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

Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

livehistoryindia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#121

Post by azernik »

freeflight wrote: post #111
azernik wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a problem because we're still pumping out emissions. RTG losses have been a small number (under 5) accidents that have probably emitted in total under 10kg of material.

But RTG losses ain't the only emissions of pollutants into the oceans. Fukushima is leaking into the Pacific to this day even with Tepco collecting vast amounts of it to store in tanks. The US is dumping the majority of its PFAS into the Atlantic completely untreated, large parts of the world use the oceans as their dumpster, for agricultural, industrial, plastic and all kinds of other waste, to such a degree that we…

Sure. But the question was about the environmental impact of RTGs, which is many orders of magnitude smaller than other problems.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#122

Post by freeflight »

azernik wrote: post #121
freeflight wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But RTG losses ain't the only emissions of pollutants into the oceans. Fukushima is leaking into the Pacific to this day even with Tepco collecting vast amounts of it to store in tanks. The US is dumping the majority of its PFAS into the Atlantic completely untreated, large parts of the world use the oceans as their dumpster, for agricultural, industrial, plastic and all kinds of other waste, to such a degree that we…

Sure. But the question was about the environmental impact of RTGs, which is many orders of magnitude smaller than other problems.

There wasn't any question, there was the statement that plutonium couldn't be that harmful because "the ocean is very big".

Which is another version of "the solution to pollution is dilution", but that ignores that dilution doesn't scale indefinitely and if overdone can also lead to saturation.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#123

Post by azernik »

freeflight wrote: post #122
azernik wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But the question was about the environmental impact of RTGs, which is many orders of magnitude smaller than other problems.

There wasn't any question, there was the statement that plutonium couldn't be that harmful because "the ocean is very big". Which is another version of "the solution to pollution is dilution", but that ignores that dilution doesn't scale indefinitely and if overdone can also lead to saturation.

There was absolutely a question.

morsch said: "The cask survived re-entry, as it was designed to do,[18] and no release of plutonium has been detected. The corrosion resistant materials of the capsule are expected to contain it for 10 half-lives (870 years).[19]"

nafizh asked: "So after 870 years, it begins to pollute the water?"

It was a question about the Apollo 13 SNAP-27 unit, which was spilled in a freak accident that is unlikely to be repeated.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#124

Post by wewake »

baybal2 wrote: post #77
wewake wrote: post #60

Last week, I went into the rabbit hole and researched about the whole incident as my drinking water comes from one of the tributaries of Ganga river and this device has polluted a source glacier of the river - with plutonium. Great. One of the climbers, Jim McCarthy claimed he got cancer due to the time he spent in close proximity of the device and according to him, the local people who helped them in the trek are lo…

There are already things way worse than plutonium in Ganga.

What's worse than radioactive isotopes that can't possibly be filtered out in conventional water treatment plants?

Pollution is an issue in majority of rivers in the world, especially in developing countries but doesn't justify or discount radioactive waste in there.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#125

Post by mannykannot »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #116
mannykannot wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Either this was some sort of fission device (utterly implausible, IMHO - where's the moderator, for just one thing), or the "wave of heat" mentioned in the article is, shall we say, embellishment.

Actually, it makes a bit of sense. It sounds like the device was being transported in pieces. Each piece would be warm. Assemble it and you have far more concentrated heat. RTGs also work on temperature differential --when operating there's going to be a system to eject that heat to get a maximum temperature gradient. I can easily picture something like a fan blowing air over a radiator to maximize the power output--…

I take your point about it warming up after assembly, though I doubt it was fan-cooled. This was a SNAP-19C device, primarily used for Nimbus satellites, where, of course, fans could not be used. A manual is available [1], where it mentions an operating temperature of 380°F (193°C) in space, and 260°F (127°C) in the atmosphere (presumably in an environment around standard sea level temperature and pressure; the air near the top of Nanda Devi is less dense but also colder, and presumably it is often windy.) I guess it would be like standing next to an operating stove (though, of course, in mountaineering clothing.)

The manual also warns, when checking it out, against letting the temperature change too fast: no more than 35°F (19.5°C) in 15 minutes. And don't have it assembled without an electrical load, or it will overheat.

Then there's the question of whether the electronics were fan-cooled, but an RTG is so thermally inefficient that its own waste heat must dominate that dissipated by any device it powers.

[1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4513086

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#126

Post by baybal2 »

wewake wrote: post #124
baybal2 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already things way worse than plutonium in Ganga.

What's worse than radioactive isotopes that can't possibly be filtered out in conventional water treatment plants? Pollution is an issue in majority of rivers in the world, especially in developing countries but doesn't justify or discount radioactive waste in there.

Intestinal tract infections can kill you within days after a single gulp of polluted water.

Heavy metals take months, to years to debilitate, or kill.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#127

Post by wewake »

baybal2 wrote: post #126
wewake wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's worse than radioactive isotopes that can't possibly be filtered out in conventional water treatment plants? Pollution is an issue in majority of rivers in the world, especially in developing countries but doesn't justify or discount radioactive waste in there.

Intestinal tract infections can kill you within days after a single gulp of polluted water. Heavy metals take months, to years to debilitate, or kill.

> Intestinal tract infections can kill you within days after a single gulp of polluted water.

Your point being? What do you think water treatment plants are for?

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#128

Post by baybal2 »

wewake wrote: post #127
baybal2 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intestinal tract infections can kill you within days after a single gulp of polluted water. Heavy metals take months, to years to debilitate, or kill.

> Intestinal tract infections can kill you within days after a single gulp of polluted water. Your point being? What do you think water treatment plants are for?

My point is, even with plutonium in water, India would have much bigger, and harder to fix problems that that.

Finding plutonium would be nowhere near as hard as thousands of sources of untreated sewage.

Re: Lost nuclear device atop of Nanda Devi

#129

Post by MertsA »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #114
MertsA wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't a nuclear weapon, it was a poorly contained RTG and from the sound of it the fuel rods weren't even inside the device yet. A good sized hunk of Pu-238 in the glaciers feeding the Ganges is cause for concern to say the least. The half life of Pu-239 like what would be used for a nuclear bomb is 275x times as much so even just the small amount present for the RTG is releasing many many times more fission pr…

It doesn't sound like there was a containment breach. Pu-238 is hot, that's why it can be used for a RTG. That doesn't mean it's frying you. And it doesn't release more radiation than a bomb. Pu-238 is an alpha emitter--and alpha emitters can only hurt you if they get inside your body (or from simple heat--pick up one of those rods and you'll get burnt just like if you picked up any other hot piece of metal.) The dec…

>It doesn't sound like there was a containment breach.

Trace amounts were detected in the melt water. Plutonium does not exist in nature, all significant amounts are man made. I think it's likely that that plutonium came from the lost RTG fuel rods. The article explicitly mentioned that the American climber was tasked with handling the fuel rods and loading and unloading the device. They lost it at their base camp, not where they intended to deploy it. I believe that would mean that most likely the fuel rods were not yet loaded and sealed into the device and were instead still inside whatever lead lined box they were transported in. I don't know what the actual fuel assembly would have been for a plutonium RTG fuel rod from the 60s but I have a feeling it wouldn't stand up to 60 years worth of corrosion in a wet and warm environment outside of the generator it was supposed to be assembled in.

As for the radiation amount, I meant in the hypothetical scenario of comparing it to a lost but undetonated nuclear weapon which would be substantially less radioactive. I'm well aware of what a half life of an isotope is. The half life of Pu-238 is basically as bad as it gets because at 87.7 years it'll take a substantial amount of time for the radioactivity to subside yet as far as half lifes go that's pretty low and would still be highly radioactive. Pu-238 in a water source is pretty bad and while it might be trace amounts now, if the fuel rods are compromised after all that time they're only going to get worse and start leaching out more and more.

Post reply on HN