Skip to main content

Looking Back at ABC News and "Loose Nukes" with Dr. Andrew Karam (Part III)

Here at NEI, one aspect of last night's story that we found particularly egregious was the multiple references to the possibility that highly enriched uranium might be stolen for use in a bomb. But what ABC News didn't provide were the details of exactly what would be involved in an operation to do just that. But Dr. Karam did:
To me, a more serious concern would be the theft of highly-enriched reactor fuel for use in making nuclear weapons, as suggested a few times. Let's face it - if a terrorist is going to steal the fuel and dissolve it to remove the fission products to make a dirty bomb, they may as well also remove the uranium to make a nuclear weapon! But let's think about this a little. The fuel elements are at the bottom of a 15-20 foot swimming pool. To remove them, terrorists would have to have scuba gear (or very good lungs), a crane or other lifting gear, and a way to move the fuel elements from the reactor building into their truck. All possible, but time-consuming.

They would need to disassemble the reactor core, unless they were going to lift it out whole - either will take time because of the size and awkwardness of the task. The bottom line is that nobody is going to break in at night and steal a reactor core overnight. A long weekend might suffice, but would require being undetected. Certainly it can be done, but would be difficult to pull off, and impossible to do so undected. And, once obtained, terrorists would have to find a way to hide out long enough to dissolve the fuel, remove the uranium, purify the uranium oxide into uranium metal, and machine the metal into bombs.

The other thing is that, once the fuel were stolen, the terrorists would have to do this work under tremendous time constraints because the entire national law enforcement and military establishments would be looking for them with some fairly sophisticated equipment. Making a gun-type nuclear device is not difficult, but it would take time to let the fuel "cool", and to do everything I mentioned above. Not impossible, but not a simple matter, and plenty of room to get caught.
Again, no simple feat. But after watching the ABC report, you'd get the impression that it was as easy as shoplifting a Snickers from a candy store.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…