Another Russian Nuclear Accident?

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

I'm seeing articles bubbling up on this... apparently, a nuclear missile exploded during testing in northern Russia, killing 2, injuring 6, sending radiation levels spiking in a nearby city, and causing pharmacies to run out of iodine (spurred by panic-buying).  

The Russian government is saying: everything's fine, nothing to see here... but goodness, that country has a long and terrible history of trying to cover-up nuclear accidents, so one can hardly blame their citizens for being cynical!

Here's one article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7340445/Putins-6-000-mph-hypersonic-missile-exploded-test-causing-radiation-spike-north-Russia.html

This next news video also specifically says they've shut down not only the base where it happened but have also shut down local shipping lanes in the nearby White Sea for a month... again, hinting at a bigger problem than the Russian Defense Ministry is admitting: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=russian+nuclear+disaster&view=detail&mid=CCCAA85294068ED5D652CCCAA85294068ED5D652&FORM=VIRE  

Hey, I admit... I'm rather cynical about nuclear power (whether it be plants, missiles... the whole she-bang really). Nuclear technology at-large reminds me of that saying: holding a tiger by its' tail. When you factor in the many risk factors --- like human error (engineering miscalculations, overconfidence, simple fatigue), Mother Nature (tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes/tornados), terrorism threats, etc. --- and then you figure how nuclear fallout is so damn long-lasting and nearly impossible to clean up --- eh, is it worth the risks? I really do wonder. 

[M1152 713]

Radiation is nasty shit, let’s hope they got a handle on it whatever it is.  A little off topic but I watched a PBS video on Netflix a few weeks back called “Building Chernobyl's MegaTomb”. They built the structure just far enough away (on site) so Radiation levels were lower then they slid the huge structure into place.

[45Doll 5,874]

2 hours ago, FXDX said:

Radiation is nasty shit, let’s hope they got a handle on it whatever it is.  A little off topic but I watched a PBS video on Netflix a weeks back called “Building Chernobyl's MegaTomb”. They built the structure just far enough away (on site) so Radiation levels were lower then they slid the huge structure into place.

I saw that too. The expected life of that 'mega tomb' is around 100 years. Then they'll have to do something again.

Here's another little factoid. The active compounds in that reactor include U-238. The half life of U-238 is 4,500,000,000 years.

So by the time the sun is dying and expands out to earth's orbit Chernobyl's reactor site will be half as deadly.

I wonder if global warming will matter then?

[voyager9 3,434]

8 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Hey, I admit... I'm rather cynical about nuclear power (whether it be plants, missiles... the whole she-bang really). Nuclear technology at-large reminds me of that saying: holding a tiger by its' tail. When you factor in the many risk factors --- like human error (engineering miscalculations, overconfidence, simple fatigue), Mother Nature (tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes/tornados), terrorism threats, etc. --- and then you figure how nuclear fallout is so damn long-lasting and nearly impossible to clean up --- eh, is it worth the risks? I really do wonder. 

Fyi, the newer designs for nuclear power plants are much more efficient, safer, and with less waste. The problem is there is so much regulation and NIMBY in the US that no company can afford to put them in. Power wise I believe they’re better than current power sources. Cleaner than coal or gas and more output/efficient/consistent than wind/hydro/solar. 

[Greenday 323]

I love how they are claiming they were just testing a new liquid propellant. Right...

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

59 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Fyi, the newer designs for nuclear power plants are much more efficient, safer, and with less waste. The problem is there is so much regulation and NIMBY in the US that no company can afford to put them in. Power wise I believe they’re better than current power sources. Cleaner than coal or gas and more output/efficient/consistent than wind/hydro/solar. 

Yeah, I've read that many times... and I know some of the new designs, like these molten salt reactors and liquid sodium reactors do seem to be much improved... yet I still maintain that the hubris of engineers is a problem (they're only human after all). They are always proud of their newest designs and always convinced it's "so much safer". Color me cynical!

I also can't help but laugh when people in the industry tout how "clean" nuclear energy is compared to other energy sources. Yes, particulates from coal are bad, no arguments on that. But, if you're piling up radioactive waste - that will remain highly toxic and deadly for DECADES if not CENTURIES - that NO ONE wants in their backyard, and that then becomes a great target for terrorists - the "clean" argument falls apart rather rapidly, doesn't it? Even if new designs greatly reduce waste or even re-use waste for power (and I understand that some would)… do you now have to transport that waste to the site? Or at least maintain the radioactive waste onsite? How is any of that "clean"? Nope, I'm just not buying it. It's still terrible glowing bad mojo in my book! 

[45Doll 5,874]

"But, if you're piling up radioactive waste - that will remain highly toxic and deadly for DECADES if not CENTURIES..."

Or millennia. Or even epochs, eras and eons!

 

[Displaced Texan 11,731]

The Ruskies are notoriously BAD at nuclear safety. Ugh. 

[High Exposure 5,661]

The Russian calculation of risk versus reward is vastly different than ours.  We typically err on the side of caution and accept an increased probability of low-order or dud rate while they err on the side of assured performance and accept the increased safety risks.