Talk:Dirty bomb

message: Can it be debated that under many definitions, a dirty bomb is a WMD?
:You can be sure public prosecutors would calit a WMD if an event occured. Also i question the assertion that the term "entered the public lexicon" in 2002. See, for example, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/18/archive/main321759.shtml a CBS story dated 2001. --agr 11:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't really know if it was a "dirty bomb" or not. We don't really know what they were up to. Hitlers Bombe is somewhat confused on the issue; I'm not sure there would be any benefit to talking about it in this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dirty bombs don't utilize "nuclear explosions". Please read this article. --Fastfission 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but that's just ignorant nonsense. If a dirty bomb went off, you'd have a bunch of guys in moon suits wandering around with geiger counters, vacuum cleaners and shovels and such like. They would scoop up the debris and take it away to be placed into storage. The area would be rendered safe. This tidy up has happened before- countries have had mishaps with nuclear bombs (plane crashes and so forth where the bombs didn't go off, but some of the conventional explosives that comprise the bomb detonated and made a mess).WolfKeeper 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD 

message: A description of the documentary called Power of Nightmares was posted over at the Penn and Teller board.  It appears one user disagrees with the definition of a dirty bomb used by the documentary saying that it's a term used for IED's which are extremely dangerous weapons.  However, dirty bombs appear to be a term used by many sources for what this Wikipedia article describes.  Maybe take it into account, ask the guy some questions on the board and see what he has to say about the IED argument.  You don't have to register on the board or anything and please keep the conversation civil.  I'd really love to learn about this debate as well as know if this documentary is actually true.
Penn and Teller message board
:Dirty bombs essentially IEDs with radioactive isotopes attached. They are not "extremely dangerous weapons" as WMDs — they, like all explosives, can be dangerous to those in the immediate viscinity, but are not going to be dangerous beyond that range. When people say that dirty bombs are not that dangerous, they simply mean "they are not on a level of danger on par with other WMDs, even though many people assume they are the same as WMDs because they involve radiation." --Fastfission 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty Bomb Another Term For Improvised Explosive Devices? 

message: "On 10 June 2002, U.S. officials announced they had a month earlier captured an alleged al-Qaida terrorist named José Padilla in Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. Padilla was subsequently transferred from FBI custody to a military brig in Charleston, S.C. The Bush Administration accused him of planning to set off a dirty bomb. Padilla was indicted on unrelated charges on November 22, 2005."
Given he wasn't even indicted on the same charge, should this have a place in the article. I deleted it once but it was restored. DV8 2XL 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he was held for three years without charges on the mere allegation that he planned to use a "dirty bomb" is an important story, at least in the U.S. The question of whether the government had the right to do this may still come before the U.S. Supreme Court. So I think it belongs as in this article, even if only as a caution that such allegations can be abused. --agr 05:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically a technical article on a type of weapon. What you are describing is an American political issue, which regardless of it's importance in the U.S. has no place in this topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. DV8 2XL 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegation 

message: Accidentally updated before completing edit summary - The bomb is clearly detonated outside the tube station entrance. See http://www.cwgcuser.org.uk/personal/subterra/lu/lufilmtv/dirtywar.htm Nick Cooper 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty War 

message: I think that the cultural reactions section is unnecessary and inappropriate. I do not see how listing every mention of dirty bombs in TV shows, movies and books adds anything to the article or increases understanding of the subject. Also, TV shows, movies and books have not made much of an impact on society's view of the subject. Dirty bombs have simply been used as a topical plot device. -- Kjkolb 08:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There is a documented disparity between what is scientifically known about RDDs and what the public perception of them is. Their appearance in a fictional context both reflects and (often) reinforces this. Nick Cooper 09:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural reactions section 

message: Should you really be so graphic in "obtaining the materials used to make a dirty bomb"? You may as well list the recipe. I'm sure that 90% of the people who view this page now have a great idea of what they'd like to blow up over the next few weeks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.144.48 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Not censored. And it's not written in how-to style either.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, what's the informative/educational value of this paragraph? It's not the matter of censorship, but complete uselessness of this information (at least for normal people, not some Internet weirdos) Pamejudd (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing your opinion. I do not agree with you. The information seems relevant, appropriate, properly written and verifiable. Why do you think it is useless? --John (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because I don't think it's necessary e.g. to point out the examples of substances that might potentially be used for constructing dirty bomb. I'll ask again: what's the purpose in publishing such information on Wikipedia? Pamejudd (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By far the most dangerous bit of a dirty bomb is the explosive. I don't see any point in censoring the wikipedia in this case, and the material is notable.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OTT? 

message: Is the dirty bomb as portrayed in popular culture cliche, or has the downplaying-response become cliche?
"Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html
What is it that makes dirty bombs so unlikely? Is it simply the rarity of the elements? Aren't radioactive substances as deadly as, say, chemical weapons?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyhurdfan (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The most dangerous bit is the explosive. Dollar for dollar, terrorists are better off with explosives and not bothering with radioactive materials at all. Even if they decide to use radioactive substances, if you were nearby when it went off, chances are if you survive the initial explosion, you're likely to make it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  an experts touch needed? 

message: Does the Jose Padilla/Binyam Mohammed dirty bomb plot merit its own article?
I added a paragraph about it today.  Frankly, however, if all that has been published
about that alleged plot were stuffed into this article it could overwhelm this article.
If it merits its own article should it be called something like alleged al Qaeda dirty bomb plot? Or simply dirty bomb plot?
Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the [[Jose Padilla]]/[[Binyam Mohammed]] dirty bomb plot merit its own article? 

message: This is wrong, many "failed" dirty bombs have been found and one was even used in london (semi-worked, didnt do any damage really). shouldnt this be edited out?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardøger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of 12-24-2008, no dirty bomb has ever been found or used. 

message: A retired Rocky Flats engineer explained this, as follows:
A clean weapon will explode but not result in radioactive contamination because the radioactive material fuses in a complete fission reaction.  (So a different is formed).  A dirty bomb will not undergo complete fission and will result in radioactive by-products.  Prior to the end of the Cold War "dirty" wasn't used because all nuclear weapons were dirty.  WWII weapons were dirty, which begs the question, "What makes the two different types, different?"  
Absolutely pure material is required for a clean bomb.  Impure material comes from different places and is used as input to a refining process.  Done correctly, this yields pure material which is used as the fission material in a clean weapon.  Neither bomb type is speculative.
An analogy exists in combustion, not in the physics but in the "cleanliness" of the reaction. Complete combustion results in Carbon Dioxide and water -- no carbon residue, no carbon monoxide or the other by-products we see coming from most things that burn.  
An article about the refining processes, where they are, and what they use is out there.  I'm thinking it was in Wired Mag but am not sure.  Only a handful of countries with the ability to refine plutonium exist and there are only a few ways of doing it.  Effectively.
Kernel.package (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dirty" contrasts with "Clean" 

message: I see that the article essentially describes Dirty Bombs as theoretical or speculative weapons, i.e. that something that has never really been built and detonated. But while reading the article on the Dugway sheep incident, which is about an accidental killing of thousands of Sheep by chemical weapons testing at a place called the Dugway Proving Ground, it states that "There were also tests at Dugway with other weapons of mass destruction, including 328 open-air tests of biological weapons, 74 dirty bomb tests, and the equivalent of eight intentional meltdowns of nuclear reactors." (emphasis in bold added). This would seem to suggest that the US Army actually has built and detonated Dirty Bombs in order to test them; I would think this fact is pretty important, but it's not mentioned in this article. Shouldn't it be? --Hibernian (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was tested, it is no longer hypothetical. But it was never used in practice so far. My very best wishes (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it only a "Speculative" Weapon? 

message: "For the majority involved in an RDD incident, the radiation health risks (i.e. increased probability of developing cancer later in life due to radiation exposure) are small, comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes on a daily basis.[16]"
is this a typo? it seems to be saying that smoking five packs of cigarettes a day poses a SMALL risk of cancer? I thought it was accepted medically that smoking 100 a day gave a high risk of cancer.  If it means the risk from the radioactive material in tobacco, not the other poisons in the smoke, maybe it should say that? ix 82.14.49.10 (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Inhaling dust with radioactive particles in a site of contamination can make a lot of damage to your health. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation health risk? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110607195030/http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/10/31/1031gitmo.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/10/31/1031gitmo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://video.yahoo.com/watch/213659/1198382
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721184504/http://www.armscontrol.info/reports/authors/liolios/cesium-137%20dirty%20bomb%20occasional%20paper.pdf to http://www.armscontrol.info/reports/authors/liolios/cesium-137%20dirty%20bomb%20occasional%20paper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There have been TV reports on A Nazi war project "Amerika" Bomber that could reach New York City From Germany> It was suppossed to cary a Dirty Nuclear Bomb to drop on New York! More data on this would bve appreciated! Thank You! TheStilletoKid (talk) 02:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heardhat perhaps Nazzi Germany tested a "dirty" bomb Had plans to bomb New Yorks City during World War 2? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020010837/http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/products/ahec_rad/ppt/Dirty%20Bomb.ppt to http://www.bioterrorism.slu.edu/bt/products/ahec_rad/ppt/Dirty%20Bomb.ppt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090214140020/http://bangornews.com/detail/99263.html to http://www.bangornews.com/detail/99263.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213211427/http://bangornews.com/detail/99310.html to http://www.bangornews.com/detail/99310.html
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20030319222743/http%3A//cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op11/index.htm to http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op11/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716082832/http://www.tmia.com/industry/lost.html to http://www.tmia.com/industry/lost.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Dirty bomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070509100037/http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/dirty-bomb.cfm to http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/dirty-bomb.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408132643/http://hps.org/hsc/documents/factsheet.pdf to http://hps.org/hsc/documents/factsheet.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050123093858/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/06/10/dirty.bomb.health/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/06/10/dirty.bomb.health/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The chart that's titled "Differences between dirty bombs and fission bombs" mentions things like "Sphere of fissile material" and "imploding shock wave". While these are all elements of a fission weapon, there is another type of fission weapon out there. The keywords mentioning "sphere" and "imploding" imply an implosion-style weapon (like the bomb dropped on Nagasaki), there is also the less common "gun-barrel assembly" weapon (like the weapon dropped on Hiroshima). Rather than compressing a fissile core, it launches a sub-critical piece of Uranium towards another, sub-critical, Uranium mass to create a critical assembly. 
TL;DR: Should it be made clear in the chart that implosions are not the only way to detonate a fission bomb? Gøøse060 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Differences between dirty bombs and fission bombs" chart 

message: I'm not sure why we don't want to include colon based dirty bobs. I added perfect notes about the topic and they were reverted. Why?? 2600:1700:81D4:8090:6603:DA1E:D821:120 (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colon based dirty bombs