Dhiren Barot 40 years minimum, fair sentence or not…

@Mr Bigstuff wrote:

He was plotting to use radioactive bombs to spread terror on both sides of the Atlantic. 40 years is a very fair sentence and it’s judges who pass sentences not politicians.

Well i am quite amazed how this topic has turned out and how it has led on to other topics. I am in agreement that this man should be locked up for his and our own protection, but still feel 40 years minimum is far too long. I just also wanted to correct Mr Bigstuff on his assumptions that he was planning to let off radioactive bombs on both sides of the Atlantic. This is quite correct that he had intended on setting of radioactive bombs or dirty bombs as the government and media like to portray them, but what the media has somehow forgotten to mention is how he intended to build these bombs and how effective they are. He intended to get the radioactive material from Smoke alarms as they have a very small amount of radiation in them. It was calculated that he would have to aquire between 2.5 million and 5 million smoke alarms. Now the practicalities alone make this questionable if he really intended to go along with this plan. He would have to strip each one and somehow make the bomb small enough to fit in a car or lorry, then there is the small practicality of making it transportable. If he somehow succeded by himself in buying between 2.5 and 5 million smoke alarms, strip each one down individually and then made a bomb small enough to move around easily and set it of in London for example, it would cause very minimum damage. A study was carried out 3 years ago, it was shown on BBC 2 around that time, where they got 3 nuclear scientist and some bomb disposal experts. Some from the government others independant. When they had concluded there evidence together, it showed that if a nuclear bomb or dirty bomb went off in London that the effect would be minimal, and states most of the death that did occure would be people panicking trying to get away. The main risk of a dirty bomb is an increase in cancer later on in life. The increases depend on where you were in relation to the blast. If you were within 5km your increase chance of cancer rises to 0.1%, if you are within 1km it increases to 1%, and if you were within 500 meters and spent more than 2 days in the same area your chances would increase to 1 in 7 people getting cancer. The national average that this country gets today. So when the term Dirty Bomb is used by the media or government it is purely used as a scare tactic. A lot of people imagine another Hiroshima when these bombs go off, when actually it is nothing like that at all. There are long term affects to peoples health using dirty bombs from cancer, but you would have to stay within the effected area for many days and not get any sort of treatment. There is no evidence to suggest that a dirty bomb would kill thousands of people in one go. It is a scare tactic used by many goverments around the world including ours. Here is the link to the program that i mention about the dirty bomb and you to can come to your own conclusions, of the word dirty bomb and its true meaning and effect. http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/dirtybomb.shtml There are 4 pages to summarise the program with different scenarios, including one from Trafalgar Square. I am not being disrespectful to Mr Bigstuff, it is just that i thought a true meaning of the word Dirty Bomb should be advocated here.