Environment & Energy

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts) Tue Nov 14, 2017, 02:17 PM Nov 2017

Nuclear accident sends 'harmless' radioactive cloud over Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/10/nuclear-accident-in-russia-or-kazakhstan-sends-radioactive-cloud-over-europe

Nuclear accident sends 'harmless' radioactive cloud over Europe
French institute says pollution suggests release of nuclear material in Russia or Kazakhstan in September

A cloud of radioactive pollution over Europe in recent weeks indicates that an accident happened in a nuclear facility in Russia or Kazakhstan in the last week of September, the French nuclear safety institute IRSN has said.

The IRSN on Thursday ruled out an accident in a nuclear reactor, saying it was likely to be in a nuclear fuel treatment site or centre for radioactive medicine. There has been no impact on human health or the environment in Europe, it said.

IRSN, the technical arm of French nuclear regulator ASN, said in a statement it could not pinpoint the location of the release of radioactive material but that based on weather patterns, the most plausible zone lay south of the Ural mountains, between the Urals and the Volga river.

This could indicate Russia or possibly Kazakhstan, an IRSN official said.
Fukushima residents win 500m yen payout over nuclear disaster
Read more

“Russian authorities have said they are not aware of an accident on their territory,” IRSN director Jean-Marc Peres told Reuters. He added that the institute had not yet been in contact with Kazakh authorities.

A spokeswoman for the Russian emergencies ministry said she could not immediately comment. It was not immediately possible to reach authorities in Kazakhstan or the Kazakh embassy in Moscow.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nuclear accident sends 'harmless' radioactive cloud over Europe (Original Post) NeoGreen Nov 2017 OP

Slow And Upbeat EPA Response To Hurricane Harvey Pollution Angers Residents hunter Nov 2017 #1

Dangerous fossil fuel plants send extremely harmful toxic and carcinogenic clouds all over... NNadir Nov 2017 #2

The highest detected level to date was 0.15 Bq/m3 FBaggins Nov 2017 #3

Apparently people in Russia or Kazakhstan don't count in your book. (nt) NeoGreen Nov 2017 #4

One of the fun things about anti nukes is their... NNadir Nov 2017 #5

Harmless in Western Europe for sure caraher Nov 2017 #7

kick hunter Nov 2017 #6

Russia reports radioactivity 986 times the norm after nuclear accident claim muriel_volestrangler Nov 2017 #8

It must be the end of the world. How deadly exactly is 986 times background? NNadir Nov 2017 #9

hunter

(38,350 posts)

1. Slow And Upbeat EPA Response To Hurricane Harvey Pollution Angers Residents

Reply to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 07:43 PM

Nov 2017

Juan Flores and his family live in Galena Park, Texas, which is bordered on three sides by pipeline terminals, oil refineries, fertilizer plants and rail yards.

...

After all these years, he is accustomed to the rhythms of life among the industrial plants. Strange smells and occasional warnings to shelter in place don't bother him too much. "I live so close to [one] company that I can hear their alarms," he says. "The thing is, you hear it so much you get immune to it, and it's like background noise."

But there are also times when he takes notice. "If I smell something out here, it's bad," he says, "and I can tell you during Harvey, it smelled real bad."

Hurricane Harvey caused industrial facilities in Texas to release an extra 5.98 million pounds of pollution into the air, according to the most recent analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund: the pollutants benzene and toluene, both carcinogens, as well as a brew of other chemicals that can irritate eyes and exacerbate respiratory problems.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/13/560476366/slow-and-upbeat-epa-response-to-hurricane-harvey-pollution-angers-residents

Please feel free to ignore me. I have trouble deciding which cult is worse, the anti-nuclear cult, or the economic "productivity" cult that believes solar and wind will magically replace fossil fuels, all you need to do is invest in them! Believe!!!

The only way to quit fossil fuels is to quit fossil fuels. Outlaw them. Sadly, it ain't going to happen, and this world civilization, the first world civilization is going to die a very ugly death, nothing to do with nuclear power, everything to do with fossil fuels and those who believe that maybe fossil fuels are okay so long as they back up their green energy fantasies.

But... Fukushima!!!

No, I'm not apologizing for whatever mess the Russians made.

But I do wonder about people who are willing to fill their own car with gasoline without protective gear (suits, respirators, the whole works...), yet have fits about incidents such as this.

Toxins is toxins, radioactive or not.

NNadir

(33,586 posts)

2. Dangerous fossil fuel plants send extremely harmful toxic and carcinogenic clouds all over...

Reply to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 10:18 PM

Nov 2017

...every single major city on Earth, continuously and without stop.

They are not harmless, they kill people day and night, day after day, night after night.

But apparently it's not worthy of attention.

Obviously though, this is nowhere near as important as (gasp) radioactivity, since it doesn't matter if tens of millions of people die every five or ten years from stuff that actually kills people as it might be if someone, somewhere at sometime dies from (gasp) something radioacitive.

The mentality that wastes electricity provided by gas and coal to report this stuff is simply unfathomable, unfathomable.

Like people who base their decisions on how to vote on whether one posts the Ten Commandments in a court room, we're completely simple minded about what is important in energy and the environment..

FBaggins

(26,789 posts)

3. The highest detected level to date was 0.15 Bq/m3

Reply to NeoGreen (Original post)

Wed Nov 15, 2017, 01:56 PM

Nov 2017

It's ridiculous to place "harmless" in quotes as though there might be some doubt.

NeoGreen

(4,031 posts)

4. Apparently people in Russia or Kazakhstan don't count in your book. (nt)

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 15, 2017, 02:10 PM

Nov 2017

NNadir

(33,586 posts)

5. One of the fun things about anti nukes is their...

Reply to NeoGreen (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 16, 2017, 12:35 AM

Nov 2017

...ignorance of what scientific units mean.

If they weren't so ignorant they might be able to calculate the specific activity of the potassium in a banana, but they prefer to use electricity generated with coal and gas to obviate how little they know.

A banana's specific activity is about 15 Beq, or 10 times more radioactive a a cubic meter of the air reported here a a great tragedy.

Antinukism kills people.

caraher

(6,279 posts)

7. Harmless in Western Europe for sure

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 21, 2017, 01:40 AM

Nov 2017

But the OP says

IRSN estimates a significant quantity of ruthenium-106 was released, between 100 and 300 terabecquerels, and that if an accident of this magnitude had happened in France it would have required the evacuation or sheltering of people in a radius of several kilometres around the accident site.

So yeah, in France nobody should be concerned... but that might not be as true if you live near the Mayak reprocessing facility

"Probes of radioactive aerosols from monitoring stations Argayash and Novogorny were found to contain radioisotope Ru-106" between September 25 and October 1, the Rosgidromet service said.

The highest concentration was registered at the station in Argayash, a village in the Chelyabinsk region in the southern Urals, which had "extremely high pollution" of Ru-106, exceeding natural background pollution by 986 times, the service said.

It did not point to any specific source of the pollution, but the Argayash station is about 30 kilometres from the Mayak nuclear facility, which in 1957 was the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in history.

Today Mayak is a reprocessing site for spent nuclear fuel.

Sure, this is no Chernobyl, but this isn't the kind of thing you want happening in your reprocessing facility on a routine basis, either!

hunter

(38,350 posts)

6. kick

Reply to NeoGreen (Original post)

Fri Nov 17, 2017, 01:31 PM

Nov 2017

muriel_volestrangler

(101,412 posts)

8. Russia reports radioactivity 986 times the norm after nuclear accident claim

Reply to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Nov 21, 2017, 07:31 AM

Nov 2017

Russia’s meteorological service has confirmed “extremely high” concentrations of the radioactive isotope ruthenium-106 were found in several parts of the country in late September, confirming European reports about the contamination this month.

“Probes of radioactive aerosols from monitoring stations Argayash and Novogorny were found to contain radioisotope Ru-106” between September 25 and October 1,” the Rosgidromet service said.

The highest concentration was registered in Argayash, a village in the Chelyabinsk region in the southern Urals, which had “extremely high pollution” of Ru-106, exceeding natural background pollution by 986 times, the service said.
...
France’s IRSN had said a nuclear reactor could not have been the source of the Ru-106 since other radioactive elements would also have been detected. It suggested instead a discharge from an installation linked to the nuclear fuel cycle or which produced radioactive materials.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/21/russia-radioactivity-986-times-norm-nuclear-accident-claim

NNadir

(33,586 posts)

9. It must be the end of the world. How deadly exactly is 986 times background?

Reply to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 22, 2017, 01:11 AM

Nov 2017

986 bananas?

It's pretty amazing. Billions of tons of carbon dioxide are dumped each year into the atmosphere, and hundreds of millions of tons of actually powerful carcinogens, things like benzofurans, dibenzodioxins, all kinds of crap like that, stuff that actually kills people, and yet right here at DU, more and more electricity is being burned to complain endlessly and mindlessly about "986 times background" Ru 106.

Scientifically illiterate journalists at the Guardian couldn't care less how many people die each day, each hour, each minute from air pollution but OH MY FUCKING GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

RUTHENIUM!!!!!!!!! 106!!!!!!!!!!

We deserve what we're going to get on this planet. Fear and ignorance have won the day.

Reply to this discussion