This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


The atomic detectives


By Margaret Harris in Washington DC

One July day not so long ago, a shipment of scrap metal entered an EU seaport from somewhere outside the EU. No-one who watched the shipment being unloaded saw anything out of the ordinary. But when it went through the port’s radiation detector, alarm bells began to ring – and they rang again the next month with another shipment, and for a third time in October the same year. What was going on?

This is the story of “Find 33,” a case study from the emerging science of nuclear forensics that formed the basis of Klaus Mayer’s talk at an AAAS session on combating nuclear terrorism. Mayer, a scientist at the Institute for Transuranium Elements (ITU) in Karlsruhe, Germany, was called to investigate Find 33 after national authorities had isolated which particular bits of scrap were setting off the detectors.

The initial data were puzzling. The amount of enriched uranium in the four pieces of suspicious scrap ranged from a few percent to over 90% – values that suggested a mixture of commercial-grade and weapons- or research-reactor grade contamination. Could they have a common origin? Or were Mayer and his team dealing with multiple uncontrolled sources of radioactive and nuclear material?

After more detailed tests, a clearer picture began to emerge. A sample from the first piece of scrap – an extremely dirty funnel-shaped object – was found to contain 0.33% uranium by weight, of which the fraction of enriched uranium (U-235, the isotope used in both nuclear weapons and reactor fuel) was 9%. This was unusual: 9% is too high for a commercial reactor, which typically uses fuel that is <5% enriched, but too low for fast-breeder reactors (20%), submarine fuel (20-45%) or weapons (>90%). However, after grinding the sample into powder, Mayer and his team were able to show that it was actually a mixture of 3.6%-enriched and 20%-enriched particles. Radiochemical tests also showed that the uranium in it was old – it hadn’t been chemically purified since 1962.

ITU_Find33pic.jpgA piece of contaminated scrap from Find 33. (Courtesy: VROM-Inspectorate)

The other three scraps were analysed in a similar fashion, turning up a mixture of ages (June 1959, June 1972, October 1983) and enrichment fractions that ranged from a few percent for the second scrap to a sobering 89% for the fourth. This indicated that wherever these scraps had come from, it had to be someplace that had been producing a mixture of light-water reactor fuel, fast-breeder reactor fuel, submarine fuel and material for research reactors or weapons for at least 30 years, between the late 1950s and early 1980s.

And there were only two sites that fit the bill.

Sadly for this story’s narrative arc, Mayer declined to provide any further information on the two candidate facilities, citing an ongoing investigation. One thing, however, is certain: with 207 illicit trafficking incidents recorded in 2010 alone, the atomic detectives are keeping busy.

This entry was posted in AAAS Annual Meeting 2011. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile

Comments are closed.


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text