Plausible Dirty Bomb attacks

Hello folks. Just curious if their is a certain point in US history where a dirty bomb attack could become an actual threat, because I'm itching to do a T/L on it, but I can not seem to find a plausible point of attack to begin. Any suggestions?
 
Hello folks. Just curious if their is a certain point in US history where a dirty bomb attack could become an actual threat, because I'm itching to do a T/L on it, but I can not seem to find a plausible point of attack to begin. Any suggestions?


An attack on the US, or by them? In either case, it's been a plausible threat for as long as nuclear weapons have existed. Pick a moment, pick an enemy.
 
The BBC have tackled the scenario in 'Dirty War', though that is a UK centric affair. It's still on youtube, AFAIK.

The problem with a dirty bomb scenario is there seems to be disagreement on what the long term effects would be. Some people have suggested that whole sections of a city would need to be closed off for decades (the approach the BBC took), while others say that the main effect would be a spike in cancer deaths, but that no areas would need to be closed off.

On the BBC film if you do watch it you'll be glad to know that the UK's emergency services are now far better prepared than depicted.
 
The problem with a dirty bomb scenario is there seems to be disagreement on what the long term effects would be. Some people have suggested that whole sections of a city would need to be closed off for decades (the approach the BBC took), while others say that the main effect would be a spike in cancer deaths, but that no areas would need to be closed off.

AFAIK the difference lies in two points.

First, the materials used. There are truly nasty, long-lasting things you can put into a dirty bomb (IIRC plutonium, polonium and strontium are high on the list). Those would contaminate an area effectively for a very long time. However, your avberage terrorist is more likely to have access to bog-standard radiation sources like radium and caesium, which are less dangerous. So it would dcepend on the kind of bomb used, professionally made military revengewank weapon or Al-Qaeda style DIY.

The other is your definition of "safe". Radioactivity protection is taken extremely seriously these days, in reaction to the rather more cavalier attitude of the early days (aka "Bring your sunglasses, we'll watch the mushroom clouds together"). Legally, long-term contamination that will result in 'nothing more' than a spike in cancer rates will oblige you to close an area for the foreseeable future. If, though, radiation limits are revised upwards (and the political pressure will be tremendous), the area will soon be reclaimed and it won't matter to anyone except the few thousand or ten thousand people who die of cancer at 64 rather than of cardiovascular disease at 84.

That is the truly nasty thing about dirty bombs: They don't just kill you. They may or may not kill you, over a very long time, without anything you can do about it. Their psychological impact is way out of proportion to the fear they cause. Imagine the hit the economy will take from the loss in real estate prices alone.
 
Top