Article

2005-03-02 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Ukraine Secret Service Seizes Uranium at Airport

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-03-02 10:46:42 AM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Try and find something useful about depleted uranium on the internet. All you get is the "we are killing millions with atomic weapons" stuff.

I read about a guy who used it as weight in a scale model of a locomotive, because it weighs three times as much as lead, so it's good for traction. But he didn't glow in the dark.

So the stuff they found at the airport was depleted, meaning it has no more U-235 that can be extracted. U-235 is the stuff to make atomic bombs.

Does EVERYBODY have to be HYSTERICAL about radiation?

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-02 11:36:52 AM|| 2005-03-02 11:36:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Actually the most dangerous thing about uranium is its toxicity. Ingestion leads to symptoms not unlike lead or mercury poisoning.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-03-02 11:42:32 AM|| 2005-03-02 11:42:32 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for 2 years and now I work in a chemical plant. Most people here tell me they would never work at Oak Ridge because of the radiation. I always point out it is much more dangerous here. Chemicals like methyl iodide, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, acetic anhydride, et al, make this place much more dangerous. The response I get is "But the RADIATION! You might wake up with cancer or two heads!" The dangers of radiation are way overhyped.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-02 11:45:41 AM|| 2005-03-02 11:45:41 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 TigerHawk blog has a nice piece about the multitude of animals and plants that thrive in the chernobyl area, now that the humans are gone...radiation doesn't seem to be creating any monsters.

Posted by Seafarious 2005-03-02 11:49:49 AM|| 2005-03-02 11:49:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 They say it was depeleted, maybe it was but maybe not. I hate being a conspiracy moonbat, but I doubt they would tell us otherwise.

and this draws a line under the question, how many others have got thru? sold on the black market? Plus it doesnt matter wether they get enough for a full fledged nuke or not. What matters is if they ever get a dirty bomb, and set it off in an American city.

I think Bush is scaring more than the islamists with his democracy push in the middle east. A few more dominoes fall, and our real enemies will get more desperate.

Posted by Jimbo19 2005-03-02 11:55:47 AM|| 2005-03-02 11:55:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 DB,

Ain't it the truth. I used to work at a nuclear power plant and would get much of the same. Funny how people freak out over nuke plants which have a safety record unequalled in the world (Soviet reactors notwithstanding), but drive past oil refineries and propane tanker trucks without so much as a care.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-03-02 12:04:51 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:04:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 ...and if you want to talk about radiation go take a walk around a coal fired plant with a geiger counter...

Posted by TomAnon 2005-03-02 12:14:04 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:14:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Tom, I asked to do exactly that a couple of years ago, to check radiation levels on the ash heaps at a local coal-plant. The management wouldn't allow it.
For the rest of you, we are talking about radioactive impurities in coal, typically 1-3 ppm uranium and about twice that much thorium. These trace amounts are potentially capable of producing more energy than was produced by burning the coal in which they were contained. Since these are (very) heavy metals, they tend to become concentrated in the ash after the coal is burned, with the result that the coal-power industry is dumping something like 3000 tons of uranium and thorium into the environment every year in the United States alone.
Some scientists have actually suggested mining these ash heaps as a readily available source of nuclear fuel.
Imagine the howl from anti-nuke luddites and media-cultists if the nuclear industry dumped 1/1000 that much.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 12:29:52 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:29:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 ...radiation doesn't seem to be creating any monsters.

all those japanese movies were wrong - radiation doesnt create monsters, it DOES cause cancer, of which there have been elevated rates around Chernobyl. I dont suppose anyone would notice higher cancer rates among wildlife, whose numbers are probably limited by habitat and plant food, not cancer.

None of which is to suggest that DU has issues anything like a Chernobyll style radiation leak.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-02 12:32:54 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:32:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 but drive past oil refineries and propane tanker trucks without so much as a care.

they do?

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-02 12:34:18 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:34:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 regardless, he probably was up to no good with it. Airports are great places to hold clandestine meetings.

Posted by shellback 2005-03-02 12:46:09 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:46:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 "I dont suppose anyone would notice higher cancer rates among wildlife, whose numbers are probably limited by habitat and plant food, not cancer."

Given the global focus on this area, and the constant high-profile demonization of nuclear power, it strikes me as virtually impossible that someone isn't monitoring wildlife for elevated cancer rates.
We know that wildlife is being monitored there. Why wouldn't this include routine checks for cancer?

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 12:51:04 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:51:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 LH,

Don't know where you live, but in Southern California, you've got refinery row in the Wilmington area and you've got San Onofre nuclear on the beach south of San Clemente.

Guess which site gets newspaper coverage like: "Southern California Edison's Temple of Doom"?

Perhaps you do care about propane tanker trucks. Good because you should. But the average citizen is far more worried about nuclear power.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-03-02 12:51:45 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 A few years ago, some crisis-dependant luddite NGO managed to turn alleged mutant frogs into a major issue before any qualified person actually checked their data, which turned out to indicate no change in rates of mutation.
The Chernobyl melt-down generated something like 50 billion curies of radioactive contamination. It would take 500,000 NERVA type nuclear rockets to produce that much, and they would all have to crash to release it, yet the very idea of nuclear rockets scares the living daylights out of the indoctrinated public.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 12:57:47 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:57:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 LH -- the anti-nuke freaks managed to put so many roadblocks in front of the plant under construction where I grew up that the utility company eventually gave up and converted it to coal. Only one or two of the opponents lived within thirty minutes of the plant -- its immediate neighbors were in favor of it!

During the conversion to coal, the utility bought out a couple hundred acres of land. That land had once been pasture, but was largely abandoned and going through reforestation. Now it's the dumping ground for coal ash -- which as noted above is slightly radioactive and has lots of nasty chemicals in it.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-02 12:59:06 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-02 12:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 A C, same here. There is a HUGE ash pile I can see from my office window that comes from the coal fired generating plant on site. There is no monitoring of radiation levels even though the presence of these elements as well as radioactive carbon isotopes is well documented. Part of my job here is to comply with EPA standards but there is no EPA standard at all for monitoring or safely storing this stuff. At least at Oak Ridge everything was very closely monitored and disposed of properly. Well, at least it was burried.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2005-03-02 12:59:24 PM|| 2005-03-02 12:59:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Yah, i was focusing on the propane trucks - I get very nervous passing one on the road, and try to drive carefully around it.

I rather suspect that if you worked in the petroleum or petrochemical industry you would not be of the impression that theyre ignored by enviros. Ditto, its my understanding that its VERY difficult to get a new coal fired power plant permitted in a number of states.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-02 1:01:59 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:01:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Yah, i was focusing on the propane trucks - I get very nervous passing one on the road, and try to drive carefully around it.

Well, yeah. But I don't do that anymore than I would for an equally large truck filled with bananas.

I will admit to being a bit nervous about the trucks I occasionally see carrying big reinforced tanks with "radioactive" and "corrosive" labels on them.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-02 1:07:00 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-02 1:07:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Of course, eco-luddites can only square their hatred of nuclear energy with their concern for global warming by resorting to various fantasies about wind and solar power.
If these are so great, why aren't they adopted on a commercial scale? Research into that possibility has been going on for 50 years, at a cost of billions of dollars. Where are the bottom-line results? If solar and wind are truly competitive, as their proponents claim, why don't eco-billionaires like Soros and Turner plow their billions into this new energy system instead of media stocks and oil futures?

The eco-luddite industry can anwwer this only with conspiracy theories about a vested interest in coal and oil, conspiracies for which they have yet to produce any real evidence, despite the allegation that these conspiracies have been universal among hundreds of firms, agencies and individuals for decades.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 1:08:54 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:08:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Given the global focus on this area, and the constant high-profile demonization of nuclear power, it strikes me as virtually impossible that someone isn't monitoring wildlife for elevated cancer rates.
We know that wildlife is being monitored there. Why wouldn't this include routine checks for cancer?

I dont know AC. I went to the blog in question, and couldnt find the piece on Chernobyl. Ergo I dont know what he posted about animals - if theyre healthy, or just numerous, or just posted some pretty pictures. I think thats all research im obliged to do - whoever is making the case that Chernobyll is no biggie (which is quite different from saying that a US built light water reactor is no biggie, or that DU is no biggie) has the obligation to provide the date that support their case.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-02 1:09:23 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:09:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 A truckload of nuclear bombs is MUCH safer than a truckload of propane or gasoline.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 1:12:36 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:12:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Of course, eco-luddites can only square their hatred of nuclear energy with their concern for global warming by resorting to various fantasies about wind and solar power.
If these are so great, why aren't they adopted on a commercial scale? Research into that possibility has been going on for 50 years, at a cost of billions of dollars. Where are the bottom-line results? If solar and wind are truly competitive, as their proponents claim, why don't eco-billionaires like Soros and Turner plow their billions into this new energy system instead of media stocks and oil futures?

BP is, IIUC. IN fact though its Natural Gas thats been on the uptick for sometime in electricity generationin the US, IIUC, not coal or nuclear. Natural Gas is quite clean, green house gases aside (and theres no cost to a utility in emitting CO2 - its an externality, and not regulated like SO2, NO2, etc) - and is lower even on C02 per BTU than coal, IIUC.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-03-02 1:14:37 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:14:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Of course, if a propane truck blows up it will look and sound like a nuclear bomb, so I guess there is a point of equivalency.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2005-03-02 1:14:45 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:14:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 some crisis-dependant luddite

Love it.

Posted by Shipman 2005-03-02 1:42:23 PM|| 2005-03-02 1:42:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 A bit off the original subject, but the answer is hydrogen! Except - wait a minute - you have to put more energy into hygrogen to extract it from water than you get by burning it. Is that the third law of thermodynamics? So a recent Scientific American article (I just look at the pictures) concluded the only practical way to go to hydrogen, long-term, is to start permitting a bunch of nukes to make the electricity. I ain't holdin' MY breath!

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-02 2:22:58 PM|| 2005-03-02 2:22:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 World Health Organization report on depleted uranium.

Posted by Steven Den Beste 2005-03-02 3:14:49 PM|| [http://denbeste.nu/Chizumatic/] 2005-03-02 3:14:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 However, faecal excretion of natural uranium from the diet is considerable (on average 500 μg per day, but very variable) and this needs to be taken into account.

Does this make anyone else a bit uncomfortable? We're talking a milligram of uranium every other day; more than a KILO in three years!

That's some heavy shit, ain't it?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-03-02 3:23:01 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-03-02 3:23:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 RC, I didn't see that coming. LMAO

Posted by Matt 2005-03-02 3:41:06 PM|| 2005-03-02 3:41:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Perhaps you might want to take a tour of the Chernobyl area today. This lady has pictures and a story that was interesting to me.

I use lead. I am fastidious about cleaning up after working with it. Depleted Urainum isn't any differnet. You don't want to ingest either heavy metals are usually bad for you.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-03-02 3:44:08 PM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-03-02 3:44:08 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 LH, while much is made of the shift to natural gas, it is a relative shift, not an absolute shift. Energy production from oil, coal and nuclear all continue to increase, its just that the increase from NG is slighly higher.

Posted by phil_b 2005-03-02 4:20:39 PM|| 2005-03-02 4:20:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 SPoD, Elena has a pretty sobbering site there.

Posted by TomAnon 2005-03-02 4:24:00 PM|| 2005-03-02 4:24:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 "We're talking a milligram of uranium every other day; more than a KILO in three years!"

I think that should be about a gram in six years, RC.

Posted by Biff Wellington 2005-03-02 5:50:18 PM|| 2005-03-02 5:50:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 They allow hunting for deer on the DOE resevation near my domocile. All deer are checked by DOE for radiation, cancer etc. They allow the clean ones to be taken and consumed. They do keep some.
And there is a humourous story about radioactive frogs but thats for another page.
My experiance with DU is that its a low level alpha emmitter. Not dangerous unless injested or worse inhaled.
I would imagine you could sell it to someone with a geiger counter and say it was U238.
And DB is right about the chemicals. People would freak if they knew what the little diamond shaped signs meant that are attached the sides of trailers on the Interstates.

Posted by BrerRabbit 2005-03-02 6:43:28 PM|| 2005-03-02 6:43:28 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 3dc
23:33 3dc
23:24 Aris Katsaris
23:23 Sobiesky
23:16 DMFD
23:01 shellback
22:42 Frank G
22:36 badanov
22:33 Ernest Brown
22:32 Laurence of the Rats
22:31 Frank G
22:31 Flomorong Gronter7111
22:30 Tom Fiedler
22:22 Classical_Liberal
22:19 phil_b
22:16 RoachBOFH
22:15 Classical_Liberal
21:57 badanov
21:56 Sobiesky
21:51 Whiskey Mike
21:50 Sobiesky
21:36 Aris Katsaris
21:34 .com
21:34 Aris Katsaris