From: "Robert Comer" 

> A dirty bomb with _ENRICHED_ uranium?  A hideously expensive and very
> difficult way to do it, and it wouldn't be my choice of isotope anyway.

That's pretty much why the whole story doesn't ring true.  With uranium you
have two options, fission or dirty bomb -- if fission was achieved it would
have been a whole lot bigger, and detectable, explosion, and for dirty
bomb, if it were uranium it would be a bigger load if intentional, and if
not, it's too expensive, you can get things done a lot cheaper some other
way.

--
Bob Comer


"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news:45447d28{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
news:454479d8{at}w3.nls.net...
>> There is another possible explanation, assuming for sake of argument that
>> these reports of isotopes and their measurement are anywhere near
> accurate.
>> That explanation could be that Hezbollah had radioactive material
>> supplied
>> by Iran or Syria or both that they were housing at those munitions
> locations
>> for use in dirty bomb attacks upon Israel.
>
> A dirty bomb with _ENRICHED_ uranium?  A hideously expensive and very
> difficult way to do it, and it wouldn't be my choice of isotope anyway.
> Something more volatile in air.  Some of that Caesium the Soviets spread
> around like sweets for irradiating grain.  There's literally tonnes of
> that
> around.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5