[IRAQ, U RAQ, we all RAQ] Pu P. U., was Re: Arab World Stunned by Baghdad's Fall

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 03:11:32 MDT

  • Next message: Michael M. Butler: "Re: Homeschooling"

    Permit me to observe, in PCR style:

    Mr. Lorrey spoke boldly about barrels of poison agents. Field determination
    of the exact composition of chemical agents is AFAIK still very difficult.
    I don't know about any container labeling, nor have I heard reliable
    reports of same. One odd thing about a recent report of chemicals found was
    that Lewisite appeared present--this came as a surprise to me and I am
    suspecting a false positive on some other thing, like a pesticide; Lewisite
    was kind of primitive even in WWI.

    However, about the radiation find--

    There is a report that two separate instruments operated by two separate
    operators (both, I believe, Marines) showed dangerously elevated rad counts
    at a famous nuke research establishment called al-Tuwaitha, in some cases
    many meters away from entrances or enclosures. The original report was by a
    Pennsylvania newspaper's embedded reporter. FOX News picked it up and ran
    with it. To my knowledge, little new information has emerged since then.

    I hope you can Google from there: nav to www.foxnews.com, find the article,
    get the newspaper name, google that with al-Tuwaitha and plutonium.
    Whatever you think of FOX News, it was a plain old newsie who was on the
    scene first, not some rep of a glaringly hi-viz right wing mouthpiece.

    I don't know what, if any, methodology is employed to claim an isotope ID
    in the field. Off the top of my Boy Scout Atomic Energy Merit Badge, I
    doubt that many man-portable field threat analysis kits contain the kind of
    gear, such as multichannel rad spectral analyzers, neutron counters...
    which I'd think one would want to have available to make that
    determination. As you probably know, Pu is an alpha emitter, so that might
    be easily ruled in or out by using something field-available such as an
    alphaelectrometer paired with a gamma counter. You ought to be seeing a
    high reading on the first, and a low reading on the second--*IF* Pu's the
    major constituent. If there are a hodgepodge of isotopes present, I'd think
    ya gotta get a sample to the good gear (say, in Tennessee, or that the NEST
    folks trot around with) to figure it out.

    The available report suggests that some zones at many yards from an
    entrance are putting out something like a rad per minute or more (that's my
    Fermi number based on the "start throwing up after three hours' exposure"
    quote). That's pretty darned high level, but says nothing per se about the
    constituents.

    It is quite possible that the contamination was done purely as a
    confounding red herring--it silently hurts those who encounter it, draws
    attention, commits scarce Coalition resources, slows further inspection
    past the contamination, and there's a possible PR payoff if the Coalition
    forces overreact or misreport.

    It is also not inconceivable that the contamination was caused by looters
    or clueless Coalition forces. I think the latter is not very likely, since
    al-Tuwaitha was known as a nuke site, and that should have been part of
    every concerned Coalition team's briefing--treat it like a potential rad
    minefield--send the NBC threat evaluation specialist in first.

    I have no doubt that some will claim, or are claiming already, that the
    contamination was the result of Coalition or "Zionist" skullduggery.

    More information is needed. The specific report of weapons-grade Pu might
    have been smoke-blowing. That having been said:

    *It is far from impossible* that this was deliberately done as an act of
    war, by elements or agents of the Baathist government, or even that the
    contamination is related to the tranport of warhead or "dirty bomb"
    ingredients. And *if* poison gas counts as a WMD (and I'm not sure it makes
    the cut-off), then don't lethal levels of nuclear contaminants
    intentionally released to cause harm?

    Not fighting, just asking.

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:21:14 -0700, Samantha Atkins
    <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:

    > Harvey Newstrom wrote:
    >> Mike Lorrey wrote,
    >>
    >>> Samantha, when will you learn to stop putting your foot in your mouth?
    >>> We are finding evidence every day, much of which is reported in the US
    >>> media. The defense department is taking samples and waiting for lab
    >>> confirmations before making any declarations, but finding a warehouse
    >>> full of barrels labeled "Mustard" and "Tabun" is a slight smoking gun.
    >>> Finding an underground lab on the same site that UN inspectors had
    >>> 'inspected' that has weapons grade plutonium in it, and finding a
    >>> military transport with a hermetic room for loading bio/chem payloads
    >>> into artillery shells is a bit of a smoking gun.
    >>
    >
    > Mike,
    >
    > When will you learn that I stopped considering your opinion worth taking
    > into account long ago? No such barrels or weapons grade plutonium were
    > reported in anything I saw. I suspect if something like this was found
    > it would be front page news. If you think they were found then give us
    > the urls to see them oruselves. Otherwise take it elsewhere.
    >
    > - samantha
    >
    >
    >

    -- 
    I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. 
    Sometimes I forget.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 03:19:39 MDT