13 ms·

Radioactive ruthenium from an undeclared major nuclear release in 2017

177 points by haunter 7y ago

ggm 7y ago
The ability to walk back up a half-life and radionucleotide chain, and also map to wind, water flows, and so triangulate to a source at a given time.. Amazing stuff. Is it too much to hope, somebody is going to do some open declaration? In times past, people felt a compulsion to report. It feels like we have had a cultural shift, and whoever has information, feels no obligation to report. I wonder what life closer to the facility was like when this happened? How much did they get told about their exposure?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  If they declined when they did it, why should they back down now? This would mean that not only they polluted the environment, but also are liars (and cowards). There is no way they'd admit that.
  - philpem 7y ago
    I don't see why this has been downvoted so far. Inconvenient truth? People hate whistleblowers. "Shoot the messenger. It's the easiest solution."
    - ggm 7y ago
      HN won't let you downvote comments on your own posts so I assure you, I didn't and do not think this comment was downvote-worthy. I might not agree, but it's a valid, if cynical point. I just think that at a level where a peer review paper says "you did this" failure to respond is a fail in two dimensions: Its asocial and fundamentally stupid politically despite the "deny everything" posture every government takes, and its un-scientific: It makes it harder for other people to take your own science seriously, if you refuse to participate full-cycle in the process.
fdavison 7y ago
The EPA has a website that displays a network of radiation sensors in the US: https://www.epa.gov/radnet https://www.epa.gov/radnet Hope you never need that information.
- ganzuul 7y ago
  Expected and wished for a heatmap instead of something quite so... interactive. Good resource nonetheless.
- jdlyga 7y ago
  I had to track those right after Fukushima, since there were worries about a cloud headed towards the western US.
- ninjin 7y ago
  In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 incident at Fukushima Daiichi, a hobbyist network formed around Tokyo monitoring radiation levels and publishing it online. While the act itself was heartwarming, I can very much attest that I never wish a situation where you occasionally refresh an online radiation heat map upon anyone.
noirchen 7y ago
A few years ago a professor from the Miami University in Ohio came to our institution to give a talk about her students accidentally found high levels of radiation in a valley nearby. After some investigation they tracked down the source of radiation to a factory that prepared nuclear raw materials during the cold war. Some of the radiating dusts got carried by the wind and affected a region of tens of miles down in the valley. Apparently the locals in the valley town are not informed and the cancer rate is relatively high in the town. For some reason their papers on this are rejected, and calls for a public investigation were buried. I am not sure what the situation is now, but it would not be too difficult to contact some faculties of environmental sciences in that university if anyone is interested.
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  [citation needed]
  - marmaduke 7y ago
    > their papers on this are rejected, and calls for a public investigation were buried
    - flimflamm 7y ago
      Well you can allays publish them anyway - even in HN for public review.
      - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
        Yes, we would be all very interested to read them. I'm aware of these kinds of things happening in the 50s, but a few years ago - that's unthinkable and should lead to criminal investigation. All major media would be extremely interested and talk about it for months.
        akuji1993 7y ago
        > All major media would be extremely interested and talk about it for months. I think you meant, talk about it on page 5 of the paper or on some sidebar on the website, be enraged for exactly two days and then immediately drop the topic and don't do any followup?
avian 7y ago
The most interesting thing I find here is that these results seem pretty conclusive that ruthenium couldn't have come from a breach in an active reactor. There was a submission on HN a while ago (I can't find it right now) that speculated that this release was related to Russia testing a nuclear jet-powered missile. A crash after a test flight would release radioactive materials from its reactor. This report seems to strongly point against that theory.
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  The event happened in October 2017. Putin presented a new arsenal of nuclear weapons in March 2018. Some kind of indirect relationship is not impossible.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Their nuclear rocket is a development effort, not an operational weapon, and they haven’t claimed to have achieved the central technical goal of making a reactor small enough to put in a missile.
    - thunderbird120 7y ago
      It's certainly a work in progress but it seems that they have been testing at least marginally functional versions of the missile complete with nuclear powered propulsion[1]. [1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-secretly-watching-russias-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-crash-and-burn https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-sec...
PeterStuer 7y ago
Mankind can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear technologies. Aging and literally crumbeling reactors are kept running on extended permits granted by cabinets where the revolving door with the energy industry is well oiled. Fukushima thaught the cynical lesson that a nuclear operator can profit even more from the post-accident cleanup than from simply running the facility. Meanwhile the nuclear lobby thankfuly jumped onto the passing 'CO2 posterchild' train for a free greenwash. But hey, it is so more trendy, edgy and suave to be pro-nuke these days than to be a tired old hippie pointing out that nuclear is no free lunch.
- simion314 7y ago
  Nuclear energy is not a free but it kills a lot less the coal, so closing nuclear plants and using coal plants like Germany did is stupid(the decision was pure political and forced by the Green party, ironic)
  - PeterStuer 7y ago
    Acutally, On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. It is especially Solar and Wind that are on the rise in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
    - ekelsen 7y ago
      It seems like they got the order wrong though.
    - jplayer01 7y ago
      The damage will be done by 2038. We need to stop pretending we have time to slowly wean off of fossil fuels. We're already facing feedback loops that are going to drastically change the climate. Just look at the graph on that page. Renewables have largely replaced nuclear... Which is largely a clean energy source while coal has barely changed and the use of gas has slightly increased. Except now we have nothing to cover baseload except for coal and we're still building new coal power plants.
amai 7y ago
It looks weird to me that apparently nothing was detected in South Germany. It looks like this data is missing in figure 4.
pmarreck 7y ago
Why would anyone still try to hide a nuclear accident in this day and age when the fallout is traceable?

177 points by haunter 7y ago

ggm 7y ago

The ability to walk back up a half-life and radionucleotide chain, and also map to wind, water flows, and so triangulate to a source at a given time.. Amazing stuff. Is it too much to hope, somebody is going to do some open declaration? In times past, people felt a compulsion to report. It feels like we have had a cultural shift, and whoever has information, feels no obligation to report. I wonder what life closer to the facility was like when this happened? How much did they get told about their exposure?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
If they declined when they did it, why should they back down now? This would mean that not only they polluted the environment, but also are liars (and cowards). There is no way they'd admit that.
- philpem 7y ago
  I don't see why this has been downvoted so far. Inconvenient truth? People hate whistleblowers. "Shoot the messenger. It's the easiest solution."
  - ggm 7y ago
    HN won't let you downvote comments on your own posts so I assure you, I didn't and do not think this comment was downvote-worthy. I might not agree, but it's a valid, if cynical point. I just think that at a level where a peer review paper says "you did this" failure to respond is a fail in two dimensions: Its asocial and fundamentally stupid politically despite the "deny everything" posture every government takes, and its un-scientific: It makes it harder for other people to take your own science seriously, if you refuse to participate full-cycle in the process.

fdavison 7y ago

The EPA has a website that displays a network of radiation sensors in the US: https://www.epa.gov/radnet https://www.epa.gov/radnet Hope you never need that information.

ganzuul 7y ago
Expected and wished for a heatmap instead of something quite so... interactive. Good resource nonetheless.
jdlyga 7y ago
I had to track those right after Fukushima, since there were worries about a cloud headed towards the western US.
ninjin 7y ago
In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 incident at Fukushima Daiichi, a hobbyist network formed around Tokyo monitoring radiation levels and publishing it online. While the act itself was heartwarming, I can very much attest that I never wish a situation where you occasionally refresh an online radiation heat map upon anyone.

noirchen 7y ago

A few years ago a professor from the Miami University in Ohio came to our institution to give a talk about her students accidentally found high levels of radiation in a valley nearby. After some investigation they tracked down the source of radiation to a factory that prepared nuclear raw materials during the cold war. Some of the radiating dusts got carried by the wind and affected a region of tens of miles down in the valley. Apparently the locals in the valley town are not informed and the cancer rate is relatively high in the town. For some reason their papers on this are rejected, and calls for a public investigation were buried. I am not sure what the situation is now, but it would not be too difficult to contact some faculties of environmental sciences in that university if anyone is interested.

fred_is_fred 7y ago
[citation needed]
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > their papers on this are rejected, and calls for a public investigation were buried
  - flimflamm 7y ago
    Well you can allays publish them anyway - even in HN for public review.
    - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
      Yes, we would be all very interested to read them. I'm aware of these kinds of things happening in the 50s, but a few years ago - that's unthinkable and should lead to criminal investigation. All major media would be extremely interested and talk about it for months.
      - akuji1993 7y ago
        > All major media would be extremely interested and talk about it for months. I think you meant, talk about it on page 5 of the paper or on some sidebar on the website, be enraged for exactly two days and then immediately drop the topic and don't do any followup?

avian 7y ago

The most interesting thing I find here is that these results seem pretty conclusive that ruthenium couldn't have come from a breach in an active reactor. There was a submission on HN a while ago (I can't find it right now) that speculated that this release was related to Russia testing a nuclear jet-powered missile. A crash after a test flight would release radioactive materials from its reactor. This report seems to strongly point against that theory.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
The event happened in October 2017. Putin presented a new arsenal of nuclear weapons in March 2018. Some kind of indirect relationship is not impossible.
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Their nuclear rocket is a development effort, not an operational weapon, and they haven’t claimed to have achieved the central technical goal of making a reactor small enough to put in a missile.
  - thunderbird120 7y ago
    It's certainly a work in progress but it seems that they have been testing at least marginally functional versions of the missile complete with nuclear powered propulsion[1]. [1]https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-secretly-watching-russias-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-crash-and-burn https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-sec...

PeterStuer 7y ago

Mankind can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear technologies. Aging and literally crumbeling reactors are kept running on extended permits granted by cabinets where the revolving door with the energy industry is well oiled. Fukushima thaught the cynical lesson that a nuclear operator can profit even more from the post-accident cleanup than from simply running the facility. Meanwhile the nuclear lobby thankfuly jumped onto the passing 'CO2 posterchild' train for a free greenwash. But hey, it is so more trendy, edgy and suave to be pro-nuke these days than to be a tired old hippie pointing out that nuclear is no free lunch.

simion314 7y ago
Nuclear energy is not a free but it kills a lot less the coal, so closing nuclear plants and using coal plants like Germany did is stupid(the decision was pure political and forced by the Green party, ironic)
- PeterStuer 7y ago
  Acutally, On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038. It is especially Solar and Wind that are on the rise in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
  - ekelsen 7y ago
    It seems like they got the order wrong though.
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    The damage will be done by 2038. We need to stop pretending we have time to slowly wean off of fossil fuels. We're already facing feedback loops that are going to drastically change the climate. Just look at the graph on that page. Renewables have largely replaced nuclear... Which is largely a clean energy source while coal has barely changed and the use of gas has slightly increased. Except now we have nothing to cover baseload except for coal and we're still building new coal power plants.

amai 7y ago

It looks weird to me that apparently nothing was detected in South Germany. It looks like this data is missing in figure 4.

pmarreck 7y ago

Why would anyone still try to hide a nuclear accident in this day and age when the fallout is traceable?