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

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#191

Post by reitanqild »

lostlogin wrote: post #188
reitanqild wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He told me that armour is not protection. It is instead a death trap: It is loud, valuable for the enemy and if they shoot at you using shape charges you'll be roasted alive.

Thanks. I’d assumed that ‘artillery’ would be back from the frontline and slightly safer than some of the other ground based roles.

Yes, I'm mixing the words here.

Heavy artillery stays behind, tanks advance.

However heavy artillery is also a target for the opponents heavy artillery, airstrikes etc.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#192

Post by cmrdporcupine »

lazide wrote: post #185
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whataboutism isn't an argument and these are also false equivalencies. Hundreds of thousands of us were out in the streets protesting when western countries attacked Iraq. Most of us are the same people angry about Russia in Ukraine.

Did it make a difference either time?

Yes, my country (Canada) did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. And in large part to the vociferous opposition and protests against it in the days leading up to the decision.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#193

Post by ineedasername »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #182
ineedasername wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Information access is has diminishing relevance in an attention economy.

That's actually an excellent point. I don't concede my overall argument that having access is still superior, even if rarely used (compare to this [0]) but your comment-- simply stated but deeply meaningful-- raises an important question: how much does the distinction between access & active suppression matter when other forces render the outcomes substantially similar? Trying to answer that with any substance is probably beyond the scope of a message board, so I won't try except to give my brief opinion that yes, the distinction still matters.

But thank you for revealing the question to me with such clarity.

[0] from the "live" log on WaPo, so I don't have a direct link to this entry: "MOSCOW — Russia’s tech and communications regulator launched a probe Saturday into 10 independent media outlets that have not parroted the Kremlin’s line on the invasion of Ukraine

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#194

Post by lazide »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #192
lazide wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did it make a difference either time?

Yes, my country (Canada) did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. And in large part to the vociferous opposition and protests against it in the days leading up to the decision.

Glad to hear it! Here in the US, the ‘wag the dog’ was pretty obvious almost immediately (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that didn’t stop anything), and the protests didn’t seem to do much either.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#195

Post by eigelc »

I find this radiation spike very suspicious. What is the mechanism? Did they open the sarcophag, did they stop taking care of spent fuel from other reactors? What happened?

I don’t buy the story that they raised radiation simply by disturbing dust with their vehicles. There have been 39 years since the nuclear accident and I assume enough winds and rain and snow to raise all the dust that could have been raised.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#196

Post by eigelc »

nuccy wrote: post #3

Russians came from Belarus and with their tanks disrupt the radioactive soil and create dust [1]. The internal systems and the reactors themselves are in nominal state without changes. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-says-chernobyl-radia...

But how likely is this? 39 years of weather and you drive for a few hours about and the dust from your vechicles raised the radiation levels? It’s winter now and I can’t imagine dust is raised so easily. Either the amount was not significant or something else happened.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#197

Post by kergonath »

usr1106 wrote: post #189
kergonath wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russians know. They are not stupid. Also, more than half of all of Russia's army has been concentrated along the border. There is no way they were thinking they were going to a picnic.

Roughly 50% of Americans believe what Trump says. They would have no difficulty to choose different media. In Russia different media do not exist for the average citizen. I have no idea how many percent believe the official propaganda at least in its main message that NATO is threatening Russia. But it's probably significant. Even for those not believing it, saying so or actively acting against is dangerous.

Yeah, I realise after some reports today that I was over-estimating the organisation of the Russian army, and that they seem to be much more confused than the rest of their country. Unbelievable.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#198

Post by kergonath »

lazide wrote: post #186
kergonath wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The danger is mostly for themselves. Bringing tiny amounts of dust with them is not a huge problem. However, having alpha emitters in your lung and intestines because you breathed, drank and ate in a contaminated environment is a death sentence.

Dose makes the poison. It’s very unlikely the amounts they’re getting will make any difference.

Alpha emitters in your body will kill you. Dose pretty much does not change that, only the time frame. Particularly if the dose is lodged next to cells that divide very quickly, like those lining the lungs and intestines (which have to renew frequently because of their role as barriers protecting the organism from a whole lot of bad things).

“Dose makes the poison” sounds good and is a good rule of thumb in most cases, but 1) it is not absolute, and 2) some things have an unbelievably small lethal dose.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#199

Post by arcticbull »

lazide wrote: post #184
Retric wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil is fungible so increasing or decreasing the global supply still impacts US prices. This is because unlike say concrete US suppliers can easily ship oil to the France if people in France are willing to pay more than US consumers. Now that doesn’t mean the second Iraq war was about oil, but it does explain why we care more about the Middle East than say Africa.

Iraq was a lot more about making Hussein pay for various personal bs, expending vast amounts of built up ordnance, and getting the next set of officers combat experience than oil.

I always assumed it was just Bush Jr settling the Bush Sr vendetta for having not finished the job in the first Iraq war.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#200

Post by lazide »

kergonath wrote: post #198
lazide wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dose makes the poison. It’s very unlikely the amounts they’re getting will make any difference.

Alpha emitters in your body will kill you. Dose pretty much does not change that, only the time frame. Particularly if the dose is lodged next to cells that divide very quickly, like those lining the lungs and intestines (which have to renew frequently because of their role as barriers protecting the organism from a whole lot of bad things). “Dose makes the poison” sounds good and is a good rule of thumb in most case…

Thanks for agreeing with me I guess?

Or do you have any concrete information that the risk to then is actually higher from this than catching a bullet (or a mine) from the Ukrainian army or resistance?

Because there definitely are already a lot more dead Russians from the Ukrainians than from radiation sources they exposed themselves to a part of this invasion.

Post reply on HN