Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#171

Post by nopenopenopeno »

ineedasername wrote: post #149
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In most of the West we may lament one-sided networks or echo chambers on & offline, but our access & awareness of alternative opinions seems much higher. This simply isn’t the case. We are fed gobs of nonsense on a constant basis. The American elite and American media are utterly shameless. Did you notice Putin’s jab at the American elite’s claims that Iraq had WMDs? In his speech, he accused Ukraine of building WM…

This simply isn’t the case. I heard prominent counter opinions over invading Iraq & WMD's in the lead up in 2003. An NPR interview with a retired Marine general at the time sticks out in my mind, and was very influential in my skepticism of the invasion. NPR is, in part, publicly funded by the US government. I don't think that any media funded by Russia is voicing similar skepticism over the Ukraine invasion. Also do…

I was countering a claim of Russian peoples’ awareness vs American peoples’ awareness. I can very confidently say that Americans, in the aggregate, are vastly more ignorant and unaware of any given political issue or how to responsibly think about any given political issue. The causes of that can be up for debate, but the difference is too stark to debate whether or not it is the case.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#172

Post by chasil »

yumraj wrote: post #111
connordoner wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might argue that’s a price you pay when murdering innocent civilians in land that isn’t yours, no?

Yeah, but Putin's not the one breathing it - the foot soldiers are.

I am drawn to the words of Stephen Decatur.

"In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

I am sure there are many perspectives tonight with the same focus.

Perhaps it is a great impediment to what must be done for our species, but it is hard to let go.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#173

Post by m348e912 »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #153
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, the soldiers know... it's for "power", against nato, and to get a bit more of the land. Look at every past conflict, every american soldier in iraq knew, that they were going in to get the oil, everything else was just propaganda for the taxpayers.

For further clarification this is NOT a war to stop NATO expansion as Ukraine was no where near that and it could have been stopped diplomatically. This is a war started by a dictator who has aims to restore the USSR before he kills over or is deposed in the next 10 to 15 years. This war is about nothing more than Putin's ego. Just for clarification.

The last thing Putin needs is another quagmire like Afghanistan in the 80s for the USSR, and the 2000s/2010s for the US. If anything he'd probably like to see Luhansk and Donetsk become globally recognized independent states. Ukraine is certainly strategic. Russia has recently INCREASED gas supplies through Ukraine even though they are at war. The idea that he's a madman looking to get the old commie band back together is kind of far-fetched. This is about money and influence, and specifically Nordstream2, which I imagine will go online sooner rather than later.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#174

Post by quadrangle »

thrashh wrote: post #150
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, the soldiers know... it's for "power", against nato, and to get a bit more of the land. Look at every past conflict, every american soldier in iraq knew, that they were going in to get the oil, everything else was just propaganda for the taxpayers.

Yeah this war is to try to stop NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine. In a way, it may do that. It’s just silly because countries have considered joining NATO because they don’t perceive Russia as a good friend, and in response, Russia doubles down as a bad friend.

Sounds like a significant-other who is paranoid, and then when you leave them because they are crazy, they use it to justify their paranoia and become a stalker.

Okay, not really a good analogy but sorta good

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#175

Post by seizethegdgap »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #91
etiam wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well put. Also, take the following with more than a grain of salt as I'm in no way really knowledgeable about such systems, but I would imagine both the area itself and temporarily disturbing it could be valuable as cover for nuclear weapons. One valuable tool for keeping track of them involves detecting and analyzing escaped isotope traces, and that's going to be harder to pick out and make sense of against that noi…

"could be valuable as cover for nuclear weapons" You can't hide a nuclear blast, we have satellites in orbit that detect the flash. Chech the vela incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident "Russia's whole citizenry have been trained and prepared for nuclear fallout, to a much greater extent than most nations seem to prioritize today." That's not been the case for like 40 years

I believe etiam means a higher level of background radiation means it's easier to move nuclear weapons, not use them.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#176

Post by ineedasername »

mzs wrote: post #147
ineedasername wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that's a good ideal, but it doesn't mean that everything else isn't OSINT, or that it should be subject to algorithmic suppression as misinformation.

Spreading unwarranted panic is dangerous misinformation. One should be combatted the other encouraged.

Also agreed, but I think there's a difference between a pessimistic opinion (alarmist) and one that will induce panic. I'm not going to try and classify this particular Twitter use in either category though-- I don't have the knowledge of this situation required for that-- so my comment is intended in the general sense, not this user.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#177

Post by ClumsyPilot »

seizethegdgap wrote: post #175
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"could be valuable as cover for nuclear weapons" You can't hide a nuclear blast, we have satellites in orbit that detect the flash. Chech the vela incident - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_incident "Russia's whole citizenry have been trained and prepared for nuclear fallout, to a much greater extent than most nations seem to prioritize today." That's not been the case for like 40 years

I believe etiam means a higher level of background radiation means it's easier to move nuclear weapons, not use them.

They are not detectable anyway - if you put a nuclear warhead in a truck, there is no way to detect it from a plane or a satellite,

In fact you probably could put a nuclear bomb inside a lead-lined shipping container and send it from China to US, across all US railways, and back across the world on another ship, and probably no-one would ever know.

Also why would Russia move nukes by land through chernobil, when they have bombers and complete control of the airspace?

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#178

Post by ineedasername »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #171
ineedasername wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simply isn’t the case. I heard prominent counter opinions over invading Iraq & WMD's in the lead up in 2003. An NPR interview with a retired Marine general at the time sticks out in my mind, and was very influential in my skepticism of the invasion. NPR is, in part, publicly funded by the US government. I don't think that any media funded by Russia is voicing similar skepticism over the Ukraine invasion. Also do…

I was countering a claim of Russian peoples’ awareness vs American peoples’ awareness. I can very confidently say that Americans, in the aggregate, are vastly more ignorant and unaware of any given political issue or how to responsibly think about any given political issue. The causes of that can be up for debate, but the difference is too stark to debate whether or not it is the case.

I'm not going to comment on American ignorance. My statement was in regards to access to information or the ability to speak/publish it without reprisal, specifically in comparison with Russia.

How people make use of that, or ignore it all together, are a separate topic.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#179

Post by picture »

zrail wrote: post #169

Very likely a dumb question, but would the Russians be carrying depleted uranium ammunition? Could that be what's causing the detectors to see spikes?

Depleted uranium generally are used by 30 mm autocannon rounds carried by CAS planes or helicopters, though depleted uranium APFSDS tank shells do exist. Detectors are most definitely not detecting depleted uranium ammunition due to how radiation intensity falls off swiftly with distance, and the low radioactivity of DU itself

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#180

Post by hadlock »

ugjka wrote: post #9
anshumankmr wrote: post #2

There's a followup tweet with a possible explanation: https://twitter.com/WillyWaugh/status/1497157722663391233 Though I am not 100% sure of this since the USSR had removed the topsoil back then but I suppose more of it could have spewed back in to the soil over time.

I don't think they removed the top soil for the whole exclusion zone, that'd be an insane feat

Japan is about halfway through this process in the Fukashima area
Post reply on HN