Text 22594, 115 rader
Skriven 2006-01-15 14:53:01 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 22483 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: [1/2] Lack of Gratitude
===============================
15 Jan 06 11:20, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>>>>> They made a bomb out of a radiation therapy machine? Don't you
 >>>>>> know that the material used in those machines isn't enough to
 >>>>>> make a bomb?

 MvdV>>>>> The active component - usually Cobalt 60 - of a radio therapy
 MvdV>>>>> machine is called "the bomb" in the jargon.

 MvdV>>> The word "bomb" has more meanings than "expolsive device".

 >> That's true. But you won't have any luck making a bomb out of
 >> Cobalt 60.

 MvdV> Nobody claimed a bomb - as in the meaning of explosive device - was
 MvdV> made out of a radio therapy machine.

I did.

 MvdV> Read again: What is IN a radio therapy machine, the canister with
 MvdV> the C60, is *called* "the bomb' in the jargon of nuclear medicine.

Which isn't jargon used in medicine, you just made it up.

 >> You might be able to make a 'dirty bomb' out of it, but the
 >> half life is so short, it would be useless unless you found
 >> some fresh material.

 MvdV> Again you show ignorance. The half life of Cobalt 60 is just over
 MvdV> five years. Long enough to be a serious hazard when disposed of in
 MvdV> an irresposible way. Such as just dumping it on a waste belt.

But that's the point isn't; where do they just dump nuclear waste into the
dump. No, it's reclaimed and disposed of by the equipment manufacturer or
some nuclear authority.

 >> Even then, it's not going to be any more dangerous than a little
 >> bit of TNT.

 MvdV> Nobody claimed an eplosive device was involved.

I did.

 >> In fact, there is more danger in the TNT explosion than there
 >> would be of a dirty bomb fallout. Anyone in the vacinity
 >> of a dirty bomb explosion who wasn't killed by the blast,
 >> only needs cleanse themselves of the 'dust' of the fall out

 MvdV> That would not help for the dust that was inhaled or swallowed.

Yes it would. Anything inhaled or swallowed would be eliminated by the
kidneys, liver and intestines. That medicine does the job of isolating the
contaminants and allowing it to pass without harming the patient..

 >> and to be treated medically to survive. There's a new
 >> medication being used right now that would suffice. It helps
 >> cancer patients to replace what radiation therepy has taken
 >> away from them.

 MvdV> In therapy the dosis of the radiation is stricty controlled and
 MvdV> only the parts of the body to be treated are exposed. Or at least
 MvdV> every effort is made to expose as little healthy tissue as
 MvdV> possible.

That's right.

 MvdV> With a dirty bomb, there is no control and someone in the vicinity
 MvdV> could very well get a dose that is far greater than what is used in
 MvdV> therapy.

Doubtful. Unless of course they were within the blast of the bomb itself.
Then they wouldn't have to worry about radiation, they'd be dead from the
blast.

 MvdV> A dirty bom may not be as dangerous as the general public is made
 MvdV> to believe, but it certainly is not as simple as you make it
 MvdV> appear.

It's just that simple and not complicated at all.

 MvdV>>>>> therapy. That included a weekly inspection and calibration of a
 MvdV>>>>> Cobalt 60 machine...

 >>>> That's fine. What does it have to do with making a bomb out of
 >>>> Cobalt 60?

 MvdV> Nothing.

Then why'd you bring it up?

 MvdV>  It was you that started about explosive devices.

No, I was talking about explosive devices before you entered Cobalt 60
into the conversation.

 MvdV> I merely explained what the term "bomb" meant in the context that
 MvdV> started this subthread.

And you didn't do a good enough job of explaining it.

 MvdV>>> That I know what I am talking about and you don't.

 >> That you don't is obvious, or you would have explained it like
 >> I did, above.

 MvdV> It is obvious that you understood nothing or else you would not
 MvdV> have started blabbering about a dirty bomb.

You brought up Cobalt 60...I was on another page when you did that.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)