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

Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 258 posts

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#81

Post by hexane360 »

BEEdwards wrote: post #73
ebcode wrote: post #59

> Even the US left its own portion of nuclear waste in the northern latitudes, such as the once secret reactor at Camp Century, in Greenland, although this is minuscule compared to what the Soviets left behind. The pro-US bias in this article is strong. It appears to be more of the same wardrum-beating, anti-Russian propaganda that took hold of the mainstream media towards the end of the US election. On one hand, Rus…

Or you know, the USSR's collapse literally left a lot of nuclear material odd places. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-f... Not everything is a realpolitik double blind.

And also generally released a lot more radiation than the US: https://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-contam... (ignore the bad title)

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#82

Post by ww520 »

matt4077 wrote: post #49
exabrial wrote: post #11

I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.

I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown. Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty. More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not "authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in preparation for the…

> Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times, Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty.

Not sure about the others but NY Times has lost much credibility over the years, getting worse during the election.

Before the Iraq war, it deliberately spread misinformation from the government during the WMD episode to drum up support for the war. It basically acted as the propaganda arm of the U.S. government. For this election, they backed the wrong horse and missed out.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#83

Post by ctrlrsf »

wallace_f wrote: post #77
advisedwang wrote: post #41

The discussion of waste and derelict reactors should probably be ignored given the earlier statement that the presence of I-131 means fission took place in the last few days. As the article states, nuclear explosions are unlikely as we would be hearing about seismic measurements too like in the case of N. Korean detonations. My bet is on a small accident on a nuclear vessel or another small reactor around Europe (e.g…

Asking for clarification: could the nuclear reactors of atomic submarines carrying nuclear warheads not conceivably release I-131?

Nuclear reactor on the sub, yes. Nuclear warhead, no, unless there was a detonation.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#85

Post by Retra »

jnbiche wrote: post #79
hyperdunc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the site developer isn't very good. Why don't you send them an email telling them how they can fix it?

So provide them with expert advice for free? Do you think lawyers get this urge?

It's not for free: it's in exchange for a potentially better experience.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#86

Post by notatoad »

dingaling wrote: post #78
stuckagain wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a Boeing 707, essentially.

Only in general shape. Dimensions, internal systems and even the type and gauge of aluminium were different between the C-135 and 707; Boeing had to go back to the drawing board when Douglas started cutting metal on the DC-8, and the redesign process for the 707 led to a cascade of changes. About 20% of systems and components were common ( such as the cockpit windows ).

the shape is probably what's being discussed when the parent says it's "a really cool looking plane" though.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#87

Post by alexeckermann »

bahularora wrote: post #84

Recently a small blast occurred in Flamanville station in France. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-nuclea...

> Authorities said there was "no nuclear risk" following the blast in Flamanville shortly before 10am local time (9am GMT) on Thursday.

> Officials said the blast took place in the turbine hall and confirmed there was no radioactive leak.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#88

Post by mikeyouse »

sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #39
exabrial wrote: post #11

I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from their advertisers.

The author, Tyler Rogoway, is a revered aviation journalist. He used to write for FoxtrotAlpha. I've followed him for a couple of years and now and he always presents a very balanced stance on issues.

I miss him from when I used to read Jalopnik more regularly, I didn't follow him to his new site so thanks for pointing out that this was him. He really is a good, balanced, and knowledgeable source of military analysis.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#89

Post by worldsnorkler »

mikeyouse wrote: post #88
sanjeetsuhag wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author, Tyler Rogoway, is a revered aviation journalist. He used to write for FoxtrotAlpha. I've followed him for a couple of years and now and he always presents a very balanced stance on issues.

I miss him from when I used to read Jalopnik more regularly, I didn't follow him to his new site so thanks for pointing out that this was him. He really is a good, balanced, and knowledgeable source of military analysis.

What are the evidence this comes from the Arctic? High levels are only being detected in Poland. A much more likely explanation is that this originates from Ukraine, Krim, or Belarus. That is some 2000km from the Arctic.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#90

Post by cperciva »

xelxebar wrote: post #63
patcheudor wrote: post #46

It's interesting the author mentioned the nuclear generators and whatnot used in lighthouses and for small portable power generation. Those use strontium-90 and other byproducts of nastier energetic fissions which if my amateur nuclear physics brain is functioning correctly don't produce iodine-131. Iodine-131 is a byproduct of uranium-235/238 decay & fission. Since practical fusion doesn't yet exist, iodine-131 can…

Kind of off topic, but mind sharing how you molded such an amateur nuclear physics brain?

I suspect he was being sarcastic. The fact that a 90 amu atom doesn't yield 131 amu atoms when it decays doesn't require you to know about anything beyond conservation of mass.
Post reply on HN