- #36
Rive
Science Advisor
- 2,968
- 2,422
I think that pic is from this accident:davenn said:pic via the LA Times
Not related
I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration'
I think that pic is from this accident:davenn said:pic via the LA Times
I believe your picture may be of explosions at a military ammunition depot near the city of Achinsk in eastern Siberia’s Krasnoyarsk region in Achinsk, Russia, on Aug. 5. Can you link to the source?davenn said:it was a pretty big bang ...
pic via the LA Times
Nice find. As this video is from 2013 the LA times picture is clearly not from the recent accident.Rive said:I think that pic is from this accident
Baluncore said:My question now is; If an unshielded nuclear reactor was operating on the horizon, what gamma radiation might be immediately detected at that distance? The period of elevated gamma radiation may represent the duration of the test, prior to and then the explosion, and not due to wind drift of the products after the explosion.
I agree. Radioactive Iodine is commonly used in many industries, medical, and geophysical surveys, even water well and waste water injection wells. The sources are many and involve different isotopes of iodine but the decay photons will give the answer right away. That is common nuclear metrology, used everywhere in the world every day by ordinary trained technicians.etudiant said:It is possible to reconstruct the nature of the emission from the spectrum of decay products detected.
So the authorities must have a pretty good idea of what happened. However, apart from noting the increased iodine isotope detection, they have disclosed nothing, perhaps in order to avoid violating the terms of the various monitoring network agreements.
Yes, looks probableRive said:I think that pic is from this accident:
Not related
I can't express fully how deeply do I hate news sites for using anything convenient as 'illustration'
We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.geoelectronics said:But we don't know if this is a reactor. Nuclear power doesn't require a reactor always, if the electrical demands are modest.
Baluncore said:We know that, unlike a nuclear reactor, heat generation by RTGs cannot be dynamically adjusted in flight, or turned off while in temporary storage prior to a launch. I think we are over the distractive and dismissive information releases. I am sufficiently convinced that it was not an RTG accident. I think we know now that a power unit for, or a 9M730 Burevestnik nuclear powered cruise missile was being trialled. It has been admitted that the explosion happened on a platform in the Dvinskiy Gulf of the White Sea.
It may be tangentially hypothetical, but my revised question is; What gamma radiation might be expected from the operation of an unshielded 100kW reactor?
Oh, that sounds like a great engineering project. The freedom from the severe power to weight ratios needed for a flying object make it all much simpler. It could flash seawater to steam, to drive a turbine and a propeller for very effective propulsion. Seawater could also provide shielding to protect electronics from radiation.mfb said:An alternative option: A nuclear powered torpedo. Same idea, basically, just in the water instead of the air.
That might be acceptable in a missile with a design life of just a few hours.etudiant said:Afaik, one of their main problem is that the metal coolant, usually lead or some lead/bismuth alloy, is prone to dissolve the pipes in which it runs.
If true, that is just plain wrong, IMO.gleem said:There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated.
I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.gleem said:Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...test-accident-not-your-business-idUSKCN1VA0OLRussia to nuclear test ban monitor: Test accident not your business
Not necessarily. It can also mean that studying the nuclide distributions could give some indications how the weapon was designed and tested.gleem said:Radiation monitoring stations near the accident have stopped reporting their measurements suggesting that the accident may be more serious.
The liquid metal is a heat exchange fluid. It cools the core while it heats the jet air.artis said:But even for an surface to air missile if it had a nuclear reactor as the heat source why would one want to use liquid metal as coolant?
That is the case. It permits different contact areas for the two heat exchangers.artis said:could this be the case?
Help me out here, I'm a little confused. Someone posted this link in this thread earlier:Astronuc said:I heard about that this afternoon. Apparently the accident was Aug 8, and by Aug 10, two of the CTBTO monitoring stations were turned off, then three more further away were turned off.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ent-offline-after-mystery-blast-idUSKCN1V9183
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-nuc...fuels-fears-extent-deadly-blast/30119174.html
No, two different events.geoelectronics said:Is this the same incident?
Thanks for clarification.Baluncore said:No, two different events.
5 Aug 2019. Ammunition and explosives storage, Lat 56.173310° Long 90.399937°. Kamenka, 10 km south of Achinsk. No radiation. Many pictures, some wrongly attributed. When google Earth updates that area, the storage facility will look different.
8 Aug 2019. Platform in Dvinskiy Gulf, White Sea. No pictures or details available. 5 people reported dead. Radiation released. It appears that Nyonoksa was the closest military test facility to the accident, but Nyonoksa was not involved in the trials, nor could it have provided access to the platform. The Nyonoksa reference appears to be Russian misinformation.
Oh wow. Now we have a real mystery. If a missile exploded in the air, what was the earlier explosion? If the first explosion was the missile, what was still in the air an hour later?mfb said:Probably two explosions two hours apart
... and how got the staff contaminated?anorlunda said:If a missile exploded in the air, what was the earlier explosion?
I had a similar speculation a bit back here, but the time difference seems to be two hours (!). At any relevant flight speed that's quite a big distance.artis said:maybe the chemical propellant that was used to give the rocket it's firs boost exploded when it launched and some of the rocket got away and then exploded in air together with the secondary nuclear engine...
gleem said:There is even a report that workers in the hospital that treated survivors were not told that the patients were contaminated.
Looks like the Russians are going back to their old playbook. When all else fails, make up something - no matter how ridiculous.berkeman said:If true, that is just plain wrong, IMO.
Despite the doctor's exposure to patients from an area where a short-term radiation spike was recorded, the local health ministry blamed the trace amounts of the isotope on bad seafood.
"Cesium-137... has the feature of accumulating in fish, mushrooms, lichens, algae," the statement posted on the local government's website reads. "With a certain degree of probability, we can assume that this element got into the human body through the products of food."