Undetermined nuclear accident in Russia, September 2017

[izentrop]

Are the media getting excited?
How did the media go from "very low contamination" to "nuclear accident"? http://chevrepensante.fr/2017/11/12/med ... nucleaire/

[Christophe]

It's interesting in the process but I do not see where the author wants to go ... to prove that the media are held by very light journalists and that they play on fear rather than good? It's not new and the method is well known ... fear is a saleswoman ...

While it was not serious as an accident (at least in Western Europe), the author would do better to use his methodology and neurons to make assumptions about the accident rather than doing media statistics ...because the apparent lack of reason for this contamination ... it is serious and alarming no?

How to create distressing information from reassuring data?

Is it reassuring not to know the origin of a nuclear pollution (so weak it is ???)?

Then, to do this kind of thing you have to be damn motivated ...

And I'm not talking about counting FB sharing article by article ... waaaw! (I'm not kidding, it amazes me!)

cloud-radioactive2.jpg (431.69 KIO) Accessed 3998 times

It's real investigative journalism ... journalistic that!

ps: the ASN and IRSN are not media huh ...

[izentrop]

Hello,

It's interesting in the process but I do not see where the author wants to go ... to prove that the media are held by very light journalists and that they play on fear rather than good? It's not new and the method is well known ... fear is a saleswoman ...

+1

The detection of ruthenium-106 alone excludes the possibility of a release from a nuclear reactor that
would result in the presence of other radionuclides. The origin of ruthenium-106 is therefore at
search either in facilities of the nuclear fuel cycle or manufacturing of
radioactive sources either in the consequences of the re-entry into the atmosphere of a satellite
equipped with a thermoelectric generator with ruthenium. This last hypothesis was studied by
the IAEA that concluded that no ruthenium-106-containing satellites had fallen back to Earth during
this period.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse ... 171109.pdf

The opinion of CRIIRAD:

If it is a question of rejections coming from a single installation up to 300 Terabecquerels,
corresponds to a colossal amount, 300 a thousand billion becquerels is a figure, as a
comparison, 375 000 times the maximum allowed annual discharge6 of the Cruas nuclear power plant.
Ruthenium 106 is an artificial fission product that, once dropped on the ground and on the plant cover,
will induce a lasting contamination, it takes more than a year for its radioactivity to be divided
by two.

http://balises.criirad.org/pdf/cp_criir ... 0ru106.pdf

All we know is that if it was a nuclear accident, we would also have found traces of other radioactive elements and that somewhere in Russia, over a few km², populations are certainly exposed to thresholds. ruthenium-106. If that's the case, it will not be kept secret for long, despite Putin's efforts to lock in all information.
More than a month has passed, while in this case, we must act quickly to limit the hecatomb

[Christophe]

A leak on the fuel treatment cycle (upstream or downstream) can also be considered an accident no?

Interesting hypothesis of the satellite (above I evoked a possible meteorite) ...

Was not the Chinese station Tiangong-1 out of control that was going to crash right now? Oh no late October she was still in the air apparently: http://www.europe1.fr/emissions/l-innov ... re-3471797

Super we can follow live here: https://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=37820 it's still good on the net ...

The Criirad, meanwhile, always had a deliberately alarmist speech and inflate the figures ...

[izentrop]

New but without explanation, maybe not the same event:

Detection in France of traces of 131 iodine in the air due to radioactive releases from a foreign country.
The origin and date of the radioactive releases that caused this 131 iodine pollution are unknown to date.

IRSN is currently performing back-trajectory calculations to try to locate the origin of the air masses that transported the detected 131 iodine.

http://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse ... gwkO2jWyM8

Traces have been detected in the Paris region and in northern France, in Charleville-Mézières and Bures. For the moment, these traces are extremely weak, of the order of a few microbecquerels per cubic meter (μBq / m3). The values ​​indicated by the IRSN for its samplings ended the 9 and 10 November) are:
5,7 μBq / m3 at Charleville-Mézières;
4,9 μBq / m3 at Orsay (Essonne);
12 μBq / m3 with Vésinet (Essonne);
0,79 μBq / m3 in Bure (Meuse), but on measurements made from 2 to November 7.

http://www.futura-sciences.com/planete/ ... ope-34635/

[Christophe]

Really? So 2 assumptions ...

a) It becomes worrying (because even if the 2 pollutions are not related it is rather rare to have 2 alerts to the radioactive pollution so close ... *)

b) The 2nd sampling is an "excess of zeal" following the 1st event ... Understand: it would have gone unnoticed if the 1st had not taken place ...

Iodine 131 is well issue, it, a pollution of a nuclear reactor ...

The exact samples:

Iode131_irsn_151117.gif (86.87 Kio) Viewed 3928 times

IRSN-NI_Detection_Iode_131_15112011.pdf

(216.05 KB) Downloaded times 288

* may be that small malignant took the opportunity to reject this iodine (a nuclear degassing what ^ ^) ... hoping that it is put on the account of the Russians?

[Christophe]

Really? So 2 assumptions ...

3th hypothesis:

c) we need to buy glasses, ca date November 2011...

[Christophe]

And the 3ieme is no longer a hypothesis ...

[izentrop]

ouppss
I started with the Futura article of the 13 / 11 / 2017 but which accumulates older texts.


You can delete messages

[Christophe]

Yes, it is on the verge of intellectual deception on the part of Futura Sciences to put these 2 info on the same page ... may be the will to make a false buzzz ???

No deletion of messages, that it serves us as lessons ... Note that I have had too