Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

That cloud of radiation story....

The fuel "rods" * are not reusable anyway, so there's not any need for them to be interchangeable.

* Fuel is arranged in "bundles" of thin "plates", not "rods".
I think in that case he's just talking about being able to buy standard fuel bundles commercially from several sources, rather than having special ones made for a particular reactor. The latter would I imagine be more expensive.

I'm not in the nuclear fuel business, but I understand that the fuel rod cladding material, formulating the fuel, and packing the fuel into them is a more complex task than it may appear to be at first sight. If the fuel isn't made right it can cause rather expensive problems with your reactor.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
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

Hallo noob - just joined Arrse yesterday I see?

And your very first post is on a thread which puts some vague blame on the Russian state for failing to look after their horrible nuclear legacy?

( Seconds after the usual rebutter-in-chief for the kleptocracy retires in dignified silence, having demonstrably lost the argument? )


S-o-o- - where did you serve then Steve? What was your cap-badge ?

And where did you gain your apparent in-depth knowledge of civilian nukular energy issues?
 

offog

LE
And where did you gain your apparent in-depth knowledge of civilian nukular energy issues?
His mate down the pub, he said that several posts ago, so a very indepth knowledge.

I note that now we are moving onto another Russian disaster and an in depth report form RT. I haven't the time to look at it now but will have a laugh when I get back.
 
(...)
- their control rods are not coated with graphite, but have graphite tubes attached to their ends.
- when the control rods are withdrawn, the graphite tube prevents water entering the channel that each control rod resides.
- for some reason (!) they had withdrawn the control rods beyond the design limit.
- this had allowed water to enter the control rod tubes.
- in this type of reactor, water acts as a moderator (something that slows down the nuclear reaction).
- when they pushed the control rods in, the graphite rods moved first, displacing the water (that should not have been there).
- it would appear that the graphite didn't have the same (any?) moderating effect as the displaced water, hence the reactor got hotter
- all the water turned to steam and the pressure was then so great that it blew the top off the reactor!
(...)
In a power reactor, a nuclear moderator is something that slows down the neutrons so they are more likely to react with the rest of the fuel.

Graphite is a very good moderator. Heavy water is a very good moderator. Normal "light" water is a so-so moderator. This is why graphite and heavy water reactors are able to use natural non-enriched uranium, while light water reactors must have their uranium fuel enriched before they can work. Now some types of graphite or heavy water moderated reactors may use enriched uranium, but that comes down to engineering trade offs, plus the degree of enrichment is normally much less.

In the case you have described the "light" water would have tamped down the reaction. When the graphite tips of the rods entered the reaction zone and displaced the light water, that would have boosted the reaction level very quickly. If I recall correctly, the reason the tips of the control rods were graphite was to allow them to sit in their guide channels while the reactor was in operating condition. This is a safety design measure to prevent them from hanging up and getting stuck.

When Chernobyl went off what caused the big mess was the huge mass of graphite burning in reaction with oxygen in a chemical reaction. The heat of this fire carried fuel particles high into the atmosphere where it was distributed over a wide area. These fuel particles contained a very broad spectrum of isotopes which were unmistakable as a power reactor accident.

The recent incident was that of a single very rare isotope. This is very distinct from what you would expect to see from a power reactor failure. There are only a few plausible sources for this, either something to do with medical isotope production, storage, or recycling, or a nuclear satellite re-entering.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
....success Steve!

For a civvy no mark Noob you've done quite well - successfully diverting the thread onto another track, even better - one that connects with a Kremlin mouthpiece media organisation.

Read this before you fall back on Russia Today as a reliable primary source for anything more than
' Russian Scientists successfully predict Sunrise, Pic P.3 '

The turning point is generally agreed to have occurred in 2008, when Russia provoked the Georgian government into an attempt to recover its lost province of Ossetia and promptly responded with an invasion and occupation of parts of Georgia. RT gave Putin cover with a jingoistic campaign that denounced the Georgians as genocidal. That campaign in turn now looks like a dry run for RT’s reporting and commentary on the Ukrainian crisis, which depicted the Kiev government as bloodthirsty neo-fascists intent on ethnic cleansing etc. — while depicting actual bloodthirsty neo-fascists (and Russian soldiers) in eastern Ukraine as peace-minded democrats.

If that were all, RT would be as ineffective as Radio Moscow used to be. Simple ideological abuse alerts people that they are being manipulated. But as Peter Pomerantsev explains in his forthcoming book on modern Russia, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, what makes RT more insidious is that it has most of the external features of legitimate western journalism:

The article goes on:

RT is an enthusiastic reporter of almost any protest against fracking anywhere, reflecting the interest of the Russian state and Gazprom in discouraging competition and keeping energy prices high. More generally, its underlying pose is that while Russia is far from perfect, the West as a whole is just as bad, and the US a great deal worse — the fountain of all bad things.


Free vodkas all round !
 
Last edited:
Well, SteveOmsk has slightly better skills than the drones who infest the KGB Resident account.

Still a "Russia didn't do nuffink, guv...it was really..." misdirection.
Next comes the "Yeah, but it might have been..." false alternatives.
Then the "But the Americans had a leak at Three Mile Island"... whataboutery.
 
Mr Goatman,
I came here in the first place to expand my knowledge of something that caught my interest, and I have. I didn't intend to irritate anyone by introducing a subversive element in the form of the RT story about what caused the Chernobyl disaster; I just thought it was sufficiently within the range of the topic and might be of interest.
Is the BBC a Palace of Westminster mouthpiece media organisation on a par with RT? I think most would agree that it is, or even better at it having had a lot more practice. We just have to be aware and check stories out as best we can to arrive at a conclusion that makes sense to us. Reporting on fracking for the reason you suggest doesn't quite hang together for me, but I probably don't know enough about it.
Anyway, thank you all for your input.

That's whataboutery.I quote
"Is the BBC a Palace of Westminster mouthpiece media organisation on a pat with RT.I think most would agree it is..."
I think most would agree it is NOTHING OF THE SORT.
BBC is state funded, but if it were a 'mouthpiece media' organisation like RT, most of their political reporters would have been murdered by deniable Chechens by now.
For all it's faults, the BBC is NOT a media agitprop facade for a gangster.
Nice try, tovarisch. 3/10.
 
Well, you could suggest a story from recent times where the BBC and RT have opposite opinions about what happened, and then try to find independent evidence and accounts of what really occurred, and compare what can be discovered in an effort to find the truth. I think you would have to start a new thread, but it sounds like an interesting challenge.
By the way, I want to thank terminal for his patience. When I re-read his posts he made the same point he reiterated for me in the early hours of this morning very early on in the thread. I just didn't have enough knowledge at the time to appreciate the points he was making.
From time to time we get conspiracy theorists on here who bang on incessantly about 9/11, the Royal Family, Muslims, the EU, gold, oil sales, etc. etc. We also get extreme left wing and right wing loonies who try to stir up sedition, revolution, or whatever their flavour of the day is. There's also a wind up artist known as Yars who get a special joy out of provoking people with short fuses such as Hector.

These people keep getting banned and coming back under a new user name. Some long time members of this site therefore get a bit suspicious when a new member starts posting controversial things that don't have a lot of evidence to support them.

Welcome to the site. There's a lot of people here with genuine knowledge about a lot of subjects. I would suggest stepping softly though while you're still the new boy unless you've got some pretty solid documentary evidence to support it.

My own opinion of the "radioactive cloud" story is that while the jury is still out on the exact source, it must be from a pretty narrow range of possibilities.
 
From time to time we get conspiracy theorists on here who bang on incessantly about 9/11, the Royal Family, Muslims, the EU, gold, oil sales, etc. etc. We also get extreme left wing and right wing loonies who try to stir up sedition, revolution, or whatever their flavour of the day is. There's also a wind up artist known as Yars who get a special joy out of provoking people with short fuses such as Hector.

These people keep getting banned and coming back under a new user name. Some long time members of this site therefore get a bit suspicious when a new member starts posting controversial things that don't have a lot of evidence to support them.

Welcome to the site. There's a lot of people here with genuine knowledge about a lot of subjects. I would suggest stepping softly though while you're still the new boy unless you've got some pretty solid documentary evidence to support it.

My own opinion of the "radioactive cloud" story is that while the jury is still out on the exact source, it must be from a pretty narrow range of possibilities.

Actually, I thought it was me lighting Yars fuse.
Eventually he runs off at the keyboard and gets ROPed.
I consider it a public service.
And quite fun, a bit like poking a Looney in Bedlam with a sharp stick.
 
Actually, I thought it was me lighting Yars fuse.
Eventually he runs off at the keyboard and gets ROPed.
I consider it a public service.
And quite fun, a bit like poking a Looney in Bedlam with a sharp stick.
So you see yourself as an agent provocateur then? I think your reaction is exactly what Yars is aiming for.
 

Powerbroker

Old-Salt
I got this from the Major Energy Users Council monthly newsletter: which is pretty well informed and monitors energy issues internationally:

* It emerged this month that in September, Russia’s meteorological agency had detected an extensive radiation cloud centred on the Mayak nuclear plant at Argayash to the east of Moscow, extending as far west as France. The cloud reportedly contains ‘exceptionally high’ levels of the radioactive isotope Ruthenium 106.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Have they got another iffy reactor...?

Have 5 house points for the well executed Hunt For The Red October reference.
 

NSP

LE
Have 5 house points for the well executed Hunt For The Red October reference.
I was thinking Chernobyl but what the heck?!
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer

offog

LE
That's whataboutery.I quote
"Is the BBC a Palace of Westminster mouthpiece media organisation on a pat with RT.I think most would agree it is..."
I think most would agree it is NOTHING OF THE SORT.
BBC is state funded, but if it were a 'mouthpiece media' organisation like RT, most of their political reporters would have been murdered by deniable Chechens by now.
For all it's faults, the BBC is NOT a media agitprop facade for a gangster.
Nice try, tovarisch. 3/10.
Having listened to the news today on R4 they had some block from the FT slagging off TM and then Kunsberg doing very similar ove todays Brexit news. That was followed by Trimble hinting that TM had sold NI down the river. As a mouthpiece of government the BBC are doing a very bad job and someone needs to follow the party line more closely. Or they could be a little independant.
 

offog

LE
Well, you could suggest a story from recent times where the BBC and RT have opposite opinions about what happened, and then try to find independent evidence and accounts of what really occurred, and compare what can be discovered in an effort to find the truth. I think you would have to start a new thread, but it sounds like an interesting challenge.
By the way, I want to thank terminal for his patience. When I re-read his posts he made the same point he reiterated for me in the early hours of this morning very early on in the thread. I just didn't have enough knowledge at the time to appreciate the points he was making.

MH17, simple.
 

offog

LE
Actually, I thought it was me lighting Yars fuse.
Eventually he runs off at the keyboard and gets ROPed.
I consider it a public service.
And quite fun, a bit like poking a Looney in Bedlam with a sharp stick.
I hope you paid your shilling.
 
Probably better here: Malaysia Airlines MH17 plane shot down in Ukraine

I doubt anyone would ignore it, just note its provenance and the previous lies, obfuscation (including supersonic hovering Frogfoot's) and disinformation that have come from the Kremlin, Russian troll farms and of course the 'useful idiots'
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top