this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2026
505 points (97.9% liked)
Not The Onion
21004 readers
776 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm kind of skepitical of the "dirty bomb" idea. Frankly, it sounds like a load of bullshit, because of the πr^2^ thing. Namely, if you want to irradiate and area to a sufficient extent to cause immediate radiation sickness, then keeping it concentrated is your best bet. A very small bomb, at most.
The other extreme would be a huge bomb to spread radioactive material over, say, a city. At which point it barely raises the radioactivity above background levels. Or at least doesn't cause immediately apparent effects. Imagine terrorists issuing a statement like, "Sure, it doesn't seem so bad TODAY, but wait 'til you see the slight bump in cancer rates in 20 years."
Indeed, on looking it up, I see that the experts are skeptical, too, and tests conducted by Israel didn't find much effectiveness. That could be why we haven't seen one used.
Honestly, the problem with a dirty bomb isn't the cancer rates or w.e, its the sheer amount of propaganda that has gone into scaring people over nuclear energy. Yes, the propaganda is mostly to stop nuclear reactors to force reliance on oil, but its still there.
I used to use a nuclear soil density gauge. The gauge was not at all scary, I could use it as a seat for a whole year, and it would have a minimal effect on my lifetime cancer rates.
But no matter how many times I explained it, as soon as I said "Nuclear Gauge" people got scared.
"Nuclear" has become a scare word, so a nuclear dirty bomb is terrifying to people.
Yeah, but destruction and loss of life isn't the point. Terror is. If a dirty bomb was detonated in a city, and it contained enough nuclear material to say, cause a 10% jump in cancer outlooks over a 20 year period, that's not the point.
The point is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to come out, shut a city down, do all sorts of testing, clean the shit out of everything, and disrupt everyone's lives. The fear is the point, and as a fear-causing weapon, radiation is in a unique class all its own.
For that matter, then you don't need to put any radioactive material in it at all, but just claim it.
I think the value would be the 'terror' in the general public if a dirty bomb went in downtown in any major US city.
I think that would make for an ideal terrorist weapon for use against the US
Fuck - I'm probably on a watch list again. I think I was flagged post 9/11 for online chat around laptops, bottles of water and vodka. Every flight I took from 2000 to about 2007 I was pulled out and patted down/bag searched/turn laptop on/...