alt.war.nuclear

"Reargunner" wrote in message
news:MPG.217b6284451b53d698a1ce@west.Usenet-News.net...
>> A dirty bomb exploded over Haifa or Tel Aviv could kill
>> a hundred
>> thousand Jews over time. It's cheap and dirty, so why
>> wouldn't Syria
>> try to have it?
>
> Chernobyl would be a dirty nuclear bomb. It killed about
> 31.

Chernobyl was NOT a "dirty nuclear bomb." It was an
industrial accident. The effluent was limited to those
fission products light enough to be carried away in the
smoke from the molten-down reactor core. In any case, the
fission products emitted from the Chernobyl site were not
chosen for their radiotoxicity.

A true "dirty bomb" would only disseminate those
radionuclides which, like polonium-210, combine these
critical attributes of a potent radiotoxin:
1) affinity for critical organ systems in the human body (as
with strontium-90, which is a "bone-seeker," taking the
place of calcium in bone tissue and other critical organs;
2) ability to disperse freely in the ecosystem -
polonium-210 does this by emitting beta rays rapidly enough
to heat its surroundings and migrate relatively freely;
3) rapid enough radioactive decay to impart a significant
degree of destructive energy to the victim's body before the
radiotoxin is eliminated from the body by the metabolism.

Anyone interested in other useful components of a dirty bomb
need only consult the Chart of the Nuclides. Looking online
versions of that up is left as an exercise for the reader.
--
Vance P. Frickey
vfrickey@ricochet.com