@PugJesus Put into perspective — no, I'm not concerned about that. This thing will not harm any human ever.
How can I say that? Because it is tiny. Even if it should somehow (how?) spontaneously and completely dissolve and be washed into some river (to be clear: this doesn't happen), we just get a temporary slightly elevated heavy metal concentration, hard to even detect.
This thing will not “poison India”. That's bullshit.
It may be tiny and it will most certainly not poison the entirety of India, but just because it's tiny doesn't mean it's not dangerous. The case of the Kramatorsk radiological accident shows that perfectly, a tiny radioactive capsule that somehow ended up in the wall of an apartment building killed four people. A similar capsule was lost in Australia just a few years ago and luckily it was found.
... the 50-pound, beach-ball-size nuclear device ...
... The climbers scampered down the mountain after stashing the C.I.A. gear on a ledge of ice, abandoning a nuclear device that contained nearly a third of the total amount of plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb. ...
... Scientists say the generator will not explode on its own — for one, there’s no trigger, unlike in a nuclear weapon. But they worry about a sinister scenario in which the plutonium core is found and used for a dirty bomb.
@cjoll4 Yes, I am sure. The Nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of Pu-239. A third of that is about 2 kg.
The (untampered, spherical) critical mass of Pu-239 is about 11 kg. The Nagasaki bomb was just big enough to work using tampers, implosion geometry etc. You cannot make a nuclear bomb from 2 kg.
“Dirty bomb” means just spreading the material, probably as a powder. This is not nice if it happens in a crowded pub, but it's emphatically not “poisoning India”. Coal plants routinely do much worse.
a third of the total amount of plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb
That's a bit more than 1 kg, or something like 4 pounds.
50 pounds is the weight of the entire device. Most of what is probably shielding. Plutonium is more toxic than lead, but for comparison, airplanes emit around 400 tons of lead every ear in the US, and it's not much of a problem.
how much is this derogatory comment to the potential pain, and suffering another country might experience because of a cavalier united states attitude. So typical. They dont care about their own neighbors let alone people on another continent
12 Comments
PugJesus@piefed.social · 18 pts · 125d
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/12/13/world/asia/cia-nuclear-device-himalayas-nanda-devi.html
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online · 27 pts · 125d
TLDR: They left it, a small nuclear generator and radio equipment, on a cliff in 1965 and haven't seen it since.
Ardubal@mastodon.xyz · 15 pts · 125d
@PugJesus Put into perspective — no, I'm not concerned about that. This thing will not harm any human ever.
How can I say that? Because it is tiny. Even if it should somehow (how?) spontaneously and completely dissolve and be washed into some river (to be clear: this doesn't happen), we just get a temporary slightly elevated heavy metal concentration, hard to even detect.
This thing will not “poison India”. That's bullshit.
zaphod@sopuli.xyz · 22 pts · 125d
It may be tiny and it will most certainly not poison the entirety of India, but just because it's tiny doesn't mean it's not dangerous. The case of the Kramatorsk radiological accident shows that perfectly, a tiny radioactive capsule that somehow ended up in the wall of an apartment building killed four people. A similar capsule was lost in Australia just a few years ago and luckily it was found.
cjoll4@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 125d
Are you absolutely sure? It doesn't sound tiny.
Ardubal@mastodon.xyz · 4 pts · 125d
@cjoll4 Yes, I am sure. The Nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of Pu-239. A third of that is about 2 kg.
The (untampered, spherical) critical mass of Pu-239 is about 11 kg. The Nagasaki bomb was just big enough to work using tampers, implosion geometry etc. You cannot make a nuclear bomb from 2 kg.
“Dirty bomb” means just spreading the material, probably as a powder. This is not nice if it happens in a crowded pub, but it's emphatically not “poisoning India”. Coal plants routinely do much worse.
Ardubal@mastodon.xyz · 3 pts · 125d
@cjoll4 In short, any nefarious use of this material is a LOT of effort for a comparatively minor effect.
And the risk of an accident with it is low-probability × low-damage = low.
cjoll4@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 125d
Thanks for putting it into perspective!
marcos@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 125d
That's a bit more than 1 kg, or something like 4 pounds.
50 pounds is the weight of the entire device. Most of what is probably shielding. Plutonium is more toxic than lead, but for comparison, airplanes emit around 400 tons of lead every ear in the US, and it's not much of a problem.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 125d
"airplanes emit around 400 tons of lead every ear in the US, and it's not much of a problem."
uhhhh have u seen the us recently?
marcos@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 125d
Actually, no, and I don't think I would even be allowed to if I tried.
But that is still 400000 times more than this device.
Arancello@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 125d
how much is this derogatory comment to the potential pain, and suffering another country might experience because of a cavalier united states attitude. So typical. They dont care about their own neighbors let alone people on another continent