it-sneak

a blog from

How to make a very dirty bomb

  • Tweet this

RadioactivepawAccording to earnest science journal Nature, the US Department of Homeland Security has a problem. The 2,400 radiation monitors it is installing at entry points to the US, designed to spot the incoming ingredients of a dirty bomb, can’t tell the difference between weapons-grade fissile material and a bag of cat litter.

“The clay in cat litter gives off enough gamma-rays to trigger a detector,” Nature reports. “The [type of] detectors used at the borders often confuse it with highly enriched uranium.” And this is before the cat has crapped in it.

Researchers at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have come up with an experimental detector that can finally separate the two types of material.

This does lead Sneak to wonder, however, whether a cat’s feet are typically radioactive. And also to worry: surely this means that terrorists seeking radioactive material for their dirty bombs don’t need to go very far to get it? They need look no further than under the puckered bottoms of unwary cats across the nation...

20 Mar 2006

Do you agree?

Add your comment

<p>BTW: for more information about dirty bombs please read some of our FAQs at: <a href="http://www.dirtybombdetector.com"><a href="http://www.dirtybombdetector.com">http://www.dirtybombdetector.com</a></a></p>

Posted by: John Bordynuik 25 Mar 2006

<p>This is actually a very significant problem at most nations borders. A dirty bomb would more than likely have Cesium 137 or Strontium-90, not EU. Border systems are compromised by thousands of false alarms. We have taken a different approach and believe roaming detectors are the answer. A few well-known static sensors are no match to thousands of roaming ones.</p>

Posted by: John Bordynuik 25 Mar 2006

<p>Sneak's cat is actually a bio-hazard, particularly after he's used his litter tray.</p>

Posted by: Sneak 21 Mar 2006

<p>how is anyone supposed to find what they read here credible,if they cant even tell the simple difference between a bio-hazard symbol and a radiological one,when heading an article...thats pretty much an 8th grade type recognition,and certainly an unprofessional and glaring mistake for any legitimate journalist.</p>

Posted by: m.lord 20 Mar 2006

<p>You need a radiation hazard symbol! :-) E.g.:<br /> <a href="http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/images/signs/symbol_radiation_lg1.gif"><a href="http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/images/signs/symbol_radiation_lg1.gif">http://www.nmsu.edu/~safety/images/signs/symbol_radiation_lg1.gif</a></a><br /> (That's a biohazard symbol.)</p>

Posted by: Jim 20 Mar 2006

Add your comment
 

Add your comment

We won't publish your address
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions. Your comment will be moderated before publication.
Submit your comment
To send to more than one email address, simply separate each address with a comma.