mixture.

Dirty bombs don't require any amount of radioactive potency, though - even a highly potent dirty bomb doesn't actually do very much, in terms of casualties - it's all about inciting fear. That is to say, terrorism. So the guy had a dirty bomb, he just wasn't very good at it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the article's wrong about Depleted Uranium - while it's not radioactive, it's not harmless, either, being a heavy metal and thus capable of inducing heavy metal poisoning (and probably not, in fact, being processed through the body quite so easily), though, that's debatable.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Gunfingers » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Wiki wrote:Because U-234 accounts for about half the radioactivity of natural uranium, the external radiation dose from DU is about 60 percent of that from the same mass of natural uranium.

Image

User avatar
Veracious Sole
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:05 pm UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Veracious Sole » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:10 pm UTC

Weakly radioactive or not. I can't imagine it would be terribly easy to get a hold of those radioactive metals. Any idea where he picked them up?
"I never knew words could be so confusing," Milo said to Tock as he bent down to scratch the dog's ear.
"Only when you use a lot to say a little," answered Tock. ~The Phantom Tollbooth~

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:14 pm UTC

PurpleMint wrote:"Pretty much completely assembled?" Actually, the isotopes he had weren't nearly potent enough for a bomb. There's a correction at the bottom of the article. Plus he only had the raw ingredients for the explosive mixture.


That's true, it would have been a pretty clean dirty bomb, just using what he already had. And you're right that the bomb hadn't been put together yet, but you wouldn't do that until you were in the very final stages, else it might prematurely detonate.

But still, he did have some of the materials needed, and was progressing to assembly. Compare the media's response to muslim terrorists who haven't even got any of the materiel assembled at all. Perhaps you recall the coverage of the "chicago plot". From that article: "No weapons were found in the Miami warehouse, and the seven had not posed any immediate danger, the FBI said." But they were front page news for days.

The news here, imo, is the clear double standard that currently exists.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Brooklynxman
Because I'm Awesome
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:27 pm UTC
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Brooklynxman » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:19 pm UTC

The anthrax mail attacks did get serious coverage, but they were immediatly following september 11th, thus, it didn't matter who was doing it. The plane that crashed in the rockaways got national coverage for days and people were scared shitless.
We figure out what all this means, then do something large and violent

The thing about changing the world...once you do it the world's all different.

I'm Angel. I beat the bad guys.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby jestingrabbit » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Brooklynxman wrote:The anthrax mail attacks did get serious coverage, but they were immediatly following september 11th, thus, it didn't matter who was doing it. The plane that crashed in the rockaways got national coverage for days and people were scared shitless.


You're talking about events that happened in the months right after the wtc attacks.

My point is that currently, or at least as recently as mid 2006, there is an irrational hysteria associated with people who haven't even got any weapons, let alone anything more dangerous; because they're muslims, because they're not white. Contrast that with the fact that when a white supremacist is actually getting the material required to create a bomb together its not even worth a brief flicker of interest from the national media.

This is a double standard.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
frezik
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:52 pm UTC
Location: Schrödinger's Box

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby frezik » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:31 pm UTC

Veracious Sole wrote:Weakly radioactive or not. I can't imagine it would be terribly easy to get a hold of those radioactive metals. Any idea where he picked them up?


United Nuclear sells the stuff.

Depleated Uranium isn't that hard to get. There's so much of it left over after processing it for enriched uranium that companies practically pay you to take it away. Any time you want to balance out the weight of something while taking minimal volume (like a plane or a boat), a bit of DU is probably there.

Thorium is also available, in small quantities, in just about any smoke detector.

In any case, it's important to reiterate that the Dirty Bombs are only useful as a fear tactic. In terms of actual damage, you'd be better off with a pipebomb full of nails. Provided the government can control the panic in the population, there's little practical effect. In fact, I'd say a good response to a dirty bomb is to hide the details, evacuate the area on a thin pretext, and only reveal the real reason after everyone is out.
I do not agree with the beer you drink, but will defend to the death your right to drink it

User avatar
Minerva
Posts: 947
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Minerva » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:37 pm UTC

Now, of course, this seems like a bit of a beat-up - but I’m not sure who’s to blame here, the newspaper, or the perhaps overly dramatic (internal) FBI report.

The memo leaked on WikiLeaks reports that:

“State authorities detected radiation emissions in four small jars in the residence labelled ‘uranium metal’, as well as one jar labelled ‘thorium’. The four jars of uranium carried the label of an identified US company.”

“Further preliminary analysis on 30 december 2008 indicated an unlabeled jar to be a second jar of thorium. Each bottle of uranium contained depleted uranium-238. Analysis also indicated the two jars of thorium held thorium-232.”

Now, regarding this US company. I have a pretty good suspicion who this company is - there aren’t too many companies that sell small samples of depleted uranium to the public - but I’m not going to mention the company by name, simply because they do not deserve to be unfairly tarnished or persecuted in relation to this incident, and they will be, again, if the media catches their name. Oh me yarm, they sell the scary radioactive material on the internet! Panic!

This company provides quite a few products which are very interesting and very useful in scientific teaching, education and research, including some items which are extremely difficult to find on the market anywhere else, and they already cop enough persecution and flak as it is. Nothing they sell poses any special danger to the community at large, and small samples of uranium metal are, personally, one of the least dangerous things they sell.

The company in question, from what I recall, sells (depleted) uranium metal samples in 5 gram bottles, and used to sell thorium as one-gram samples.

If these samples were what these bottles possessed by this person were, then you’re talking about approximately 20 g of depleted uranium metal, and approximately 2 g of thorium metal. That’s about 10 microcuries of uranium, and about 0.22 microcuries of thorium. That's a miniscule amount of radioactivity, it's harmless.

There’s nothing that constitutes any radiological hazard to anybody. A bucket full of uranium-bearing rock (which contains natural uranium in equilibrium with radium, radon, polonium, etc) picked up out of the ground would contain more radioactivity than this. Uranium-238 and thorium-232 are some of the least radioactive substances you can find that can still actually be called radioactive. They’re completely, utterly irrelevant to any threat of a radiological weapon, at all.

That said, however, I’m sure it is within the limits plausibility that this person was intent on trying to build a radiological weapon, he simply didn’t go about it in a particularly effective fashion.
...suffer from the computer disease that anybody who works with computers now knows about. It's a very serious disease and it interferes completely with the work. The trouble with computers is you play with them. They are so wonderful. - Richard Feynman

PurpleMint
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:06 am UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby PurpleMint » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:05 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
PurpleMint wrote:"Pretty much completely assembled?" Actually, the isotopes he had weren't nearly potent enough for a bomb. There's a correction at the bottom of the article. Plus he only had the raw ingredients for the explosive mixture.

Dirty bombs don't require any amount of radioactive potency, though - even a highly potent dirty bomb doesn't actually do very much, in terms of casualties - it's all about inciting fear. That is to say, terrorism. So the guy had a dirty bomb, he just wasn't very good at it.

Also, I'm pretty sure the article's wrong about Depleted Uranium - while it's not radioactive, it's not harmless, either, being a heavy metal and thus capable of inducing heavy metal poisoning (and probably not, in fact, being processed through the body quite so easily), though, that's debatable.


I'd just say my bomb was radioactive then... ...or load it with mercury and arsenic instead.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:
Brooklynxman wrote:The anthrax mail attacks did get serious coverage, but they were immediatly following september 11th, thus, it didn't matter who was doing it. The plane that crashed in the rockaways got national coverage for days and people were scared shitless.


You're talking about events that happened in the months right after the wtc attacks.

My point is that currently, or at least as recently as mid 2006, there is an irrational hysteria associated with people who haven't even got any weapons, let alone anything more dangerous; because they're muslims, because they're not white. Contrast that with the fact that when a white supremacist is actually getting the material required to create a bomb together its not even worth a brief flicker of interest from the national media.

This is a double standard.


In any case, in the media directly following the attacks, there were accusations flung at Al Qaeda, Syria, Iraq, the Taliban...
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Mzyxptlk
Posts: 513
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:41 am UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Mzyxptlk » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:00 pm UTC

frezik wrote:In any case, it's important to reiterate that the Dirty Bombs are only useful as a fear tactic. In terms of actual damage, you'd be better off with a pipebomb full of nails. Provided the government can control the panic in the population, there's little practical effect. In fact, I'd say a good response to a dirty bomb is to hide the details, evacuate the area on a thin pretext, and only reveal the real reason after everyone is out.

This.

In that light, the media shouldn't pay attention to a story like this, so they acted correctly in this case (by accident though, they would've taken every opportunity to blow it out of proportions if someone in/from the Middle East had tried to do this).
"Once upon a time, an infinite number of people lived perfect, blissful, eternal lives."

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby Indon » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:56 pm UTC

PurpleMint wrote:I'd just say my bomb was radioactive then... ...or load it with mercury and arsenic instead.


That'd probably be more dangerous, as heavy metal poisoning could resemble radiation poisoning to a layman - and dirty bombs almost can't cause radiation poisoning.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

PurpleMint
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:06 am UTC

Re: Dirty Bombs, White Supremacists and Not Giving a Rat's Arse.

Postby PurpleMint » Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:51 pm UTC

That'd probably be more dangerous,


That's what I meant.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests