In message
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall wrote:

In message
David Hansen wrote:

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:40:59 +0000 someone who may be Graeme Wall
wrote this:-

I am making the "mistake" of talking about the subject under
discussion, "a dirty biological bomb in London".

Ah, your subject under discussion, not everyone elses.

Nice try. However, it is the subject which was put at the start of this
little bit of the thread by another poster.

Incidentally there is no such thing as a dirty biological bomb, in London
or elsewhere. It is a natural contradiction in terms.

Surely it's actually a tautology? There's no such thing as a *clean*
biological bomb!


A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , at 20:07:27 on Mon,
26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall remarked:

A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 21:49:18 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 20:07:27 on Mon,
26 Feb 2007, Graeme Wall remarked:

A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.

I beg to differ; my understanding is that a 'dirty bomb' has always
been thought of as being radiological in nature. A chemical or
biological weapon doesn't *need* explosive - the agent can simply be
released into the environment and allowed to disperse naturally.
Irradiated material is most effective when dispersed as widely as
possible, and isn't affected by heat (which can of course destroy
biological, and to some extent possibly chemical agents), hence the
'bomb' makes sense.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

In message , at 18:51:23 on
Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Mike Ross remarked:
A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device designed to spread
radioactive 'shrapnel' around, any biological component would be killed by
the radioactivity long before delivery.

Not quite. It's a conventional explosive device designed to spread
*biological* 'shrapnel' around. It doesn't have to be a very big bang,
either. Just enough to do the spreading. And nothing radioactive
involved at all.

I beg to differ; my understanding is that a 'dirty bomb' has always
been thought of as being radiological in nature. A chemical or
biological weapon doesn't *need* explosive - the agent can simply be
released into the environment and allowed to disperse naturally.

Whatever term people are familiar with, that latter weapon was the risk
I was meaning.
--
Roland Perry