Dirty Bomber

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,914
Location
0035
Where should he be?

And it's a *Minimum* of 40 years before anything will be considered - who knows how we'll think then?
 

afterburner

Member
Joined
31 Aug 2006
Messages
20
Location
Royston, Herts
If he had managed to detonate a bomb in a tube line underneath the Thames, and the tunnel had fractured, wouldn't that have flooded the entire underground system where it is below water level? Imagine the carnage and chaos that would have caused! :-x
 

Coxster

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2005
Messages
9,244
At least he was caught before it was too late. Good work there by the inteligence services IMHO.
 

960012

Established Member
Joined
4 Nov 2005
Messages
1,892
Location
Parkstone
If he had managed to detonate a bomb in a tube line underneath the Thames, and the tunnel had fractured, wouldn't that have flooded the entire underground system where it is below water level? Imagine the carnage and chaos that would have caused! :-x
Yes, Yes it would!!
 
T

Tom

Guest
Technically if the tunnel did rupture - there are floodgates on most of the "old" lines, that albeit having been decommissioned, I believe, could be put into place by using handpower.
 

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
17,914
Location
0035
Why were they decommissioned, is there better drainage nowadays or something, or were they too expensive?

Surely it'd be best to keep them in and install new ones for not only any intentional damage, but any cracks that have been undiscovered/rising sea levels/etc.
 

Tom B

Established Member
Joined
27 Jul 2005
Messages
4,552
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006510604,00.html

The bomber Dhiren Barot has plans to blow up a jubilee line train and cause mass destruction on the sysytem
Take *anything* the Sun says with not so much as a pinch but a mill of salt.

Why were they decommissioned, is there better drainage nowadays or something, or were they too expensive?

Surely it'd be best to keep them in and install new ones for not only any intentional damage, but any cracks that have been undiscovered/rising sea levels/etc.
They were installed for WWII and decommissioned as someone did a CBA and decided they were too expensive to keep running. The idea was, should a bomb explode in the sea and the tunnels be breached, only a small fraction of the system would be affected.
 

Nick W

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2005
Messages
1,438
Location
Cambridge
So where can I find a bomb that has enough payload to get through concrete and 20m of soil yet fits in a bag? The sun journalists' store?

These people are sick, they are sick in the head.
Unfortunately our country isn't civilised enough to cure such people. So we lock them up for a tiem period then let them out uncured, ready to attack again.

Neither is the UK civilised enough to surrender.
 

beermaddavep

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2005
Messages
633
Location
East Durham
So how do you propose to cure someone who has been brought up with the same moral standards as you and I yet decides to murder? I'm not aware of any country/administration that can do this as yet, civilised or not.
Christianity/Islam nor almost any other religion you would care to mention condones this kind of action, these people are delusional and usually manipulated by others whose agenda is less than wholesome-usually personal gain or power over others.
If these were the kind of people that could be sorted out by rational argument they would not even consider the actions that they do.
Glory for faith?
No.
Murder of innocents.
And is that not what they supposedly abhor?

PS I aint religous.....can you tell why....
 

66526

Member
Joined
9 Nov 2005
Messages
332
Religion and politics cause arguments and stuff liek this happen. Regards to the press giving out too much info... They would get good money to follow up the story if something happened wuldnt they...
 

Alekseys

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Messages
39
The guy was a loon, but I'd like to point out that the dirty bombs they're talking about couldn't actually cause harm by radiation, someone would have to stand in the vicinity of the blast of a standard bomb (assuming the radioactivity didn't decrease) for a year to suffer radiation poisoning. The media shouldn't waste space in their newspapers reporting this so much, it distorts ordinary people's views of the world. They forget that the peanuts they're eating are more likely to kill them than a terrorist.
 

frasier

Member
Joined
29 Sep 2005
Messages
62
The media shouldn't waste space in their newspapers reporting this so much, it distorts ordinary people's views of the world. They forget that the peanuts they're eating are more likely to kill them than a terrorist.
To be honest, they really haven't reported an awful lot on "dirty bombs" - I haven't read anything on them in ages, except for this, and I read 2/3 newspapers a day.

And you seem to make generalisations and miss the point at the same time - can you determine who "they" are? And secondly, people choose to eat peanuts, they don't choose to be attacked by terrorism. Perhaps the media should do a report on falling pianos - that's more likely to kill someone in this country, at this time, than say, global warming. :p
 

Dennis

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Trowbridge
The guy was a loon, but I'd like to point out that the dirty bombs they're talking about couldn't actually cause harm by radiation, someone would have to stand in the vicinity of the blast of a standard bomb (assuming the radioactivity didn't decrease) for a year to suffer radiation poisoning. The media shouldn't waste space in their newspapers reporting this so much, it distorts ordinary people's views of the world. They forget that the peanuts they're eating are more likely to kill them than a terrorist.
The point of a dirty bomb is not the direct radiation exposure but subsequent ingestion of dispersed radioactive matter (some of which is also very highly toxic).

Polonium Hydroxide.
 

Alekseys

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Messages
39
Still, that effect would be practically negligible.

Horizon publishes the results of specially commissioned research, modelling two possible dirty bomb scenarios: attacks on either London or Washington DC. The main conclusion is that the health risks from a dirty bomb explosion are localised to people who are close to the incident or are in contact with the contamination. Although the modelled attack scenarios could have wide-ranging economic repercussions, the majority of the population of either capital city would have only a negligible increase in their risk of developing cancer.
 

Dennis

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2005
Messages
2,676
Location
Trowbridge
Did the study quoted consider toxic effects? These may well be more severe than the effects of radiation. And rememeber that there are other ways of spreading 'dirtiness' than through the effects of an explosion (which is not particularly efficient).

Bag of ricin down the tube....
 

Carlz

Member
Joined
25 Nov 2006
Messages
5
Well bombs loaded with toxic stuff may well kill mor people but a dirty bomb is actually a "Radiological Dispersal Device", so one loaded with ricin doesnt count, so to speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top