Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

[ICONOPHILI]

This is the real reason these pics where released: http://judicial-inc.biz/Je_Cartoons_Photo.htm

[TomS]

What? I don't see the relationship.

[George Australia]

What? I don't see the relationship.

Oh, come now Tom. Isn't it obvious?
As the website explains:

"What Is This All About?
Zionists use the cartoons to enrage the Muslims, and portray their reaction as lunatics. Then they release the torture pictures, to further inflame the Arabs.
Some time in the near future Israel will plant a suitcase nuke in a Midwestern city, maybe Des Moines. Naturally we will blame the Muslims. We know they are crazy fanatics, because the Jewish controlled press told us so."

Don't you know anything?
I hope you don't live in Des Moines, but then again, it is a scientific fact that "suitcase nukes" don't work- but who needs facts when you have conspiracy theories?

[尼古拉前执事]

it is a scientific fact that "suitcase nukes" don't work- but who needs facts when you have conspiracy theories?

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dirty- ... /printable

How Dirty Bombs Work
by Tom Harris

A dirty bomb is an explosive designed to spread dangerous radioactive material over a wide area. When people hear "bomb" and "radioactive" in the same sentence, their minds jump to nuclear war pretty quickly. But it turns out that a dirty bomb's primary destructive power would probably be panic, not radiation damage.

A dirty bomb is much closer in power to an ordinary explosive than it is to the widespread destructive force of a nuclear bomb. But the fear of contamination could be debilitating, in the same way that 2001's anthrax scare in the United States terrorized much of the American populace, even though only a few people were infected.

In this article, we'll find out what dirty bombs are and what they do. We'll also explore what might happen if one actually went off in a public area, and consider some of the consequences of this sort of attack.

What is a Dirty Bomb?

Conceptually, a dirty bomb (or radiological dispersion bomb) is a very simple device. It's a conventional explosive, such as TNT (trinitrotoluene), packaged with radioactive material. It's a lot cruder and cheaper than a nuclear bomb, and it's also a lot less effective. But it does have the combination of explosive destruction and radiation damage.

High explosives inflict damage with rapidly expanding, very hot gas. The basic idea of a dirty bomb is to use the gas expansion as a means of propelling radioactive material over a wide area rather than as a destructive force in its own right. When the explosive goes off, the radioactive material spreads in a sort of dust cloud, carried by the wind, that reaches a wider area than the explosion itself.

The long-term destructive force of the bomb would be ionizing radiation from the radioactive material. Ionizing radiation, which includes alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays and X-rays, is radiation that has enough energy to knock an orbital electron off of an atom. Losing an electron throws off the balance between the atom's positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons, giving the atom a net electrical charge (the atom becomes an ion). The free electron may collide with other atoms to create more ions. (See How Atoms Work for more information on subatomic particles.)

If this happens in a person's body, the ion can cause a lot of serious problems, because an ion's electrical charge may lead to unnatural chemical reactions inside cells. Among other things, the charge can break DNA chains. A cell with a broken strand of DNA will either die or the DNA will develop a mutation. If a lot of cells die, the body can develop various diseases. If the DNA mutates, a cell may become cancerous, and this cancer may spread. Ionization radiation may also cause cells to malfunction, resulting in a wide variety of symptoms collectively referred to as radiation sickness. Radiation sickness can be deadly, but people can survive it, particularly if they receive a bone marrow transplant.

In a dirty bomb, the ionizing radiation would come from radioactive isotopes (also called radioisotopes). Radioactive isotopes are simply atoms that decay over time. In other words, the arrangement of protons, neutrons and electrons that make up the atom gradually changes, forming different atoms. This radioactive decay releases a lot of energy in the form of ionizing radiation. (See How Nuclear Radiation Works for details on radiation and radioactive isotopes.)

We're exposed to small doses of ionizing radiation all the time -- it comes from outer space, it comes from natural radioactive isotopes, it comes from X-ray machines. This radiation can and does cause cancer, but the risk is relatively low because you only encounter it in very small doses.

A dirty bomb would boost the radiation level above normal levels, increasing the risk of cancer and radiation sickness to some degree. Most likely, it wouldn't kill many people right away, but it could possibly kill people years down the road.

Dirty Bomb Possibilities

There is a huge range of possible dirty bomb designs. Different explosive materials, applied in different quantities, would generate explosions of varying sizes, and different types and quantities of radioactive material would contaminate an area to different degrees. Some designs include:

Code: Select all

* A small bomb, consisting of one stick of dynamite and a very small amount of radioactive material

* A medium-size bomb, such as a backpack or small car filled with explosives and a greater amount of radioactive material

* A large bomb, such as a truck filled with explosives and a good amount of radioactive material 

The builders of these bombs wouldn't have much trouble getting their hands on high explosives — dynamite is readily available, and TNT isn't too hard to come by. The main limitation on the bomb would be the available radioactive material.

It's not nearly as accessible as explosive material, but there are a number of sources for radioactive material around the world. For example:

Code: Select all

* Hospitals use small quantities of radioactive material, such as cesium-137, in nuclear medicine.

* Universities use similar materials to conduct scientific research.

* Food irradiation plants use radiation from cobalt-60 to kill harmful bacteria on food. (See CDC: Frequently Asked Questions about Food Irradiation for more information.)

* Natural radioactive uranium isotopes are mined for use in nuclear energy. Terrorists could conceivably acquire uranium from various mines in Africa.

* There are a number of abandoned "nuclear batteries" scattered around the former Soviet Union. These portable thermoelectric generators contain a sizable amount of strontium-90, a highly potent radioactive isotope.

* People could also collect spent radioactive fuel from Russian reactors, which have been abandoned in old nuclear submarines, among other places.

* They could also put something together using various low-level radioactive materials available to anybody, such as the radioactive material in smoke alarms. Tale of the Radioactive Boy Scout is good evidence that this is a very real possibility. 

The big question, of course, is what would actually happen if someone set off a bomb containing any of this material. As it turns out, there isn't a clear answer. Ask 10 different experts and you'll probably get 10 slightly different answers. In the next section, we'll explore the various possible scenarios.

Dirty Bomb Damage

It's difficult to predict the extent of a dirty bomb's damage because there are a huge number of variables at work. The type and quantity of the explosives and radioactive material make a big difference, of course, but completely random things like wind speed would also have an effect. There's also a lot of debate on what the long-term health effects would be.

The most likely dirty bomb would contain a small or medium amount of explosives (10 to 50 pounds [4.5 - 23 kg] of TNT, for example) with a small amount of low-level radioactive material (say a sample of cesium-137 or cobalt-60 from a university lab).

This sort of bomb wouldn't be terribly destructive. Most likely, any immediate deaths (and all property damage) would be from the explosive itself rather than the radiation. The explosive would act as a propellant force for the radioactive material. A radioactive dust cloud would extend well beyond the explosion site, possibly covering several square miles. Bombs containing radioactive waste from nuclear power plants or portable nuclear generators would inflict more damage, but terrorists would be less likely to use them because they are harder to handle. The bombers could die from exposure just building and transporting the bomb.

If people got rid of contaminated clothes, showered and evacuated the area within a day or so of a small or medium blast, they would probably be fine. The bomb would boost radiation levels above the normal, "safe" level, but not by a lot. In the short term, the human body could handle this increased exposure fairly easily. People very close to the blast could conceivably suffer radiation sickness and might require hospital care.

The main concern would be prolonged exposure. Many radioactive isotopes bind with other materials, including concrete and metal, extremely well. This would make it nearly impossible to completely remove the material without demolishing all contaminated structures. Clean-up crews could wash away a lot of the radioactive material, but a small amount would probably remain in the city for many years, even decades. Anybody living there would be exposed regularly to this radiation, which could conceivably cause cancer.

The question is, would this make a significant health difference? There are two schools of thought on this issue. Many experts have asserted that the health risks would be negligible if the government spent a few weeks or months on clean-up. The radiation level would be only marginally higher than normal, acceptable levels, and it would not significantly increase the risk of developing cancer. (See "Dirty Bombs" Much More Likely to Create Fear than Cause Cancer from the American Institute of Physics for more on this viewpoint.)

The other school of thought asserts that such an attack could make a city uninhabitable for years or decades. The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) recently prepared a report detailing three representative scenarios of a dirty bomb attack. In all three scenarios, the FAS asserts that the risk of cancer in some contaminated areas would be so high that the government would desert or demolish the area. These predictions are based on the Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines for safe radiation levels. (Check out Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat for the FAS' predicted scenarios.)

There's no precedent for a dirty bomb attack, but we can learn from other incidents of radioactive contamination. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both exposed to a much larger amount of radioactive material, from an actual nuclear blast, and today, they're both considered completely safe for habitation. On the other hand, there are still areas around Chernobyl that are considered unsafe because of high radioactivity.

No matter their opinion on the long-term health risks, most experts agree that a dirty bomb would be more of a disruptive weapon than a destructive weapon. The news of radioactive contamination would probably cause widespread panic, and the rush to evacuate the targeted city could actually cause more damage than the bomb itself. A country's economy could also take a dive, especially if the bomb went off in major city. Even if the government did assure the public that the area was inhabitable, real estate values and tourism could plummet.

This is the precise reason dirty bombs are such an attractive weapon to terrorists. Their main goal is to get people's attention and inspire terror, two things a dirty bomb would certainly accomplish.

[George Australia]

Dirty bombs
Saturday 10 December 2005
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/sto ... 523404.htm

Summary
Dirty bombs, those which supposedly spread radiation have been mentioned as part of the terrorist threat. They're also the stuff of television drama such as Numb3rs. But are they the threat they've been painted?

Program Transcript
Excerpt TV Show, Numb3rs: Five pounds of C4 explosive is missing from the naval weapons station in Seal Beach.

Actor: When did that happen?

Actress: Inventory is taken every 14 days; the last one was eight days ago, so within a week.

Actor: How does someone get access to C4 in a naval base?

Actress: Enlisted men, civilian contractors, maintenance crews, they’d all have access.

Actor: Right, run it down. I mean if it’s the same people who stole the truck they’ve got nuclear material, high explosive and that is a dirty bomb.

Robyn Williams: Two remarkable things about that excerpt from the TV show, Numb3rs, produced by the brothers Tony and Ridley Scott. First, it’s maths as well as the FBI that catches the villains. And secondly, this one is about a dirty bomb, a sort of nuclear bomb used by terrorists in other words. But also on television this time SBS on Thursday in a remarkable series by BBC producer, Adam Curtis, we heard that dirty bombs are a nonsense. Just listen.

Excerpt from SBS, The Power of Nightmares.

Newsreader: Recent intelligence reports suggest that Al-Qaeda leaders have emphasised planning for attacks on apartment buildings, hotels and other soft or lightly secured targets in the United States. Terrorists are considering physical attacks against US financial institutions.

Adam CurtisAnd Abu Zibidar [PHONETIC] also told his interrogators of a terrifying new weapon the Islamists intended to use; an explosive device that could spray radiation through cities. The dirty bomb.

News presenter: First a CBS exclusive about a captured Al-Qaeda leader who says his fellow terrorists have the know-how to build a very dangerous weapon and get it to the United States.

Adam CurtisAnd the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and in the process they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But in reality the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. But almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and providing the area was cleaned promptly the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.

Adam CurtisHow dangerous would a dirty bomb be?

Interviewee: The deaths would be few if any, and the answer is probably none.

Adam CurtisReally?

Interviewee: Yes. And that’s been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, but you know people won’t believe that and they’ll panic. I don’t think it would kill anybody and I think you’ll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise. The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. The measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose, not life threatening but fairly high, and I checked into how the calculation was done and they assume that after the attack no one moves for one year. One year. Now that’s ridiculous.

Interviewee: The dirty bomb, the danger from radioactivity is basically next to nothing. The danger from panic however is horrendous. That’s where the irony comes. Don’t panic.

Television Presenter Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the end of our show, however something very much like this could happen at any moment. We just thought we ought to prepare you and more or less put you in the mood. Thank you. And now back to our story.

Robyn Williams: The Power of Nightmares, SBS television on Thursday. A remarkable series by the BBC’s, Adam Curtis. So, is a dirty bomb a real threat? This is Dr Bob Hunter, former president of Scientists against Nuclear Arms.

Bob Hunter: Well it’s a bomb, an explosive device, which has contained within it some radioactive material. It’s not radioactive material which is causing the explosion, it’s simply particles of radioactive materials which will be dispersed by the explosion.

Robyn Williams: Now what we’ve just heard from Nightmares, the series on SBS, suggests that it’s not dangerous particularly at all.

Bob Hunter: All the tests that I’ve heard about suggest that you couldn’t get enough radiation into a reasonable space to affect anyone. Certainly no one would suffer from acute radiation sickness. Some people might absorb some radiation and subsequently have their life expectancy minutely altered, just as they do every day, because we’re all subjected to radiation all the time. That’s something that most people don’t seem to ever come to grips with.

Robyn Williams: So what is the big fuss about?

Bob Hunter: Oh, I think it’s just another part of the technique of keeping us worried. You know as long as we keep frightened then the government can keep passing laws to limit our freedom in the guise of protecting us. It’s stretched now from the USA to Britain and even more so in Australia.

Robyn Williams: These are jumpy times but if the dirty bomb as described isn’t a worry, what about those stolen nuclear materials, if you like, that say the Russians or whatever may have had in a kind of prepared nuclear weapons state?

Bob Hunter: Well, I’m told that there is a black market in weapons grade uranium, and weapons grade plutonium, as well as in just general radioactive material, in Istanbul, Turkey, particularly.

Robyn Williams: It’s sounds fairly old fashioned stuff, not the sophisticated briefcase nuclear bomb that sometimes people talk about.

Bob Hunter: That’s right. The briefcase bomb, it depends on who you ask what story you get. The claim is that both the Americans and the Russians during the cold war made suitcase bombs; bombs that could be carried by a single individual. They were for use as demolition weapons for you know large scale exercises like big bridges, you know say Sydney Harbour, or something like that, and they could be carried by a single person and strapped to the site and blown up. The Americans claim they’ve destroyed all these of course. They’re claiming that the Russians may not have. They also claim that some of the Russian ones are missing. Putin claims that none of his are missing. An American respondent says that he talked to a Russian general who claimed that two-thirds of the some 130 that they’d made were missing. So, it just depends on who you ask whether there are suitcase bombs floating around likely to be in the hands of nasty people. That’s a different exercise altogether. That’s a nuclear weapon capable of not only destroying large-scale structures but also spreading a large amount of nuclear waste in the process.

Robyn Williams: Well the third category of course if bombing nuclear facilities and we’ve only got one, and a fairly small one, a small reactor at that at Lucas Heights. How vulnerable might that be to attack?

Bob Hunter: Well, I don’t think it’s terribly vulnerable, and for a start the new one has a much lower level of activity in the core material. The old one was about 50 per cent enriched uranium, whereas this one is a much lower level. The Americans in fact didn’t like us having highly enriched uranium. It’s also got a very heavy protective arrangement on it; certainly you can’t just crash a plane into it and expect it to go up. I don’t see it as a problem at all. People who get worried about living near it I don’t understand. I mean many of those similar research reactors are in the middle of university campuses in other places in the world. It’s a darn sight less dangerous in my view in terms of statistics than living next to a suburban petrol station; I mean they go up every now and again. They don’t have long-term consequences but they’re certainly nasty if you’re sitting next door.

Robyn Williams: Dr Robert Hunter, Research Fellow in Chemistry at the University of Sydney. Meanwhile.

Excerpt from Numb3rs: Got something. That mincy smell? Cyclohexanone vapour.

Actress: The bomb’s for real, no question.

Actor: Alright, well we know that.

Actor: Donny, go to Angela Square. Wait Don, how you know that, Charlie says it doesn’t hold up mathematically?

Actor: I know what Charlie says but I know these maps and I would choose Angela Square.

Actor: Right, tell me why?

Actor: It’s the height of the buildings, it creates what we used to call an urban canyon. The air currents through the buildings spread their radiation much further. If I wanted to inflict as much damage as I could that’s where I would go.

Actor: Angela Square.

Robyn Williams: Maths genius combines with the FBI to save America. Well, just a bit of it, in the TV drama, Numb3rs. Just one way that mathematics makes a difference.

[Ebor]

I'll take the actually words of the Editor of the Jyllands-Posten, Flemming Rose, in today's Washington Post Outlook Section to explain why those cartoons were published over more of the Jewish Conspiracy rants from that site:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02499.html

And the thoughts of the Religious Policeman Blog at
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

The writer is a Saudi Arabian and a Muslim who does not agree with the oppression that comes from his government and the Wahabi Imans.
It is his opinion that these cartoons (which were published originally in Fall 2005) are only now being put in the public eye as a distraction from such things as the deaths of over 300 people in a stampede during the Haj last month as well as other matters that make the Saudi goverment look bad.

Ebor

[ICONOPHILI]

Well he's wrong those images are being posted "FIRST"on Jew-Own Newspapers in Europe, so his view is DE-BUNKED!!