Why isn't this headline news

[southsider2k5]

I found this today buried in the bottom of another article in the Chicago Trib

 

The U.S. Energy Department disclosed that nearly 2 tons of uranium and hundreds of radioactive items had been taken out of Iraq in a secret operation. The nuclear material, which could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, was taken from the country's former nuclear research center and airlifted to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory, the department said.

 

How come no one is talking about this? Isn't this a pretty big deal?

[kapkomet]

Hell no, because that would mean that GWB was RIGHT!?!?!?!?!???!!!!!!????

 

 

But the f***** media is not biased.

[mreye]

I found this today buried in the bottom of another article in the Chicago Trib

 

 

 

How come no one is talking about this?  Isn't this a pretty big deal?

Yeah, that's pretty big.

 

 

You know what else was buried:Kerry Picks Edwards

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I saw this story on the antiwar.com news wire (one of the best news wires for anything regarding the war on terror, Israel/Palestine etc.)

 

This is from the libertarians over at antiwar.com:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1121

 

In yet another demonstration of journalistic malpractice, this announcement from the US Department of Energy is reported by the AP with no analysis or background information:

 

Washington (AP) - In a secret operation, the United States last month removed from Iraq nearly two tons of uranium and hundreds of highly radioactive items that could have been used in a so-called dirty bomb, the Energy Department disclosed Tuesday.

 

The nuclear material was secured from Iraq's former nuclear research facility and airlifted out of the country to an undisclosed Energy Department laboratory for further analysis, the department said in a statement.

 

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham described the previously undisclosed operation, which was concluded June 23, as "a major achievement" in an attempt to "keep potentially dangerous nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists."

I'm sure Spencer would prefer we not dredge up this story from the May 22 NY Times, but that's just too damn bad:

U.S. considering moving 500 tons of uranium from Iraq

 

VIENNA – The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure location outside Iraq, Western diplomats close to the agency say.

 

However, the International Atomic Energy Agency has taken the position that the uranium is Iraqi property and the agency "cannot give them permission to remove it," a diplomat said.

 

The diplomat said the United States was highly unlikely to be deterred by that position and that U.S. officials had contacted the agency on the matter this year, before the Iraq insurgency flared last month.

Wow, Spencie, what a "major achievement!" You moved less than two tons of uranium out of Iraq - just enough to get a headline about "uranium" associated with Iraq, further confusing The Clueless Bush Base, which thinks anything radioactive is WMD - so there are only 498 tons left. Let us know when you get the rest out, OK? Then the Iraqis can charge us for stealing their uranium. And, about that remaining uranium which was looted because you guys failed to guard it, has it been secured or is it still being trucked out of Iraq?

 

From April 16:

Iraq's nuclear facilities remain unguarded, and radioactive materials are being taken out of the country, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency reported after reviewing satellite images and equipment that has turned up in European scrapyards.

[...]

According to ElBaradei's letter, satellite imagery shows "extensive removal of equipment and in some instances, removal of entire buildings," in Iraq.

Oh, well, the Occupation has only had a year or so to secure those sites, so it's good to see that they're finally getting around to it and just in time to keep "terrorists" from making a dirty bomb out of all that radioactive stuff laying around in Iraq! The whole world just got a little safer after Spencer's major achievement.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here's a stumper question: Do you think that the nearly 2 tons of uranium removed even puts a dent in the total amount of radioactive material we have introduced into Iraq, vis a vis uranium-hardened armor piercing bullets?

 

From an environmental standpoint, the ??? tons (Apu?) of low-level radioactive material we have contaminated the country with is the modern equivalent of the Biblical sewing the enemy's land with salt - albeit really, really persistent, biologically damaging salt.

 

And I'll co-opt SS24K's interrogative here: How come no one is talking about this? Isn't this a pretty big deal?

[jasonxctf]

this reminds me of early on in the war when CNN was reporting that Weapons of Mass Destruction had been found. A few hours later they found that it was Bug Spray.

 

As Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show a few months back..

 

"George Bush has finally found the Weapons of Mass Destruction he was looking for... the only problem, they are in North Korea!"

[southsider2k5]

Here's a stumper question:  Do you think that the nearly 2 tons of uranium removed even puts a dent in the total amount of radioactive material we have introduced into Iraq, vis a vis uranium-hardened armor piercing bullets?

 

From an environmental standpoint, the ??? tons (Apu?) of low-level radioactive material we have contaminated the country with is the modern equivalent of the Biblical sewing the enemy's land with salt - albeit really, really persistent, biologically damaging salt.

 

And I'll co-opt SS24K's interrogative here: How come no one is talking about this? Isn't this a pretty big deal?

[waiting for the lecture on staying on topic]

[FlaSoxxJim]

[waiting for the lecture on staying on topic]

I was construing that the topic could be logically (key word) extended to the net gain/loss of uranium to Iraq based on the initial suggestion that two tons removed from a former research facility was newsworthy. Am I in err?

[southsider2k5]

I was construing that the topic could be logically (key word) extended to the net gain/loss of uranium to Iraq based on the initial suggestion that two tons removed from a former research facility was newsworthy.  Am I in err?

Meh, that was more of a joke than anything.

 

Sure the envoirnment is a huge deal. But if I understand correctly one can be used as a weapon, and one is already used up. Also when Apu referrs to 500 tons of uranium, haven't we started to find the stuff we were looking for, or am I not understanding this at all? What else would you use 500 tons of uranium for? Growing super-veggies?

[CrimsonWeltall]

Uranium is a dense metal that has uses outside of the nuclear power industry. It is used as a target for X-ray production, as ammunition for some types of military weaponry, as a shield against radiation, as a counterweight for aircraft control surfaces and in the gyroscopes of inertial guidance systems.

 

Uranium compounds have been used for centuries to color glass. A 2,000 year old sample of yellow glass found near Naples, Italy contains uranium oxide. Uranium trioxide (UO3) is an orange powder and has been used in the manufacture of Fiestaware plates. Other uranium compounds have also been used to make vaseline glass and glazes. The uranium within these items is radioactive and should be treated with care.

 

http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele092.html

 

They were making glass.

[kapkomet]

All sorts of colorful, uranium enriched glass out of the sands of Iraq...

[FlaSoxxJim]

Meh, that was more of a joke than anything. 

 

Sure the envoirnment is a huge deal.  But if I understand correctly one can be used as a weapon, and one is already used up.  Also when Apu referrs to 500 tons of uranium, haven't we started to find the stuff we were looking for, or am I not understanding this at all?  What else would you use 500 tons of uranium for?  Growing super-veggies?

Yeah, I realize you were lobbing joke grenades, it's all good.

 

And I know I came down hard about getting off topic on the chuch 501(3)© thing when I'm usually as free-wheeling as anyone here. It's just that there was a very specific initial allegation there that quickly devolved into a generic rant on all campainging/fundraising evils under the sun that became :banghead and with little serious reflection on the initial topic. Dumb me for looking to our collective braintrust for insight again, huh?

 

In regard to what the 500 tons of uranium was produced for, what grade it is, etc., I don't know the answer. It may well have been part of an original illegal weapons program, or part of a sanctioned nuclear energy program. If it was for weapons and the program was shut down, I can understand why it is still sitting around. Just look at the headaches we're having and Russia is having trying to clean up Cold War atomic facilities.

 

In regards to the hardened missiles and bullets and 'weapons versus used up' - yes, "depleted" uranium is used to make uranium-hardened munitions, and it is the waste product from enriching weapons-grade material. But it can and is used to make weapons (ammunition); it's nearly 2x as hard as lead so it can pierce tank armor, and it is pyrophoric - meaning it combusts fiercely once it has penetrated a target (that's what turns the enemy tank operators into "crispy critters" as the marines have dubbed them).

 

So they are good for use in war for those reasons...

 

But, they are still significantly radioactive - not enough to make conventional nukes with, but there are some authorities (I can probably dig up the references again) that suggest the discarded hardened munitions represent ample available material for dirty bomb construction (I don't know if they would be used as-is or re-enriched somehow prior to use, but their pyrophoric nature makes them dangerous incendiary materials at any rate).

 

A US tank operator who handles the uranium-hardened munitions for one hour reportedly receives as much radiation as he/she would in a year of exposure to normal background radioactivity levels. Cancer, leukemnia, renal failure, chromosome damage, and I don't know what else has been linked to exposure to depleted uranium. There is also growing evidence that Gulf war Syndrome (as well as Kosovo/Bosnia war Syndrome, Afghan war Sundrome) is directly tied to exposure to this material. There is a huge pulse of Iraqi kids with leukemia that were born right after the first Gulf War, so it's not just a lab rat body of evidence. Given the much larger US troop deployment, the much longer tours of duty, and the fact that we're using the same suspect munitions, it is a near-certain assumption there will be a HUGE wave of Iraq War vets that down the line come down with an 'Enduring Freedom Syndrome' or whatever it gets named. This has been accepted as a reality by the "whaterver it takes" administration.

 

Without getting too off-topic or agendizing, the real kicker for me is that the use of depleted uranium in this manner is FORBIDDEN in the same section of the Geneva Convention as WMDs. So our government that continues to harp on about the crime against humanity represented by rogue nations possibly stockpiling WMDs but at the same time are openly violating the world treaties we are supposed to be abiding by.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, I realize you were lobbing joke grenades, it's all good.

 

And I know I came down hard about getting off topic on the chuch 501(3)© thing when I'm usually as free-wheeling as anyone here.  It's just that there was a very specific initial allegation there that quickly devolved into a generic rant on all campainging/fundraising evils under the sun that became  :banghead and  with little serious reflection on the initial topic.  Dumb me for looking to our collective braintrust for insight again, huh? 

 

In regard to what the 500 tons of uranium was produced for, what grade it is, etc., I don't know the answer.  It may well have been part of an original illegal weapons program, or part of a sanctioned nuclear energy program.  If it was for weapons and the program was shut down, I can understand why it is still sitting around.  Just look at the headaches we're having and Russia is having trying to clean up Cold War atomic facilities.

 

In regards to the hardened missiles and bullets and 'weapons versus used up' - yes, "depleted" uranium is used to make uranium-hardened munitions, and it is the waste product from enriching weapons-grade material.  But it can and is used to make weapons (ammunition); it's nearly 2x as hard as lead so it can pierce tank armor, and it is pyrophoric - meaning it combusts fiercely once it has penetrated a target (that's what turns the enemy tank operators into "crispy critters" as the marines have dubbed them).

 

So they are good for use in war for those reasons...

 

But, they are still significantly radioactive - not enough to make conventional nukes with, but there are some authorities (I can probably dig up the references again) that suggest the discarded hardened munitions represent ample available material for dirty bomb construction (I don't know if they would be used as-is or re-enriched somehow prior to use, but their pyrophoric nature makes them dangerous incendiary materials at any rate).

 

A US tank operator who handles the uranium-hardened munitions for one hour reportedly receives as much radiation as he/she would in a year of exposure to normal background radioactivity levels.  Cancer, leukemnia, renal failure, chromosome damage, and I don't know what else has been linked to exposure to depleted uranium.  There is also growing evidence that Gulf war Syndrome (as well as Kosovo/Bosnia war Syndrome, Afghan war Sundrome) is directly tied to exposure to this material.  There is a huge pulse of Iraqi kids with leukemia that were born right after the first Gulf War, so it's not just a lab rat body of evidence.  Given the much larger US troop deployment, the much longer tours of duty, and the fact that we're using the same suspect munitions, it is a near-certain assumption there will be a HUGE wave of Iraq War vets that down the line come down with an 'Enduring Freedom Syndrome' or whatever it gets named.  This has been accepted as a reality by the "whaterver it takes" administration.

 

Without getting too off-topic or agendizing, the real kicker for me is that the use of depleted uranium in this manner is FORBIDDEN in the same section of the Geneva Convention as WMDs.  So our government that continues to harp on about the crime against humanity represented by rogue nations possibly stockpiling WMDs but at the same time are openly violating the world treaties we are supposed to be abiding by.

OUt of curiousity, could you use the same missle delivery system for a dirty bomb as a convential bomb?

[kapkomet]

Dirty bombs are "suitcase" bombs, not of the missle variety, from what I understand. - to have it in a missle capable state, it has to be "cleaner", otherwise it would be too unstable... but that's speculation from tidbits I have heard.

[southsider2k5]

Dirty bombs are "suitcase" bombs, not of the missle variety, from what I understand.

I know that is the way that they would usually be delivered, but I was always under the impression that was because they lacked a missle delivery system that could hit something (both range and accuracy), but since we are dealing with a country that actually had missle technology, and had dealings with certian countries to get it, I am more seeing if it is plausible for them to do it.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Dirty bombs are "suitcase" bombs, not of the missle variety, from what I understand. - to have it in a missle capable state, it has to be "cleaner", otherwise it would be too unstable... but that's speculation from tidbits I have heard.

I'll add my speculation as well, and that is that while dirty bombs probably can be delivered via a missile system, nobody would probably bother. Like Kap said, dirty bombs are low-tech "suitcase bombs" that use conventional explosives to broadcast low level radioactive contamination over relatively short distances. Anybody with the wherewithal to build or acquire a missile delivery system may also have the means of building/acquiring enriched nukes.

 

On the other hand, if we are talking about a portable rocket grenade type of delivery system and not ballistic missiles, then yeah I'd say they would have to be considered very good candidate dirty bomb delivery systems. Again, though, it might not be worth the bother. It's easier just to leave a suitcase bomb at a target than to strap an equivalent onto a rocket.

 

I'm actually surprised (thankfully so!) so-called dirty bombs have not become a reality for stateside terror attacks. Low-level nuclear material is as close as the local hospital radioactive waste repository or chemical supply catalog (which pretty much anyone affiliated with a university or research institution can order from without question). I assume the bed material from next-generation pebble reactors would be ideal material, and there are I don't know how many stalled pebble reactor projects there are in Europe where material could be procured.

 

Then again, the bang just might not be worth the buck for potential terrorists. Small impact acts like a dirty bomb explosion are more aimed at striking widespread fear and terror (like anthrax in the mail) than really being out and out destructive, right?

[Rex Kickass]

Dirty bombs scare more than they hurt, and with enough smoke detectors or medical waste, you could make a radiological dirty bomb. Fissile material is only one way to get there.