6 ms·
Russia Says Small Nuclear Reactor Blew Up in Deadly Accident
- ryanmercer 7y ago"The war machine springs to life, opens up one eager eye, focusing it on the sky, where 99 red balloons go by." Never did I think my favorite 80s song would become relevant in my life.
- romantomjak 7y agoMakes one ponder whether russians don't know what they're doing or are others simply better at hiding failures. Scared to think what else is going on that, us, regular people are not aware of. I feel like one of these days some government is going to announce "You didn't ask for it, but we poisoned the environment, ozone layer is gone and water is not fit for drinking, BUT! We have an answer to century long dick measurement contest!" puts on tin foil hat
- MichaelApproved 7y agoRest assured, it's hard to hide nuclear accidents. There are so many sensors around the world which are owned by various governments and private entities. Any significant radiation leak will be detected and announced. If you're worried about water contamination, you should focus your concerns on conventional chemicals. Oil drilling, coal mining, and manufacturing waste are the ones causing decades worth of damage.
- randomsearch 7y agoThat’s reassuring if true, do you have evidence to back it up?
- tgragnato 7y agoIf you are asking for open data, then there's radioactive@home (based on BOINC). But in this case none of the detectors is sensitive enough or sufficiently near the White Sea. http://radioactiveathome.org/map/ http://radioactiveathome.org/map/
- Havoc 7y ago>iodine, which is believed to help prevent the thyroid gland from absorbing radiation. "Believed to"? I thought that was accepted as fact?
- lallysingh 7y agoThe Earth is believed to be round, too.
- _Microft 7y agoYes it is and there is a rather simple explanation. The thyroid gland has limited capacity for storing iodine and iodine tablets make sure it's saturated with the non-radioative isotope. Any more iodine (in this case radioactive) will then be excreted. This only works as 'radiation protection' when the saturation has been reached before being exposed to the radioactive iodine of course.
- baybal2 7y ago1. Liquid iodine is said to be inefficient for that use through oral ingestion 2. Excess iodine will mess up thyroid, but that is believed to be of lesser harm than it being messed up by radiation
- your-nanny 7y agoIs radioactive iodine the only radioactive isotope we'd expect to be exposed to.at lethal doses?
- lmilcin 7y agoNo. Caesium 137 is probably the worst offender, but there is not much you can do as an individual other than to stay away from contact with it. Also, this is not about lethal doses. There is typically very small area in immediate vicinity of the explosion that is directly lethal (like, LD50 lethal). Most of the effect on large area is through increased radiation and through radioactive elements getting concentrated in food chain and in various tissues of your body. You might never know if the radiation from the event was what is killing you but this can be measured statistically to say "over X years there is Y deaths additional to what could be expected that could be attributed to increased radiation".
- tomatotomato37 7y agoSounds like a RTG to me, though the only reason I can think of to put one on the missile itself is if you want to park it in orbit as some sort of first strike weapon
- gnode 7y agoIt's a nuclear propelled cruise missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik), conceptually similar to SLAM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missil...). An RTG makes little sense for earth orbit, because there's plentiful sunlight, and solar panels can be used. RTGs are only really suited to missions far away from the sun.
- mannykannot 7y agoThe generic and ambiguous description of the device may have been chosen specifically in the hope that one might think that. If it really was an RTG, there does not seem to be anything to gain by not saying so. Furthermore, an RTG does not seem to be a likely cause of an explosion, though I suppose you could seal one up in a fluid-filled vessel without effective cooling and without a safety valve.
- koolba 7y ago> The blast occurred Aug. 8 during a test of a missile that used “isotope power sources” on an offshore platform in the Arkhangelsk region, close to the Arctic Circle, Russia’s state nuclear company Rosatom said over the weekend. The Defense Ministry initially reported two were killed in the accident, which it said involved testing of a liquid-fueled missile engine. The ministry didn’t mention the nuclear element. Maybe a stupid question but why would they be anywhere near the missile during the actual testing? Or was this some kind of premature explosion while configuring or fueling it?
- hos234 7y ago> Maybe a stupid question but why would they be anywhere near the missile during the actual testing? They are Russians https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604355/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604355/
- C1sc0cat 7y agoVery poor H&S regime unfortunately - its a bit grim but in this case you hope that the fatalities died quickly.
- tempguy9999 7y agoPossibly because it went up then turned and came back down on top of them some distance away.
- garmaine 7y agoWell if it is a nuclear thermal engine (aka "isotope power sources"), then the nuclear reactor IS the engine and there's not really anything to test without it.
- Integer 7y agoIt is strange indeed, given that this is not the first time lots of people die via missile explosion in Russia (see Nedelin catastrophe[1]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
- 7y ago
- mhandley 7y agoSounds similar to Project Pluto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto
- ptah 7y agonuclear is dangerous. there are no headlines about solar or wind farms causing deadly accidents like this EDIT: that can impact several cities in a region
- kasey_junk 7y agoHow many solar and wind missiles are there?
- gnode 7y agoSolar and wind make for poor cruise missile propulsion systems.
- ptah 7y agosure, but if even the top russian experts die in a test then surely it is not suitable for normal power generation
- gnode 7y agoA cruise missile nuclear jet engine is indeed not suitable for normal power generation.
- yummybear 7y agoIt's a "bit" of a stretch, but you could consider scramjet as wind powered propulsion :)
- Allower 7y agoTalk about an irresponsible country, wtf
- zaarn 7y agoLooks like the released radiation is limited to 3.6 Roentgen, not great but not terrible either. edit: you all know that someone had to post it so I took the burden off you all!
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago> you all know that someone had to post it On Reddit perhaps
- nesadi 7y agoI don't really see what Russia or the US has to gain from designing new kinds of nuclear weapons. They already have the capability to wipe out whatever they're aiming at.
- garmaine 7y agoIncluding each other? That's the essential bit. Do either side have the capability to respond after a devastating, no warning first strike? That's what the arms race was about. Both sides have such extensive overkill capacity because they are expecting to face off against each other and need to be prepared for only a small fraction of their armament surviving a first strike or capable missile defenses.
- qeternity 7y agoThe goal for these weapons is not mutually assured destruction.
- mikeash 7y agoThe technology exists to shoot down ICBMs. It’s not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to be significant against an all-out attack from Russia, but that could change. I’m sure they want to stay ahead of the curve.
- vkou 7y agoIf 'MAD ensures peace' is the justification for nuclear weapons being allowed to exist, why are we trying so damn hard to break it? You can't have it both ways. Either MAD works, and anyone working on and building ICBM defenses is a dangerous lunatic, and a threat to world peace... Or MAD doesn't work, and anyone controlling thousands of nuclear weapons is a dangerous lunatic and a threat to world peace. We either need to stop trying to break MAD, or disarm. What we do not need, is to build anti-ICBM installations. I do not understand why this is not ever brought up in public discourse. Do people think that the risk of nuclear Armageddon just went away with the Cold War?
- mikeash 7y ago
- your-nanny 7y agoThis weapon, and Project Pluto, makes me so angry. It's very existence is a crime against humanity.
- ptah 7y agowow, it killed the > “elite of the Russian Federal Nuclear Center,” >It caused a brief spike in radiation in the nearby port city of Severodvinsk, according to a statement on the local administration’s website that was later removed. The Russian military said radiation levels were normal but disclosed few details about the incident. News of the explosion set off in nearby cities and towns a run on iodine, which is believed to help prevent the thyroid gland from absorbing radiation. Norway said it had stepped up radiation monitoring after the incident but hadn’t detected anything abnormal. is it really worth this large amount of risk if even the top experts in the field can get it so very wrong
- orbital-decay 7y agoWhat a clickbaity headline and a sloppy reporting job, didn't expect that from Bloomberg. The title says reactor but the content implies RTG, which is hazardous but many times less radioactive, and is completely different from a nuclear reactor. Also a bunch of unrelated facts, they even managed to mention Kursk disaster somehow. (I guess that's inevitable when there's little to no info available but you still need to write something)
- that_jojo 7y agoLets not forget that Bloomberg was also the publication that ran with and defended that whole 'Supermicro is totally getting spy hardware added to their motherboards by the Chinese government even though no one can seem to locate it' story. Something's... possibly askew with them of late.
- hairytrog 7y agoCruise missiles are generally short range. The main advantage of a nuclear cruise missile is its added long range and maintained ability to stay mostly undetectable and unstoppable to missile defense since they can travel at low altitude. The other advantage is political. These missiles take a long a time to reach destination, and the time can be extended by a prolonged voyage (circle the globe a few times). The only people who can disarm the warhead are the enemies. You're not going to blow up your enemies while the missile is in the air. It's a great apolitical tool. Launch a missile and everyone starts talking and giving in to your demands. Better article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-nuclear-agency-confirms-deaths-during-missile-test-11565446468 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-nuclear-agency-confirms...
- liberte82 7y agoJust a small one