Re: NMR combating terrorists

In sci.physics, pmlonline@xxxxxxxxx
<pmlonline@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on 1 Aug 2005 12:33:33 -0700
<1122924813.116171.235750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Uncle Al wrote:
>> pmlonline@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >
>> > I've heard enough of this terrorists stuff on the radio & TV talk
>> > shows. This has been the 3rd show I've heard in the last few weeks
>> > just on radio alone. It now seems almost all the experts investigating
>> > this field say that it is only a matter of time when a terrorist
>> > imports a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb into the U.S. or other countries
>> > and lights it off. What about NMR? After studying it a little it
>> > seems very possible to build a sensitive machine that can detect
>> > uranium and other atoms.
>>
>> Idiot. Do you have a few cubic meters of 5-10 tesla perfectly
>> homogeneous magnetic field? Are ya gonna outlaw ferrous shipping
>> containers?
>
> Personally I think people like you should be watched. You don't need
> 5-10 tesla idiot. Think Al, think! Have you ever heard of taking
> multiple samples? Hello! Do you know anything about signal
> processing? Idiot!

[1] How many tesla would one need?

[2] Signal processing may involve a time/quality tradeoff. What
parameters of time, false positives, false *negatives*, and
power consumption are you envisioning here?

[3] As far as I can tell, there are at least two forms of
shipping container:

5898 mm x 2352 mm x 2393 mm (19'4" x 7'9" x 7'10")
2300 kg weight for the container
max 28180 kg weight for the payload
max 30480 kg gross

12032 mm x 2352 mm x 2393 mm (39'6" x 7'9" x 7'10")
3750 kg weight for the container
max 28750 kg weight for the payload
max 32500 kg gross

There's some tolerance.

There's mention of a hicube (9'6") and a halfheight as well.

Presumably, one has to design a system to cover all
of these containers; the amount of plutonium required
to manufacture a bomb is on the order of the size
of a large backpack, mostly to keep the ingredients
separated until ready for baking everything within a
10-mile radius -- or just causing everyone to panic as
the unit, say, spews radioactive pulverized plutonium
into the air with a compressed air jet. Of course,
if that's *within* the container the best it can do
is contaminate the container's contents.

Were I a nasty so-and-so I'd try to coat the plutonium
with sugar or other such water-soluble materials,
to avoid fission during storage. (There's a *lot* of
issues here, and getting more than a few microounces
of the stuff would be extremely difficult anyway.
I'd expect Al Qaeda would have some major problems
doing it right, but not much problem doing it wrong,
although ideally they'd blow themselves up in the
attempt. [One can hope! ;-) ])

[4] According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (figures! :-) )
South Louisana handles 200 million tons a year, or
100,000 tons or 91,000 metric tonnes an hour (assuming
40-hour 5-day workweeks), That's at least 50 shipping
containers a minute.

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2005/html/table_01_51.html

Other ports are similarly sized; South Louisiana merely happens
to be top dog at the moment. :-)

In light of such considerations it might be simpler to require
that each ship and each container be coated with film emulsion
that turns black upon exposure to radiation. However, I
don't know if that'll succeed, either.

[5] Consumer's Risk and Producer's Risk statistical laws may apply,
if one uses sampling.

>
>
>> > I have no idea what materials they can use
>> > for an effective nuclear bomb.
>>
>> Idiot.
>
> Demon!

There's a fair number of nasty devices one can contemplate;
the actual plutonium bomb (a la Fat Man or Little Boy)
would require quite a bit of technology, but an irradiator
or spewer device is a little simpler, requiring little more
than a method to mix the stuff with the air, and the stuff
itself. Atomizers have been known for centuries (primarily
in perfume and liquid sprays, admittedly) and painting
sprayers are available readily enough. Or one can simply
coat a standard (?) I.H.E. unit with some sort of paste.

Even a catapult with a payload of radioactive sand and a
timer would give the authorities pause.

>
>
>
>> > How difficult would it be to build such
>> > a machine where the individual stands on a certain spot and the machine
>> > scans for any atoms such as uranium? According to a NMR table, Uranium
>> > receptivity is about a million times less than hydrogen. I guess that
>> > means the EM signal from uranium is about a million times weaker than
>> > hydrogen. Is it still possible if the electronics is sensitive enough?
>> > Perhaps if the device is inside a shielded area such as a faraday
>> > cage.
>> >
>> > Any thoughts are greatly appreciated ... especially if it's your child
>> > or grand child that your input might one day help save from a nuclear
>> > fall out.
>> > Paul
>>
>> You get rid of alligators by killing the hatchery. Don't drive a bung
>> into the broad end of a funnel.

Or by transmutating them into butterflies or horses -- if
such is possible. :-)

>
> Use your brain. 2D thinkers like you is why terrorists are
> terrorizing. Be creative. Geee, lets not use leading technology to
> detect nuclear devices. Lets just forget about it and try to kill
> every Muslim in the world. Walking zombie!
>

And precisely where is the terrorism coming from? Even the most
crazed Christians might have blown up a few churches -- mostly in
the early 60's. However, the crazed Muslims seem to be far more
in number. I don't know why but there's a root cause, somewhere.
I'm hoping we can solve it.

Hate, however, serves a useful purpose (otherwise why would we still
have it from millions of years ago?). I can't say I like it, but
it's there. I like its effects even less; unfortunately, one of them
is martyrdom.

--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.

Quantcast