Captain's Quarters -

I'm sure our northern neighbors will find them. I willing to bet that it's much more likely we will find them.

Seattle, Buffalo, Manchester, Boston, Bristol, Bangor, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Ed's own Twin Cities, for example. One of these places might "find them" for our Canadian friends.

If that many Canadian devices are missing, how many do you think the less capable and more higly armed former Soviets have "lost"?

Canada has been jumping whole hog into the multiculturalism pool, and thus sliding toward its future new name (Canuckistan), for some time.

No surprise. But good reasonto be worried about securing the northern border too. But, without amnesty, the dolts in Washington won't actually even pretend to do claim they will do anything about securing the borders (and their conduct - or lack of conduct - since the late 1980s promises to do something in that area show that they are actively unwilling to secure the borders).

The Adnan el-Shukrijumah story fits right in with this...

A NUCLEAR MISSION IN CANADA

Following the success of 9-11, el-Shukrijumah became singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America – a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

To prepare for this mission, el-Shukrijumah, along with fellow al-Qaida sleeper agents Anas al-Liby, Jaber A. Elbaneh, and Amer el-Matti, was sent to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a facility that boasted a five-megawatt nuclear research reactor, the largest reactor of any educational facility in Canada.

At McMaster, where they may have enrolled under aliases, el-Shukrijumah and his associates reportedly wasted no time in gaining access to the nuclear reactor and stealing more than 180 pounds of nuclear waste for the creation of radiological bombs.

Jane Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster University, declined to comment on the stay of the al-Qaida operatives at the school. She insisted that such information was confidential.

"sliding toward its future new name (Canuckistan)"

Awww - do we have too many of them evil brown peoples for your liking, km? So sorry. Best of luck with your dream of a white America.

Keep in mind that in nuclear terminology "contaminate" often refers to miniscule levels of radioactivity. Many city sidewalks have higher levels of natural radioactivity, due to radioactive materials in their rocks, than the levels of radiation in a nuclear facility which trigger mandatory cleanup.

If eight city blocks were contaminated, a nuclear regulatory agency might require the external surfaces of the buildings and all the sidewalks and pavement be replaced. An M.D. or civil engineer might let the next rainfall (and window washers) clean the buildings, then spray sidewalks and streets with adhesive/sealant (to trap dust) and pave over sidewalks and streets (to trap dust); during future construction use more dust control measures to reduce inhalation (keeping in mind the more active material loses radiactivity over time).

As usual, CP has no idea what they're talking about. Radioactive devices could refer to the X-ray machine at your dentist's, or to smoke detectors. In this case, they seem to be talking about "nuclear densometers", which are used in construction to test how much soil has been compacted.

You wouldn't want to eat the contents of a nuclear densometer, but it's still pretty safe (though of course one should take precautions to minimise exposure). See http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=184918&page=1 for a discussion of their safety.

You couldn't take a single nuclear densometer and make a dirty bomb that would contaminate a 4 km radius. (In fact, the CP report explains that a single small dirty bomb might have such an effect, not that a single nuclear densometer might. Captain's Quarters muddies the distinction by talking about "devices".)

Radioactive is such a scare word. The sun emits radiation. Granite releases radon. There are many easier ways to kill people than with nuclear densometers.

Don't get me wrong, Ed, I'm all for tighter security with the equipment that contain nuclear materials. It is important to have good life to death process on their usage.

Still, I am disappointed at lack of scepticism regarding this story. I've had more than enough MSM alarmism on almost every subject to accept the story line offered here. The database was compiled by the Canadian Press which looks like an AP clone. To suggest this is the first compilation is distracting from the liklihood that the government already has compiled the important cases.

To accept this as a very serious situation requires a little more than a Canadian MSM database that they don't link, types of devices they don't example, and a dangerous scenario of a magnitude that is not connected in any way to harvest requirements of wide and undescribed range of these devices.

I'm not calling piffle on this story and as I said at first there ought to be a better tracking process, but if this didn't fit the right's pictorical of terrorist threat, we'd be demanding to know how accurate the various aspects of story are and I'll bet $10 that we'd find out that what the CP is asserting is exaggerated to the extreme.

I realize "dave rywall" is just another bitter, antagonistic troll who probably won't even bother to read this, but if he's Canadian, I have to laugh about his contentions about the relative ethnic diversity between Canada and the U.S. Maybe it's *really* changed since my last visit, but I couldn't help thinking that the term "Great White North" really applies to certain parts of Canada.

Now, that's not a knock against Canada, but if "dave" weren't so obsessed with artificially bolstering his liberal self-esteem by proclaiming everyone to the right of Fidel Castro a flaming bigot to get the gist of the actual knock against Canada contained in the original comment.

Oops... I was so busy trying to be the soul of wit, I forgot to be the hammer of lucidity.

That second paragraph should read:

"Now, that's not a knock against Canada, but if "dave" weren't so obsessed with artificially bolstering his liberal self-esteem by proclaiming everyone to the right of Fidel Castro a flaming bigot he might get the gist of the actual knock against Canada contained in the original comment."

The Canadians won't find them. They are long gone.

As for them increasing security on items of that nature it won't happen, either. They see themselves as the cuddly teddy bear to the world and they pride themselves as being "Not the US"-even to the point of committing suicide to prove it. No, they won't care until the US cares. Cares enough to change the laws concerning the borders, and we know that isn't going to happen. Not until NYC or LA is hit.

Ennis,

I used to think, like you, that we will fight this war seriously only after "NYC or LA is hit". Not anymore. I fear "warmongering neocons" or somesuch will be blamed, instead of the enemies of western civilization.

I fear "warmongering neocons" or somesuch will be blamed, instead of the enemies of western civilization.

I fear you're right. We in Canada had the spectacle of a one-time federal candidate for the Green Party not long ago admitting that he cheered when the Twin Towers came down on 9/11. Many other morons (I hate to resort to name-calling, but honesty compells me to do so) somehow believe the US brought that terrorist attack on itself. If Toronto or Vancouver (in 2010) or Calgary (during the Stampede) were hit, some of our left-wing moonbats would find some way to blame the US or ourselves.

No, the direct comment was that somehow our 'multiculturalism pool" was turning us into a middle eastern country, because, I guess, we're letting in more people from that part of the world than we apparently should, because, again, apparently, they're the ones who steal all the missing materials.

I take issue with the obvious racism of the comment. You don't. I could give a sh*t.

You should be using the term "radioactive device", not NUCLEAR DEVICE. Perhaps the old English major and naval officer in me is being sensitive to pretty significant shade of meaning here. A hydrogen bomb is a "nuclear device". A medical tool that makes use of radiation is a "radioactive device".

The potential threat here is one of contamination, not of huge explosions being caused by fission chain reactions of fusion -- which is what "nuclear" implies.

Which would you rather have? A site contaminated with chemicals or one contaminated with radioactivity?

Radioactivity of course.

It is easier to trace. Geiger counters and all that.

BTW I'm a Naval Nuke '66 myself.

dave rywall

Apparently you're the one not getting it. Since when was multiculturalism specifically about race?

So following your definition if I don't like German culture I'm a racist? If I don't like French culture I'm a racist? If I don't like Korean culture I'm a racist? (I'd better tell my wife about that so she can divorce my apparently racist self).

Perpetual multiculturalism without assimilation is a death sentence for any society. Get your definitions correct before trying to browbeat others to feed your ego.

dave,

It's "couldn't give a etc." but I refer you to my own comments about brevity, lucidity, etc. above.

Whether you can give one or not though masks, and in the spirit I mentioned before, the fact that you are calling racism where there was only a humorous observation meant.

If racism is simply recognizing the differences between people, or calling attention to demographics, albeit in a mildly humorous way, then while that makes your job easier it also probably makes you a racist on a regular basis, since it's nigh impossible to discuss the issue of racism without recognizing said differences.

The problem you have is that you want to drop that bomb on people simply because you don't like their perspective on the potential problems of demographic change.

Case in point - you complained about the other commenters perspective regarding "evil brown peoples" when the comment was a direct reference to rapid change in religious demographics, in that of the many Stans out there, they are generally untied by the common thread of Islam and not particular racial homogeny. )Since the Turks, Arabs, Uzbeks etc. would disagree on that point.

Consequently, the assumption that Islam equals "brown skin" is rather narrowminded on your own part. (Don't trust me - read a little later Malcolm X.) The narrowmindedness comes precisely because you could or couldn't give a s***. You're too busy trying to call the foul of racism to even bother to get your own house in order.

If you want to complain about the factualness of the original jest, by all means. If you want to self-righteously bandy about accusations of racism in a low and unrigorous manner, well...people are bound to talk.

http://tinyurl.com/3eyyad

Health Physics: February 2004, 86:

Radiation Risks and Dirty Bombs.

Health Physics. 86 Supplement 1:S42-S47, February 2004.
Ring, Joseph P. *

Abstract:
For many, the thought of terrorists detonating a dirty bomb-a radiological dispersal device-is frightening. However, the radiation health risks from such an occurrence are small. For most people directly involved, the exposure would have an estimated lifetime health risk that is comparable to the health risk from smoking five packages of cigarettes or the accident risk from taking a hike. The actual impact of a dirty bomb would be economic and social ( NCRP 2001). There would be an economic cost for clean-up as well as a decrease in economic activity in the affected area due to radiation fear. If such a bomb were detonated, those exposed as well as those not exposed would have great concern about potential health effects while seeking medical attention and avoiding the impacted area. This paper discusses the health risks from radiation exposure and compares them to risks from various activities of daily life and to exposure to hazardous chemicals.

(C)2004Health Physics Society

Radioactive contamination is certainly "easier to trace" than chemical contamination. The problem is that radioactivity can render an area unusable for a very long time.

drywall is a troll. His entire reason for living is to disrupt the site and change the subject. Don't respond to his moronic postings.

It doesnt really mean much until you can find out what kind of devices are missing. For example, I work with some Nuclear Moisture - Density Gauges. (see here http://www.troxlerlabs.com/PRODUCTS/3430.shtml). While they have a radioactive source in them (2 actually) it is so small that you could practicaly eat one with out much problem. There are some much stronger sources used in oil field work however, it would be interesting to hear what exactly is missing.

[Posted by: vivictius at July 5, 2007 4:45 PM]

I'll ditto your point, Vivictius. Aside from the more likely possibilitiy that vast majority of the radioactive devices are in landfills because of actions of the users and also probably many of the thieves, too, I'm not going to be especially worried until authorities or, in this case, the MSM provides more concrete evidence for worrying.

Oil companies lose these things all the time. It's not usually worth the effort to go back and find them, so they report them stolen rather than lost.

It gets even better (or worse, I guess):

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/05/4316044-cp.html

The federal agency entrusted with tracking radioactive devices that could be used in a terrorist attack provided three different numbers over two weeks when asked how many missing instruments are still out there.

The confusion raises questions about how closely the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is keeping tabs on potentially dangerous tools, several of which experts say could be used to make a dirty bomb. The commission initially said it knew of just one wayward device in the last few years.

After being challenged, the number climbed days later to 27 since 2002. The commission now says 40 gauges, medical tools and other radioactive devices lost in the last five years are still missing.

These radioactive devices, without knowing exactly what they are, should not pose a serious threat. I was, at one time, responsible for all such such devices at my company. Many are used in, say, coal silos, to measure levels. They typically are small cylinders containing cesium 137, with a window that slides open to allow a beam of radiation aimed at a sensor. Unless one has the right equipment to open it, the person trying to use it for nefarious purposes is going to do a number on him (or her) self.

While the material itself is highly radioactive, it doesn't typically activate the material it irradiates.

We never lost one, but it isn't unheard of. The densometers (americium-beryllium) are used in construction and a lot of material walks away from construction sites. Licensing requires tight control, but stuff happens.

Cute little fact: a few years ago the guy who regulated such material in D.C. told me that almost all the licenses there were held by the various spook organizations.

These radioactive devices, without knowing exactly what they are, should not pose a serious threat. I was, at one time, responsible for all such such devices at my company. Many are used in, say, coal silos, to measure levels. They typically are small cylinders containing cesium 137, with a window that slides open to allow a beam of radiation aimed at a sensor. Unless one has the right equipment to open it, the person trying to use it for nefarious purposes is going to do a number on him (or her) self.

While the material itself is highly radioactive, it doesn't typically activate the material it irradiates.

We never lost one, but it isn't unheard of. The densometers (americium-beryllium) are used in construction and a lot of material walks away from construction sites. Licensing requires tight control, but stuff happens.

Cute little fact: a few years ago the guy who regulated such material in D.C. told me that almost all the licenses there were held by the various spook organizations.

These radioactive devices, without knowing exactly what they are, should not pose a serious threat. I was, at one time, responsible for all such such devices at my company. Many are used in, say, coal silos, to measure levels. They typically are small cylinders containing cesium 137, with a window that slides open to allow a beam of radiation aimed at a sensor. Unless one has the right equipment to open it, the person trying to use it for nefarious purposes is going to do a number on him (or her) self.

While the material itself is highly radioactive, it doesn't typically activate the material it irradiates.

We never lost one, but it isn't unheard of. The densometers (americium-beryllium) are used in construction and a lot of material walks away from construction sites. Licensing requires tight control, but stuff happens.

Cute little fact: a few years ago the guy who regulated such material in D.C. told me that almost all the licenses there were held by the various spook organizations.

These things are common in mining and petroleum extraction. There must be thousands of them in the United States. I guess you could make a dirty bomb of them if you gathered several hundred, but maybe not even then. The Canadian Press is not an "AP clone" -- it doesn't even rise to that level.

Canada and the United States have a lot in common. For instance, our left-wing moonbats like "dave rywall" hate America. Similarly, your left-wing moonbats hate America.

If radioactive devices or nuclear devices are so easy to track with appropriate detectors, why are they disappearing at all? Shouldn't anyone leaving a site with potentially harmful material be subject to detection?

Thanks for the H/T. I follow up this article with a little more commentary that discusses U.S. and Russian programs to locate missing sources:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/07/06/dirty-bombs-and-proper-control-of-radioactive-material/

Much of the missing radioactive equipment may be relatively harmless, but the equipment that I am familiar with - oilfield equipment- is not harmless. The commenters who have said they are common in petroleum extraction or that "oil companies lose them all the time" and they aren't worth recovering, don't know what they are talking about.
The most dangerous sources in oil and gas work are the radioactive sources for the density and neutron well logging tools. They are normally owned by logging companies such as Schlumberger - not oil companies - and are kept under lock and key. The logging tools are kept in thick lead shields until they are lowered into a well and are put back in the shields when they are pulled back out. The reason for this should be obvious.

As for not caring if they are lost - I have worked at two companies that were unfortunate enough to get neutron-density logging tools stuck, in both cases more than two miles down in deep wells. Each was required by the AEC to spend over a month of time, effort and expense (in the multi millions of dollars) to attempt to recover the tools. In both cases the attempt was a failure. The holes were plugged with red dyed cement (both wells would otherwise have been producers) and new wells had to be drilled to replace them. One of them, a offshore well, ended up costing over $40 million before the project was finished.

Also, back in the 1970's I heard from a log interpreter that American well logging companies had stopped using the plutonium source for logging trucks in India. This was the standard source used domestically, but when used there, it was practically a guarantee that the truck would be stolen and would end up in the USSR. When they switched to a weaker source (I recall it was a germainum or beryllium isotope) the thefts stopped. I wonder why that was?

I hope the "experts" claiming that missing materials in other industries are not serious are more knowledgable than the oil industry pundits appear to be. While alarmists often should be taken with a grain of salt, the characters who will tell you there is nothing to worry about may be equally full of something smelly.

The sky is falling, "expert" Doug Collins. Better run and hide.

-Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, and current Halliburton employee.

[Posted by: Doug Collins at July 6, 2007 12:38 AM]

I appreciate the info, Dan. It appears the equipment you describe contains about 2 Ci of Cesium and 20 Ci of Am241Be. The neutron generators in the equipment are unimportant vis-a-vis a dirty bomb so the on-site mining dangers wrt that device are unimportant.

That is serious stuff depending on it's use and how one might be exposed to those radioactive materials. I am still at a loss to know whether a terrorist would have to steal 10 or 10,000 of these pieces of equipment to match up with the Toronto scenarios accompanying the news story. Any idea on that would be welcome.

As for the anecdote you gave about incidents in India, if they had been talking about India rather than Canada, I would have taken a bit more interest. The problem is that there was a pretty comprehensive program of permitting/licensing before 9/11, reaching as far back as the early 80's as far as I can tell from a quick search. There is a pretty good summary of a program called ALARA (a program for monitoring and securing) for which there is a PDF of a summary from 2000 available. Type in "ALARA Challenge" and it should be the top item.

Without this news story making some specific connections between these disparate items of information, I'm still quite sceptical of the jump from some missing radioactive items and the Toronto dirty bomb scenario.

I would expect this kind of incident in the third world, but not in Canada. One can only hope that they try to close the floodgates with their nuclear devices and then try to recover them.