Talk:Radiological weapon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chocolate bomb?[edit]

The paragraph in the beginning referring to the "chocolate bomb" is either a complete farse or poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.93.140.118 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion[edit]

Why are Radiological weapon and dirty bomb separate articles? If a consolidation of content is warrented, I'm not sure(Even though i think bunnys could kill us all) which title should be where the article is and which is where the redirect should go. Some thoughts: "dirty bomb" is more widely known and used but is also more ambiguous than "radiological weapon" in my opinion. Also, use of the word "bomb" in this case implies that this is a nuclear device --

which it isn't. I also remember this term being used in the 1980s to describe a nuclear device that has extra radioactive material on board. --maveric149
Radiological weapon and dirty bomb are very different weapons. A radiological weapon is basically a load of radioactive waste (unsuited to making a true nuclear explosive) packed amongst conventional explosives. It's all of the fallout with none of the nuclear explosion. A salted bomb, on the other hand, is a true nuclear explosive that is specifically designed to create long-lasting fallout with its nuclear reactions. I'd recommend taking down the flag on "salted bombs" suggesting the merger with "radiological weapons." --

These are the old definitions. The current definitions are that Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon both refer to conventional explosives mixed with or surrounded by already radioactive materials. The bomb goes off and spreads the radiation. Salted bomb (and the specific example, Cobalt bomb) refer to a nuclear explosive with a casing of potentially radioactive isotopes. For example, a casing of non-radioactive cobalt-59 could be converted to highly radioactive cobalt-60 by the nuclear explosion. The nuke explodes, spreading the now radioactive casing (which produces vastly more fallout than an "unsalted" bomb).

Conventional, dirty, salted and straight nuclear bombs or devices can be delivered by hand, by truck, from the air, from missiles or any other means. But obviously, a dirty bomb is more within the technological capabilities of non-state actors.

Right now, both the Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon articles (and their redirects) discuss the same underlying material. (If you doubt, read the articles.) In my opinion, they should be merged. What do you think? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Dirty bomb and Radiological weapon; they cover the same topic, based on the current use of the term, as the pages show. I agree that Salted bomb should stay separate. Klbrain (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion[edit]

Iraq under Saddam Hussein is reported to have tested a radiological weapon in 1987 for use against Iran. This weapon was found to be impractical because the radioactive isotopes in the weapon would decay quickly, rendering it useless within a week after the weapon was manufactured. Furthermore, it was found that for the radioactive material to spread, weather conditions had to be ideal. These problems are in general shared by all forms of air-borne radiological warfare.

Is there a source for this? I'm skeptical, because I've been skeptical of US Intelligence reports since there has been a bit of doubt on they're correctness/NPOV. So a source would be nice to back this up. Leaving it in the article for now. --ORBIT 06:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a similar description from the UN that had sent inspectors and investigated the 1987 event (after 1991). The problems with RW are well documented in US military history, and are essentially are similar to what Iraq discovered in 1987. The additional problem is that a RW stockpile conflicts with the logistics needed for obtaining plutonium for a nation with a limited neutron budget.

I am surprised that RW has been limited to a "RDD" (a catchy fraze from a contemporary security paper). If you asked someone in 1960's, RW would have also included deliberate use of nuclear fallout and enhanced radiation variants of nuclear weapons (i.e., "neutron bomb).

If you watch the BBC Programme "The power of Nightmares" you will see proof and fact backed up to show that the "Dirty Bomb" is useless (by military standards)- at worst it is a weapon of fear, but the actual harm is neglegable by in large (see above article) unless you are caught in the direct line of the blast. Please will someone clear this myth up once and for all!!? The media, films and TV series take great pleasure in keeping this load of twadle alive and well!

That one is from the Federation of American Scientists Strategic Security Blog. A table linked from the blog entry makes the point that to get enough radioactivity out of Uranium to devastate, say, Manhattan, it would take 1,460 tons. The GOOD stuff, enriched Uranium for nuclear power plants. You'd need a nuclear bomb just to blow it up. That's compared to a few pounds of Radium, or the real deal, Cobalt 60, of which you'd need basically a pinch, a TINY pinch, 3.2 grams, or Celsium-137, for which you'd need 40 grams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.5.112 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Episode of 24[edit]

On a recent episode of 24 (TV series), Jack remotely piloted an unmanned drone (equipped by terrorists with a tactical "suitcase" nuke) to a crash-landing. The bomb did not explode, but containment was breached, and the first responders (non-hazmat firemen) were exposed, presumably to a fatal dose. The vice president referred to it as a radiological attack, "a dirty bomb," in an attempt to justify a retaliatory nuclear strike. Could this be mentioned as an illustration of the different types of radiological attacks? --205.201.141.146 21:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

template[edit]

I'm bad at the pretty stuffright now.. so would someone mind adding the WMD template to this page

History section[edit]

I'm fairly certain the "History" section is original research, and incorrect. I am pretty sure they talked about use radioactive poisons within the Manhattan Project as early as 1942, and that the idea of radioactive poisons had almost certainly been explorer earlier in fiction and speculative science. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive stuffs and Poisons are different things. Poisons are substances that can destroy the human body by disabling or interrupting with systems in our body. Think of neuro-toxins which destroy the brain. A radioactive substance is a substance that decays, and releases dangerous radiation. This can be in the form of loose neutrons, a Hydrogen atom, or a gamma ray. If one of these hits the human body, it can destroy cells, sometimes interrupting them, and changing the DNA to make the cell mutate, or it can make it go berserk and become cancer. --82.217.246.208 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professional[edit]

"The professional history of radioactive weaponry may be traced to a 1943 memo to Brigadier General Leslie Groves of the Manhattan Project and to a 1940 science fiction story, "Solution Unsatisfactory"[1] by Lt. J. G. Robert A. Heinlein, USN(R)."

A sci-fi story is "professional"? Really? 146.145.251.34 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1943 Memo is "forged". It consists of 3 pages 2. Each of the pages of the memo as published is from a different document. Three are from the Manhattan Project Archives microfilms and the fourth is from an obscure article by prominent radiation health specialist Dr R P Stone. The Memo needs to be so identified in the Wikipedia. The following description of the various documents is available at http://www.ntanet.net/traprock.html

September, 2005 - A skeptical analyst recently had the following comments about the Doug Rokke version of the Groves memo: I have been looking at Mr. Rokke and his claims for depleted uranium for some time. His acceptance by the "peace" community continues to baffle me. His "Groves memo", while it does suffer from the "out of context" flaw, is subject to much more fundamental criticism. 

The "Memo", as presented by Rokke (hereafter the "Rokke Memo"), is itself a fabrication.

If you look carefully at the four pages of the Rokke memo, several things cry out for notice. The pages are oddly numbered - there is one "page 1", and three "page 2" sheets.

They are typed with a mix of Pica and Elite typewriters.

There is no continuity in paragraph and sub-paragraph numbering among the pages.

The grammatical transitions from page to page either extremely strained, or missing altogether.

There is no "signature block", a cardinal sin in military correspondence.

I was able to verify that the four pages actually come from four separate documents.

References for the first two pages comes from "Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments' public meeting, 13-14 June 1994, Tab F.

The second two pages are found in "Correspondence ("Top Secret") of the Manhattan Engineer District 1942-1946" National Archives Microfilm Publication M1109, Roll 1. Page one is the only page that is actually part of the original "Groves Memo". The second (and last) page of the actual memo is missing in the Rokke Memo, and shows the actual author of the memo to be K. D. Nichols, Colonel, Corps of Engineers.

The first "Page 2" of the Rokke memo is actually the second page of a three-page summary written by the same Colonel Nichols. The first page and the third page of this summary are not included in the Rokke Memo. The document he summarizes is the document actually written by Doctors Conant, Compton and Urey.

The second "Page 2" of the Rokke memo is from an seven-page document entitled "Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon". It was part of a package of information used in a then "top-secret" project known as "Operation Peppermint" early in 1944. This document is probably an accurate version of the original paper written by the three scientists above.

The final "Page 2" of the Rokke memo is actually page 2 of "Appendix I. Effects of Gamma-Rays on People" authored by a "Dr. R. S. Stone". I hope some of this information is useful to you.

Sincerely, Gary F. Giesecke

Mr Giesecke advised me that he no longer had copies of the original documents in context but that he had obtained them from microfilms he had obtained at the local library. Accordingly, I went to the UC Berkeley Library and found The "Operation Peppermint" document that was written in 1944, after the October 1943 date of this memo. I will e-mail the actual material, including photos I took of the microfilm reader screen and box to anyone who contacts me and requests them. I became interested in this memo in 2005 because I read it carefully and could find no instance of the word "uranium" or "depleted uranium" in it and that it discussed "f.p.", fission products and very high levels of radiation, 100 Roentgens/day. I did not learn of Mr Giesecke's concerns and research until sometime later and did not get to the UC Library until last fall. I need to return to the UC Library and find the other two Manhattan Project Archive documents and copy them to a thumb drive so that I will have a readily available Adobe Acrobat copy of each page in original context. I want to get the Wikipedia to remove all references to the 1943 Groves Memorandum except for one entry declaring the memo, which is widely cited in anti-depleted uranium campaign circles and elsewhere as being a forgery together with the support for that.

Roger Rhotel1 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global threats[edit]

Perhaps the threat of the possible acquiring of radioactive material by criminal groups would need to be mentioned. Appearantly, there is a serious risk of something like that happening on specific sites on the African continent (Niger and Congo, where Areva operates). Perhaps it should be mentioned so that better precautions can be taken, resulting from mentioning this here. See Atomic Africa documentary 81.246.156.87 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article to here[edit]

Rhotel1 posted this comment in the article:

See the substantial statement on the Discussion page about this 1943 memo. The four page memo is a forgery. One of the four pages is actually a document from 1944 that established "Operation Peppermint", the secret radiological monitoring of the D-Day Normandy invasion to assure that any attempt by German forces to use invisible radiological materials as a weapon would be detected. This memo is not the origin of the Radiological Weapon, Radiological Dispersal Device, or as it is popularly known, the Dirty Bomb. This paragraph should be substantially rewritten or removed. I had expected some comment on the revelation of the forgery by now, but I have seen none. To my knowledge, I am the only person who is making a concerted effort to find all four pages from this forged memo. I could use help if someone has extensive experience researching the numerous microfilm pages of the Manhattan Project Archives.

— Rhotel1

I moved it to here since it does not seem to belong to the article. --Brandizzi (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Radiological weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Radiological_weapon&oldid=1201400809"