Well, two counter-points and an attempt to help you see the main point again.  First, you authoritatively state yellowcake would "barely qualify" as a dirty bomb but it is not clear what standard you are using since the AP article states the following.  "Exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say. "The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust," said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine".  Second, the AP article notes there is "remaining radioactive debris" at Tuwaitha.  I'm not sure if you've been on the ground (I leave that possibility open) but unless you have a source to back up your point, the AP article reads like there is other material there that are radiological.  But if we are actually reasoning together you will see that is not my main point about why we should post the AP article.  The AP source reaffirms that Iraq did have WMD material; known or unknown it not the point.  You claim yellowcake is not WMD material but the Canadians bought it to make nuclear energy so your definition of WMD material seems personal.  The reader of this entry on WMD should know that Iraq had this material and if not, this section of the site is imbalanced.  That is my point.