Re: Long term risks

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Jun 07 2003 - 20:45:12 MDT

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "Re: Let it burn!"

    o
    On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Michael M. Butler wrote:

    [snipping a *lot* that should be reviewed by people interested...]

    > So there are a wide range of possible numbers from the sketchy description
    > provided by the NYT. If they *did* mean 1.8 tonnes of 0.72 percent 235U,
    > that's 13 kg of pure 235U. At 5% that obviously turns into 90 kg; at 20%,
    > 360 kg. Not whistling past the graveyard here, just saying I can't tell.

    Neither can I. But unless there are some situations in Russia that
    I'm ill-informed about I can't think of a situation that I'm aware
    of where there has been a possible greater movement of radioactive
    material into the hands if those who might misuse it.

    As such it may count as one of the greatest errors with regard
    to the Iraqi war.

    > > Any extropian in a major population center should be attempting
    > > to determine whether it is a good idea to relocate out of said
    > > population center.
    >
    > This has been true for quite some time, friend Robert.

    But it bears constant rethinking in terms of relative risks.

    While plutonium would be a far worse hazard, I suspect that any
    level of enriched uranium used in a dirty bomb would be fairly
    serious from the U.S. perspective. Hell, we have people climbing
    all over the question of the relative harm of depleated uranium
    exposure in recent conflicts. Natural or enriched uranium would
    make people go ballistic.

    I don't know either -- I just think it is a point worthy of concern
    (more significant than the concerns we had a couple of months ago).

    Robert



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 20:56:04 MDT