Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shielding Nukes
Keywords: not much help
Message-ID: <8572@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jul 89 02:55:25 GMT
References: <8530@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 68
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
In article <8530@cbnews.ATT.COM> arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling) writes:
>
>
>From: arf@chinet.chi.il.us (Jack Schmidling)
>
>ashielding722/e4 
> 
>Kirby says: 
> 
>> When eqipped with the right instruments, you can locate Fermilab (near  
>Chicago) without knowing quite where it is.  
 
[lots of others say...]
 
>ARF says: 
> 
>This whole discussion got started because the original poster, John Ralls   
>said "As for finding nukes, that's easy.  Warheads aren't shielded because of  
>the weight, so you just point a radiation detector at it." 

	I think my effort to be short and to the point dropped too much
	detail.  From what my friend (a nuke type) told me, the gear needed
	to find Fermilab would fit easily on your back, though you'd rather 
	have it on a cart.  This was in the late 70's.  Equipment has
	gotten better since then.

	If the warhead is twice or ten times more radient than the
	background, it will show up noticably on person-portable
	instruments.  One hundred times more radient than background would
	be very easy to pick up.  

	Backgroud radiation itself varies by over a factor of ten (if not a
	hundred, real experts please speak up) depending on where you are.
	Hot Springs Arkansas has a higher backgroud level of radiation than
	lots of other places (due to the springs) and it's a _health_
	resort.
>  
>However, I detect {pun} a "don't worry, be happy" attitude.  It reminds me of  
>the standard statement from the management of a power station whenever they  
>get caught releasing radiation... 
> 
>     "a radiation release, which is now under control, 
>      poses no serious threat to public health". 

	Sorry, no "don't worry be happy" here.  Very simply stated, the gear
	is good enough, which was the answer the original poster was after.

	You have here a separate issue, one that could easily wander beyond
	the charter of the newsgroup: How much radiation is safe? And in the
	context here - How much radiation do nuke warheads produce in the
	can?
> 
> Let's try to put it into the proper perspective.  Can anyone asign some  
>numbers here?   Like... how many milirems, at one meter from a nuke?... would  
>be a good place to start.  Then, we could let the consumer be the judge. 

	I'll leave those to the experts - the ansers may be classified.

>It would be a pity if I had to move this off to sci.physics to get a hard  
>answer. 
> 
>The Amateur Radio Forum (arf) 

	Neil Kirby
	...cbsck!nak