Monday, December 19, 2005
Big Trouble In The Former Soviet
Two stories over the weekend. One story, as told by MSNBC
and Pravda
involves an explosion at a scrap metal recovery smelter next door to the nuke power plant that is the primary supplier of electricity to St.Petersburg. Smelting requires enormous amounts of electricity, so it makes sense to locate it close to a power plant and avoid trasnmission losses, but a nuke plant of Chernobyl design?
Neither article is clear as to the cause of the incident, but such things usually result from the introduction of highly volatile materials in large quanitities (like water?) into the molten metal mass, resulting in explosive vaporization.
The other story is in Chechnya
What do these stories have in common? The haphazard and lackadasical standards of the Soviet Union in its construction and use of nuclear materials. The fact of the matter is the Sovs were in such a rush to be a nuclear power, both in weapons and peaceful uses that they never took the time to do it right. The result is nuclear pollution, or potential pollution on scales unimaginable elsewhere in the world.
Most of this by the way is not in Russia, but is in other states too poor to properly deal with it, particularly now that they no longer have the resources of the Soviet state. They also all have higher priorities because the danger is not immediate. To date, what efforts to help that have been made have often ended up in the pockets of corrupt locals.
If the UN wants a useful project, unlikily, but let's pretend, this would be a good one. They could begin by creating a catalog of nuclear sites in the former Soviet and rate them in accordance with current and potential future hazard levels. Believe it or not, there are places known to be worse than Chernobyl. There are, by the way, some private agencies trying to do this but, to date, their effect has been minimal.
and Pravda
involves an explosion at a scrap metal recovery smelter next door to the nuke power plant that is the primary supplier of electricity to St.Petersburg. Smelting requires enormous amounts of electricity, so it makes sense to locate it close to a power plant and avoid trasnmission losses, but a nuke plant of Chernobyl design?
Neither article is clear as to the cause of the incident, but such things usually result from the introduction of highly volatile materials in large quanitities (like water?) into the molten metal mass, resulting in explosive vaporization.
The other story is in Chechnya
Prosecutors in Chechnya have opened a criminal investigation after finding "catastrophic" levels of radioactivity at a chemical factory in the republic.In this case, the release appears to be the result of bombing during fighting in the area, and the criminal investigation is because of the potential theft of the materials for use by terrorists in dirty bombs. Not a pretty picture, is it.
What do these stories have in common? The haphazard and lackadasical standards of the Soviet Union in its construction and use of nuclear materials. The fact of the matter is the Sovs were in such a rush to be a nuclear power, both in weapons and peaceful uses that they never took the time to do it right. The result is nuclear pollution, or potential pollution on scales unimaginable elsewhere in the world.
Most of this by the way is not in Russia, but is in other states too poor to properly deal with it, particularly now that they no longer have the resources of the Soviet state. They also all have higher priorities because the danger is not immediate. To date, what efforts to help that have been made have often ended up in the pockets of corrupt locals.
If the UN wants a useful project, unlikily, but let's pretend, this would be a good one. They could begin by creating a catalog of nuclear sites in the former Soviet and rate them in accordance with current and potential future hazard levels. Believe it or not, there are places known to be worse than Chernobyl. There are, by the way, some private agencies trying to do this but, to date, their effect has been minimal.