Now that we have got that straight what about this radioactive cloud comming from poorly maintained Russian facilities.
No, Ukrainian governmental armed forces had a lot of BUK systems in the area if conflict. Kiev doesn't deny it. They could fire BUK missile mistakenly being sure that it was Russian plane....so you now accept that it was shot down by a BUK.
As no one else had them in the area at the time then it must have been done by Russian supported forces.
@offog initiated the discussion not related to the theme of the thread.Agreeing with yourself?
Changing the subject to other things you have been proven to lie about?
Business as usual, liar.
Please, ask your question on relevant threads.We're on a role, so you now accept that Russian government forces were involved in an invasion of Ukraine or were these Russian planes being piloted by Russian volunteers on holiday.
But it is relevant.
They could fire BUK missile mistakenly being sure that it was Russian plane.
Lies in politics? It is something that happens on daily basis in any country (maybe except Andorra).
Of course HM government never used lies. Highly esteemed mr.Blair never lied.
I propose to discuss the Ruthenioum-106 leakage issue.
Let first of all establish facts and only then discuss 'lies' issue.
I have nothing to add to my previous remarks.But it is relevant.
This is not about MH17, it is about your inability to accept fact. I am using the MH17 as a vehicle to point out that you are unable to accept fact from any other source that does not come out of RT or the like.
You will post absolute rubbish and portray them as facts to muddy the water or divert attention as you excellently portrayed in the MH17 thread. Your credibility is very poor due to you posting as fact that MH17 was shot down by an aircraft which could not reach that height or be fast enough to catch it and you then compounded that by saying, repeatedly, that no Russians were in Ukraine yet you just said,
So MH17 is relevant as it shows your inability to accept the truth and your practice of posting rubbish to back up what you say.
Come now, it is theoretically possible that time travel will happen. I think they did an experiment on Concorde flying between London and NY to prove it. So everything is possible, just not probable.Your "theoreticals" always have two things in common.
They are massively unlikely.
They deflect blame from Russia.
They are lies. You are a liar.
I believe there is also another location in Russia, which @KGB_resident mentioned, which unlike Mayak is in the area which the French estimated as the origin - south of the Urals and between there and the Volga. Kazakhstan also has historic nuclear facilities in that area, but there haven't been any reports of them doing anything in particular with ruthenium 106.Back on topic, there are relatively few places where Ru can come from. The main one is Chelyabinsk 65.
Now I don't pretend to know what Vlad's boys are doing there but I do know that Ru106 occurs as part of fuel reprocessing and that the main, if not the only plant in Russia that's doing that type of processing. I do, however, know that Chel65 is the Russian equivalent of Sellafield (but with more corrosion and a worse accident record) and that they do some very "interesting" [well interesting to me] stuff there.
Now, whether it was as a result of reprocessing or as a botched attempt to make Ru106 for medical purposes is, to some extent, irrelevant. I do feel that it means that someone, somewhere (postcode Chelyabinsk 65) has dropped a goolie.
I don't know of any other site in that area which could produce Ru106. The concern is that no-one is admitting responsibility, which means that the release was as a result of an "uncontrolled" event -- accident if you like. Which makes me suspicious that there is more sh!t waiting to happen.
That would be hard to say. The article spends a lot of time waffling about the issue saying that Westinghouse nuclear fuel is crap, without actually telling us just what is wrong with it. It's difficult to take it seriously with so little actual hard information.Do any of you think this might have some bearing on the situation? It seems the Americans have insisted that Ukraine replaces it's Russian fuel rods with incompatible ones supplied by Westinghouse, and that there are problems...
US Neglects the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants in Europe | New Eastern Outlook
Difficult to see how. Despite the fact that Ru-106 can only be created as a result of fission, and that the only realistic source is used fuel rods, this uncontrolled release is from a refined source.Do any of you think this might have some bearing on the situation?
The scientists are pretty sure it's not a leak from a power reactor. As @Joe_Private said, reactor leaks spew out a broad range of isotopes which are pretty distinctive, and a number of which are a lot more worrisome than ru 106. This one is strictly ru 106 and nothing else, which suggests it's either a leak from something that is very focused on that specific medical isotope, or it's from a nuclear powered satellite that re-entered the atmosphere. The latter (nuclear satellites) work on a different principle than commercial power reactors and most use very specialised and distinctive fuel based on rare isotopes.The reason I first looked into this is that I got into conversation with a chap who worked in the industry and told me how nuclear fuel rods are made. Also, that the UK had created it's own problems by using different fuel rods in its reactors, as the industry and scientific study has developed. .. the rods from the first nuclear power station in the UK are no use in the second, the second no use in the third, and so on. The rods are specialised to suit the reactor, apparently.
I was aware of the problem in Ukraine; that they lost their coal source in Donbas and that their very old nuclear power stations were working harder than ever, even though they are obsolete; plus the US is making them use incompatible fuel rods... so maybe I added 2 and 2 and got 5?
Also, if there was any real suspicion it could be pinned on Russia it would be, given the current political climate. So, if there is no fuss, maybe it's an ally? Not sure, which is why I posted in the first place. This is the only forum I could find where the subject is being discussed at all.
The fuel "rods" * are not reusable anyway, so there's not any need for them to be interchangeable.the rods from the first nuclear power station in the UK are no use in the second, the second no use in the third, and so on. The rods are specialised to suit the reactor, apparently.