Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military

Russia Orders Evacuation of Village Near Site of Nuclear Accident, Then Cancels It (nytimes.com) 57

Posted by BeauHD from the radiation-panic dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Russian authorities on Tuesday announced the evacuation of the village nearest to the site of a nuclear accident in northern Russia, suggesting dangers more grave than initially reported. The still-mysterious episode last week killed seven people and released radiation, apparently when a small nuclear reactor malfunctioned during a test of a novel type of missile near a naval weapons testing site. Russian officials have released a flurry of misleading or incomplete statements playing down the severity of the accident, which the military first reported on Thursday as a fire involving a liquid-fueled rocket engine. It was not until Sunday that Russian scientists conceded that a reactor had released radiation during a test on an offshore platform in the White Sea. That pattern of murkiness continued on Tuesday, as news reports and official statements offered only the vaguest explanation for the evacuation, and hours later seemed to indicate that it had been called off.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia Orders Evacuation of Village Near Site of Nuclear Accident, Then Cancels It More

Russia Orders Evacuation of Village Near Site of Nuclear Accident, Then Cancels It

Comments Filter:

  • chernobyl all over again!

    • Well, it makes me wonder if Russia is developing an equivalent of US cold war era project Pluto which is indeed described as a "flying Chernobyl" nowadays. It featured a nuclear ramjet as the propulsion system.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      https://nationalinterest.org/b... [nationalinterest.org]

    • Hard to say. Chernobyl was scientists messing around with a reactor that really was not in shape for it.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        There were no scientists there, just 2nd shift operators. They deviated significantly from the documented procedure, then did all the dont's in the manual. The result was a big boom.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )

          I would think more like pushing the limits of the engine to make it an effective launch vehicle for orbit, as the first stage only. Interesting idea, nuclear first stage engine just burning air and then land and the second liquid fuelled stage takes the payload to orbit with a big old speed boost from the first stage. Keep up USA you are falling way behind and you can expect some, surprise, surprise, surprise announcements from China's space program as it joins with Russia's space program and India joins in

        • That's why Nuclear is so dangerous. It's quite easy to completely screw up a reactor thanks to stupid human's in the control loop. Take this people having a hard-on for nuclear power.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jabuzz ( 182671 )

            Well screwing up an RBMK reactor running as it was in Chernobyl in 1986 is a piece of cake (they where made safer afterwards but still rather dodgy). Heck it could potentially go boom even with even the slightest deviation from normal operational parameters.

            On the other hand a more sainly designed reactor is a lot harder to screw up. A passively safe design should be virtually impossible to scew up.

          • That's why Nuclear is so dangerous. It's quite easy to completely screw up a reactor thanks to stupid human's in the control loop. Take this people having a hard-on for nuclear power.

            Not necessarily true. Sure, if they do brain dead stuff, people can cause a nuclear accident, but let's be 100% clear, the issue was that the operators didn't understand the instabilities of the reactor because the system wasn't intuitive. This was because the engineering wasn't all that great and these operational issues were not designed out.

            Current reactor designs are MUCH safer because they actually operate and react like you think they should. The amount of knowledge you need to keep them safe is dr

            • But the real problem here with nuclear power is the regulation costs, not safety. [...] We've over reacted, over regulated and made nuclear power way too expensive.

              Get back to us when a private company is willing to insure a nuclear reactor for infinity dollars.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            The problem was the particular design of the RMBK reactor. For example, the manual specifically forbade removing all of the control rods at once for any reason, yet the control system allowed it. The control rods were designed such that when inserted, they would initially INCREASE the reactivity of the reactor. (due to the first meter or so being made of a material that acted as a moderator rather than a poison). The reactor had a positive void coefficient (loss of coolant increased reactivity). The contai

  • Never doubted it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @07:17PM (#59084562) Journal

    Russian officials have released a flurry of misleading or incomplete statements playing down the severity of the accident...

    While some, many, or even most current nation-states would at least be tempted to downplay the significance of a domestic disaster, totalitarian-style governments knee-jerk to this reaction... the generational lack of oversight corrupts such regimes.

    • Hmm... I'm not sure that the totalitarians are especially bad in this way, though I think kleptocracy is a more accurate description of "modern" Russia. I just think the dictators have some extra leverage over the narrative.

      By way of comparison, I'll remind you about the Fukushima fiasco in 2011. It is still unclear how much radiation was released, and I strongly suspect they have muddled the medical records, too. However I think the sickest part may be how they played with TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power COmpa

      • Re:Fukushima FUD? (Score:4, Informative)

        by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @08:37PM (#59084718) Journal

        Well, so far as accountability goes, Japan actually prosecuted [theguardian.com] three TEP executives. If Comrade Putin purges anyone with his extra leverage over the narrative, it'll likely be without judge or jury.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shanen ( 462549 )

          They were eventually fined. Less than half a million dollars against many billions of damage and cleanup costs. I think there is another trial going on, but you are right since I thought they had gotten off scot free. Still, just a slap on the wrist when you consider the mess they left behind.

          Recently TEPCO announced that they will also scrap Fukushima #2. Ten reactors in total. Fukushima #2 wasn't damaged by the 3/11 quake and tsunami, but the political pressure against nuclear power is shutting the indust

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by antdah ( 1057288 )
          Putin may very well purge some people, but wether they are actually at fult is an entirely different issue.
          But disasters such as this is an excellent reason to get rid of some people who has fallen out of grace with the Tsar.

      • Rolling some heads? (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Much as I despise Putin, I might have to give him a bit of credit if he rolls some heads.

        Not going to happen. It's his own head that needs rolling.

        Who approved the idea of producing a nuclear propulsion missile in the first place? Farting radiation everywhere it goes, necessarily dumping a live nuclear reactor somewhere, somewhere unintended when the test goes sideways. And the test did go sideways, as you'd expect from a test.

        Great job, Putin. You did a really great thing for your country here. Cancel this project, please, before you hurt more people with your unnecessary chest thumping.

    • Free Societies never do this. It always creates huge distrust in government and provides NO LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL BENEFIT.

      It only aids the politicians whose mistake they are covering up, not the actual nation.

      Therefore a political leader will only do this if they care more about themselves than the nation, and can only do it if other members of the government and media are loyal to him above the government.

      In a society with a free press, your attempt is more likely to destroy your career than to save it

  • There are risks to evacuations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blindseer ( 891256 ) <blindseer@noSPAm.earthlink.net> on Tuesday August 13, 2019 @08:11PM (#59084672)

    Russia, and the Soviet Union, certainly does not have a history of treating treating radiation risks to the public with the proper care it deserves. That is putting it mildly. They certainly have not treated the public well when radiation releases have occurred. Perhaps they gained some respect for public safety over the decades. If I were to assume that they did in fact learn a few lessons then I can see the logic in not ordering an evacuation.

    What we saw in Japan after they had a nuclear reactor melt down and release radiation is that there is a risk to the public in ordering an evacuation. People can get in traffic accidents. Patients in need of care in hospitals in the evacuation zone might be put at risk of infection, stress, injury, etc. that can make their condition worse. People moving out in an evacuation can be stressed through having to exert themselves more than necessary and die from heart attacks, heat stroke, accidental falls, and so on. These are all examples of how people died in evacuating from the radiation leaked from Fukushima. There's calculations that show the risks from the radiation was far less than in the risks in evacuating. Some calculations show that those the fled the country to the USA likely got more radiation in the plane ride than if they had stayed put.

    Is the government looking out for the best course of action for the public in the area by not evacuating? I consider this unlikely. I'm guessing that by moving people the powers that be see this as a hassle and expense they could avoid by having the people stay put than have to find places for these people to go.

    I was simply reminded of the unnecessary evacuations in Japan and have to wonder if Russia is taking a prudent stance by weighing the risks properly on evacuation vs. allowing people to stay, or if they have so little concern for human life that they will again keep people in the dark on the risks they face in staying and allow people to put their lives and health at risk just so the government can attempt to keep a lid on just how badly they screwed up.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ezdiy ( 2717051 )
      It's about public trust in nuclear power. In the west, too many accidents, and you get green zealots yapping to close down nuclear power plants (and in their stupidity, polluting the environment with coal replacement even more). And the few accidents that do occur must be cleaned up pronto.

      But in russia or china? Nobody gives a shit about public opinion, thus the market-rational safety standards (ie pretty dangerous; but far cheaper in grand scheme of things even when accounting for productivity lost due

      • LOL.. I've always wondered why we have such a distaste for nuclear power in the USA, even with TMI.

        Seems to me that, in the USA at least, Nuclear power has been a huge success, right up until the environmental regulations killed it. This isn't just because of TMI, which was a financial disaster for the company operating that one reactor and nothing more, there is more going on here.

        Don't get me wrong, nuclear power needs to be well regulated and monitored for compliance, but you can go too far with that

  • The question is, will it stop nations from using all nuclear reactors (which are needed DESPERATELY), or stop them from using those from nations with well known quality issues?

    • This is a weapons test, what's it have to do with nuclear power? That's a bad idea in its own right.

      • the fact that Russia still can not manage nuclear material correctly will make other nation's nervous about that.

        It is bad enough that we have idiots who obviously hate science running around screaming about Nuclear/Geo-thermal power being bad, but now, we can count on more ppl pointing to this and using it to say that all use of nukes are bad.

        • It is bad enough that we have idiots who obviously hate science running around screaming about Nuclear/Geo-thermal power being bad,

          sssssssh. it's gonna be all right. you can pretend that nuclear and geothermal are good ideas if it makes you feel smart. sssssshhhhh.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by _merlin ( 160982 )

      I doubt it. Whether this is a miniaturised power reactor for a satellite weapon or a nuclear ramjet, it probably has nothing in common with the VVER [wikipedia.org] power reactors they're selling.

      • have you known the anti-nuclear power regime to NOT use anything that they can to say why nuclear power is bad?

  • I can't wait to wait to watch the HBO series! ;)

  • What kind of genius uses a live nuclear warhead on a test missile??? Honestly Russia, stop being so stupid.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The propulsion system is a small nuclear reactor.

  • OK, you've convinced me. I will definitely not let the Soviet Union make my reactors.

    Oh, you wanted to convince me to not use nuclear power at all? Yeah, no.

  • Thanks for cancelling the evacuation - that will make for a MUCH better HBO miniseries.
  • Evacuations nuclear you!

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close