Question: “There is the pesky theory that the 1945 bombs dropped on Japan were also maybe “dirty bombs”, supplemented by a firebombing attack.”

Whoever came up with such a “pesky theory” should take a look at the photo of the mushroom clouds over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the photos of those cities before and after being hit by US atomic/nuclear bombs. No, these cities were not subject to US firebombing raids, rather they were spared from such raids because they were being ‘saved’ for the atomic bombs, because the US wanted to see the effects on undamaged cities.

Question: “Supposedly, a uranium based atomic bomb would leave the target area uninhabitable for centuries, yet those cities were rebuilt in 4 years.

The atomic bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were airbursts (this was done to maximize thermal and blast effects); their fireballs did not come into contact with the surface of the earth. Had they been ground bursts, their fireballs would have vaporized anything they came in contact with; immense amounts of soil and surface materials would have then been made highly radioactive, and produced huge amounts of fallout. The resulting high levels of radioactivity would have made the cities uninhabitable for a very long time.

As it was, many tens of thousands of Japanese died from radiation exposure to the fallout that came down as black rain following the detonation and subsequent firestorm that burned out the heart of the city.

There is much ignorance about toxicity of radioactive materials…

The same radiactive material at the same quantity and same radioactivity can be completely safe and absolutely deadly depending on what form that material is in. This is particularly true about alpha and beta emitters – for example you can safely hold a chunk of metallic Plutonium 239 in your hand, and it feels warm due to radioactive decay. The alpha particles (He4 nuclei) it emits are stopped effectively by the outer layer of skin (dead cells). A few mg of Pu239 in the room as a fine powder, and you are dead from cancer because if you inhale a single dust particle, it will keep causing mutations in unprotected cells. Or take Cesium 137 – it’s dangerous mostly when ingested as it displaces calcium in bones and stays emitting radiation for years inside.

The dirty bomb pulverises and disperses radioactive materials, so they stay in the area in the form which is easily ingested or aspirated, and anyone not wearing proper rad suit and respirator (and following proper decontamination protocols when taking these off) runs a high risk of dying from cancer. The normal civilian life is impossible in the area for years or decades, depending on the level of contamination. There in nothing “psychological” about this danger.

A dirty bomb is a mix of explosives, such as TNT, with radioactive powder or pellets. When the TNT or other explosives are set off, the blast carries radioactive material into the surrounding area. A dirty bomb works completely differently and cannot create a nuclear yield. Instead, a dirty bomb uses TNT or other explosives to scatter radioactive dust, smoke, or other material in order to cause radioactive contamination.

“The main danger from a dirty bomb is from the explosion, which can cause serious injuries and property damage. The radioactive materials used in a dirty bomb would probably not create enough radiation exposure to cause immediate serious illness, except to those people who are very close to the blast site.”

A dirty bomb is not a “weapon of mass destruction” but a “weapon of mass disruption,” where contamination and anxiety are the major objectives. Immediate health effects from exposure to the low radiation levels expected from a dirty bomb would likely be minimal.

On a related note, the USA massively increased global radiation levels by repeatedly testing nuclear weapons, chemical and biological warfare agents on humans without their consent, that this has affected people across the globe, and this is a crime for which the US should be held accountable.

The bomb itself is not going to be ‘just a dirty bomb’. That wouldn’t accomplish the goals of the west: to implicate a sophisticated state actor with motive, meaning Russia. Ukraine (or anyone else) can put together a dirty bomb from any kind nuclear waste. A dirty bomb has to be something Ukraine couldn’t just put together. You need a Skripal/Novichock setup so Russia can be blamed. That means either a dirty bomb containing some plutonium (all plutonium is man made in reactors) or a 3rd generation low-yield nuclear device that will produce very little, but enough fission product radionuclides to be positively identified (and implicate Russia).

This also impacts where such a bomb would be used.

If the bomb only produces local contamination, then it has to be in Ukrainian (NATO) controlled territory. That provides the usual favorable conditions: Russia can only guess what happened and that uncertainty looks like deceptive denial. And the US/UK/NATO will have exclusive access to samples and their distribution. Those samples will be provided to ‘impartial analysts’ (in the West) who will (surprise) fill out the narrative of what was found and what kind of device was used and, therefore, how Russia must be the guilty party. The Assad/Ghouta/Sarin playbook.

If the bomb produces gaseous or fine particle radionuclides, then it could be detonated anywhere (including Russian-held areas) that wind currents would carry radioactive gas/particles to western controlled atmospheric sampling sites. The amounts will be minuscule and pose little risk to the public, but will be enough that sampling sites and US nuke sniffer planes can detect specific fission/fusion weapon byproducts (iodine, xenon, etc.). Again, the west controls the narrative and it will inevitably rule out Ukraine as a potential source and point to Russia as the ‘most likely’ perpetrator. Russia can do all the analysis they want if it’s in territory they control, but anything they report will be discounted as a lie. After all, who can argue with multiple, independent ‘impartial’ western atmospheric sampling sites (the nuclear nonproliferation treaty monitors).

Depleted Uranium is just Uranium with a much lower percentage of lower content of the radioactive isotope of Uranium U235 than natural Uranium. That doesn’t meàn that it is harmless. Even without fissile material uranium is nephrotoxic and may be cytotoxic, teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic, although direct links have not been documented. Depleted Uranium is primarily used in munitions because it is heavy and when shot fast carries and can transfer a lot more energy than a projectile made of lighter elements. When such projectiles hit something solid, some of the kinetic energy is transferred to thermal energy, vaporizing some of the material and causing a local toxic cloud which can be inhaled, ingested or transferred by touch.

Fortunately, the amount released in this way in any location is relatively small and the percentage of radioactive material released is miniscule. Something else is needed to explain the alleged rise in tumors and birth defects wherever the USA has attacked people, and I would prefer studies by researchers that are not American, British or controlled by them (as so many International organizations, including the OPCW, are.)

Depleted uranium shells do not produce a nuclear reaction. They are not “mini tactical nuclear bombs”…not even close.

Depleted uranium increases penetrative power, this is due to density, not radioactive properties, good for taking out armor. A small amount of radioactive material does get released, which contributes to thyroid issues and various cancers.

If you have ever been around a tank hit by a depleted uranium shell, yiu can see that the damage is very similar to that of what a normal tank shell does. The entry holes (when one can be found) are a little cleaner, that is it.

Posted by: Steven Starr