Print

Mail

wiki links

Nuclear experts seek improved security

Nuclear experts pleaded with the world's richer countries to spend millions of dollars more on security for radioactive materials, warning that only stringent controls will stop terrorists and avert a nuclear catastrophe.

Appealing for international unity in creating universal and stringent controls on nuclear materials, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said that poor countries need help to fund security programs aimed at preventing nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.

"This is in everyone's interest," he said of the need to donate US$30 million to US$50 million annually to beef up security at nuclear facilities where theft or sabotage is most likely to occur.

Given what is at stake, he said the amount is "peanuts."

Hundreds of experts gathered in Vienna on Friday to explore steps nations can take to secure radiological material -- moves made more urgent by the attacks of Sept. 11.

He said it is unclear whether terrorist groups have the capability of building a nuclear bomb, but warned that governments must act quickly to prevent that from happening.

"We don't have any information that al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization has nuclear material," he said.

Before the attacks on New York and Washington, the agency was worried most about the risk of governments "diverting nuclear materials into clandestine weapons programs," ElBaradei said. Now, however, experts are concerned about using radioactive materials to make a weapon unlike traditional nuclear devices meant to be used by governments at war.

Experts particularly worry that terrorists could construct a "dirty bomb." Unlike more sophisticated nuclear weapons, a "dirty bomb" is a crude device using radioactive material taken from industrial sites or hospitals and detonated by conventional explosives.

When a so-called dirty bomb explodes, radioactive material is dispersed. Such a crude weapon may not kill many people, but would spark a panic, ElBaradei said.

The agency hopes to use the money to beef up security at sites where safeguards are at their weakest, though they declined to be specific about which sites or countries were at issue, citing safety concerns.

After determining which of the world's facilities are most vulnerable, the agency then plans to increase security at the least-protected sites -- for instance by implementing high-tech security systems in plants which are now only manned by armed guards.

ElBaradei said the agency also planned to work more closely with Interpol to prevent the trafficking of stolen radioactive materials, adding that this is an area "where you need international cooperation."

"In some states where radioactive materials are not well regulated, they are potentially available," said Graham Andrew, scientific adviser at the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"The potential for panic is quite large," Andrew said. "Radioactivity is invisible, you can't see it or feel it. And you don't know what its impact on your health in 10 years will be."

Dr. Jerrold Post, a terrorism expert from George Washington University in the US, said that an attack on a nuclear facility by religious fundamentalists was certainly conceivable in the light of the events of Sept. 11.

Post said he had interviewed several dozen suspected fundamentalist attackers about their views and told the conference that the results were "startling and chilling."

Post said, when asked if there were any limits to the numbers of casualties they wanted to inflict, one suspect had said: "The more casualties, the better. The greater the number of casualties, the greater the measure of success."

Post quoted another: "This is not murder, this is jihad [holy war], and in a jihad, there are no red lines."

Shortly after the events of Sept. 11, nuclear experts began exploring the consequences of hijackers ramming a jumbo jet into one of the world's 438 nuclear-power reactors.

The IAEA cannot yet predict whether the result would be a Chernobyl-style disaster or not. "They haven't actually done that evaluation yet," Andrew said.

He referred to a 1988 US experiment in which scientists rammed a small military jet into a concrete and steel structure identical to a nuclear power plant. The structure held.

"It wasn't just a publicity stunt," Andrew said. "What it actually showed was that the engineering assessment predicted it accurately. There was a dent of about two-and-a-half inches and the computer simulations predicted that."
This story has been viewed 2179 times.