Hacker News Reader

Comment by nuccy | Hacker News Reader

Russians came from Belarus and with their tanks disrupt the radioactive soil and create dust [1]. The internal systems and the reactors themselves are in nominal state without changes.

1. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-says-chernobyl-radia...

View on HN

The thing with radioactivity is: it may be invisible but it is luckily very well detectable. Gamma ray spectrometers are super sensitive but that does not mean the detected levels are actually posing a threat to humans.

nice of them to leave breadcrumbs everywhere.

It depends what you mean by radioactivity. There are particles that rarely ever interact with matter, like the neutrinos, and are virtually impossible to detect except in highly sensitive experimental conditions.

I think in the context of the conversations it's obvious that we're talking about the kinds of radiation that are dangerous to animals (including humans)

Sure. The nice thing with these particles is that they do not cause any health concern. Luckily, because we are constantly bombarded with billions of them.

What is relevant here is either alpha (stopped by a couple of cm of air), beta (stopped by a sheet of plastic, heavy clothing, or a couple of micrometers of metal) and gamma radiation. These are the radiations we measure to monitor fallout.

So, the Russian soldiers are all probably breathing this dust and their equipment will spread it to where ever they deploy in Ukraine? That doesn't sound good at all.

Considering that they're mostly just passing by, and that the levels are not really high, it won't be that bad.

I didn't do the math, but the radiation levels for driving past there, or staying there for a day or two, would probably be very low, and comparable to a lot of other stuff we do without thinking (plane rides, xrays etc.)

The problem with breathing the stuff is that it may stay with you for quite a while. This isn't the worst thing with gamma radiation since most radiation will just pass through the body, but beta or alpha radiation could be worrying if that's still present (I don't know if it is, but disturbing the ground in Chernobyl and breathing the resulting dust doesn't sound like the safest way to find out)

They are soldiers in an active war zone. They have far more serious and pressing concerns than a slightly elevated radiation dose.

They will breath the dust and get some internal radiation though. Not really a problem for the others if they move after that, but not very good for them.

One might argue that’s a price you pay when murdering innocent civilians in land that isn’t yours, no?

Yeah, but Putin's not the one breathing it - the foot soldiers are.

I am drawn to the words of Stephen Decatur.

"In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

I am sure there are many perspectives tonight with the same focus.

Perhaps it is a great impediment to what must be done for our species, but it is hard to let go.

Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing (really really against the current invasion/occupation) but from what we've seen around social media, it's not clear that the actual soldiers on the ground understand that they aren't "liberating" the Ukrainians from actual Nazis. They are fed misinformation on a daily basis and at least some of them see themselves as the "good guys".

It does not excuse anything really, but I wouldn't wish them pulmonary cancer.

Eh, the soldiers know... it's for "power", against nato, and to get a bit more of the land.

Look at every past conflict, every american soldier in iraq knew, that they were going in to get the oil, everything else was just propaganda for the taxpayers.

> Look at every past conflict, every american soldier in iraq knew, that they were going in to get the oil, everything else was just propaganda for the taxpayers.

What do folks exactly mean by "get the oil" because it certainly wasn't for domestic consumption. About 72% of US foreign oil comes from Canada and Mexico - mostly Canada. The rest, a broad smattering of countries without any meaningful concentration. Iraq accounts for only 3%. Considering the cost of the Iraq war was $2T that's a heck of a price to pay for just not that much oil. [1]

If America just wanted oil would it not go for the single largest proven reserves of oil on the entire planet, in Venezeula, and deposit some freedom there? The government there is equally hostile, and particularly unstable. In Civ parlance, the warmonger penalty would be low. [2]

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...

[2] https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-reserves-by-country/

Oil is fungible so increasing or decreasing the global supply still impacts US prices. This is because unlike say concrete US suppliers can easily ship oil to the France if people in France are willing to pay more than US consumers.

Now that doesn’t mean the second Iraq war was about oil, but it does explain why we care more about the Middle East than say Africa.

Iraq was a lot more about making Hussein pay for various personal bs, expending vast amounts of built up ordnance, and getting the next set of officers combat experience than oil.

I always assumed it was just Bush Jr settling the Bush Sr vendetta for having not finished the job in the first Iraq war.

That’s fine but the Iraqi government was already exporting their oil no?

There where sanctions between the first and second Iraq war, so somewhat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

Double checking and it does look like they increased after the war, though not to an extreme degree. Things had largely returned to normal by 2000. https://tradingeconomics.com/iraq/crude-oil-production

Yeah this war is to try to stop NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine. In a way, it may do that.

It’s just silly because countries have considered joining NATO because they don’t perceive Russia as a good friend, and in response, Russia doubles down as a bad friend.

Sounds like a significant-other who is paranoid, and then when you leave them because they are crazy, they use it to justify their paranoia and become a stalker.

Okay, not really a good analogy but sorta good

The Russians know. They are not stupid. Also, more than half of all of Russia's army has been concentrated along the border. There is no way they were thinking they were going to a picnic.

Roughly 50% of Americans believe what Trump says. They would have no difficulty to choose different media.

In Russia different media do not exist for the average citizen. I have no idea how many percent believe the official propaganda at least in its main message that NATO is threatening Russia. But it's probably significant. Even for those not believing it, saying so or actively acting against is dangerous.

Yeah, I realise after some reports today that I was over-estimating the organisation of the Russian army, and that they seem to be much more confused than the rest of their country. Unbelievable.

For further clarification this is NOT a war to stop NATO expansion as Ukraine was no where near that and it could have been stopped diplomatically. This is a war started by a dictator who has aims to restore the USSR before he kills over or is deposed in the next 10 to 15 years. This war is about nothing more than Putin's ego. Just for clarification.

The last thing Putin needs is another quagmire like Afghanistan in the 80s for the USSR, and the 2000s/2010s for the US. If anything he'd probably like to see Luhansk and Donetsk become globally recognized independent states. Ukraine is certainly strategic. Russia has recently INCREASED gas supplies through Ukraine even though they are at war. The idea that he's a madman looking to get the old commie band back together is kind of far-fetched. This is about money and influence, and specifically Nordstream2, which I imagine will go online sooner rather than later.

It's typical that troops are kept in the dark about mission details.

I think that's perfectly fair. In most of the West we may lament one-sided networks or echo chambers on & offline, but our access & awareness of alternative opinions seems much higher. Whereas Russian media outlets are much more constrained, and Russian misinformation try to poison the well by throwing out so many things that there's no way for the average person to easily sift through it all. Throw in few small kernels of truth and the fact that no one really want's to see themselves as villains & I can see how the misinformation may take root. Given a dozen narratives along with no choice but to follow orders in the military, why not latch on to the narrative that doesn't cast you as a villain?

Although it's a lot more difficult to defend & give such a benefit of the doubt to soldiers like the ones in the tank that went after & drove over a car [0 video 0]. Thankfully there's another video I came across showing a crowd of people dismantling & literally chiseling away at the wreck to save the person miraculously still alive. It's hard to describe the feeling when you see, in a single situation, the absolute worst and the absolute best of human nature.

[0 video] https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrainian-man-miraculously-sur...

> In most of the West we may lament one-sided networks or echo chambers on & offline, but our access & awareness of alternative opinions seems much higher.

This simply isn’t the case. We are fed gobs of nonsense on a constant basis. The American elite and American media are utterly shameless.

Did you notice Putin’s jab at the American elite’s claims that Iraq had WMDs? In his speech, he accused Ukraine of building WMDs. Obviously nobody actually believes that, including himself, but everybody also knows the West can’t question his accusation without only humiliating themselves. He was 100% reminding Western leaders how full of shit everybody knows them to be. And he was exactly right to do so.

Have you ever discussed politics with a Russian? As it happens, I did pair programming practice with a Russian peer 3 days ago and we discussed the conflict. She said she was surprised to meet an American with “some political sense.” She was more conscious of worldly affairs than almost any American I know. And she wrote a perfect BFS pathfinding algorithm in a handful of minutes.

This simply isn’t the case.

I heard prominent counter opinions over invading Iraq & WMD's in the lead up in 2003. An NPR interview with a retired Marine general at the time sticks out in my mind, and was very influential in my skepticism of the invasion. NPR is, in part, publicly funded by the US government. I don't think that any media funded by Russia is voicing similar skepticism over the Ukraine invasion.

Also don't ignore the matter of degrees. I'm not saying that media isn't influenced, that Western leaders don't attempt their own manipulation. I'm saying that Western media is at least a little (often a lot) more open than Russian media with respect to POV's that disagree with the "state".

By saying "this simply isn't the case" you are casting it as a black & white issue, when in reality it's all shades of gray. And if accurate information is the lighter side, then Western media is shifted towards lighter shades of gray than Russia.

I was countering a claim of Russian peoples’ awareness vs American peoples’ awareness. I can very confidently say that Americans, in the aggregate, are vastly more ignorant and unaware of any given political issue or how to responsibly think about any given political issue. The causes of that can be up for debate, but the difference is too stark to debate whether or not it is the case.

I'm not going to comment on American ignorance. My statement was in regards to access to information or the ability to speak/publish it without reprisal, specifically in comparison with Russia.

How people make use of that, or ignore it all together, are a separate topic.

Information access is has diminishing relevance in an attention economy.

That's actually an excellent point. I don't concede my overall argument that having access is still superior, even if rarely used (compare to this [0]) but your comment-- simply stated but deeply meaningful-- raises an important question: how much does the distinction between access & active suppression matter when other forces render the outcomes substantially similar? Trying to answer that with any substance is probably beyond the scope of a message board, so I won't try except to give my brief opinion that yes, the distinction still matters.

But thank you for revealing the question to me with such clarity.

[0] from the "live" log on WaPo, so I don't have a direct link to this entry: "MOSCOW — Russia’s tech and communications regulator launched a probe Saturday into 10 independent media outlets that have not parroted the Kremlin’s line on the invasion of Ukraine

> Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing [... apologism]

I live in the balkans...

The main sentiment here, especially amongst the older people is, "russia is strong enough, that they can do the stuff america has been doing for decades now", but due to media influences, it's not a "war for democracy" and "saving the locals", as the americans would paint eg. attacking afghanistan after a few saudis flew a few planes into a few buildings.

My personal and very contraversial opinion is, that every country that currently has soldiers as a part of an occupying force in any country, should just shut the fuck up, and clean up their own messes first.

Whataboutism isn't an argument and these are also false equivalencies.

Hundreds of thousands of us were out in the streets protesting when western countries attacked Iraq. Most of us are the same people angry about Russia in Ukraine.

Did it make a difference either time?

Yes, my country (Canada) did not participate in the invasion of Iraq. And in large part to the vociferous opposition and protests against it in the days leading up to the decision.

Glad to hear it! Here in the US, the ‘wag the dog’ was pretty obvious almost immediately (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but that didn’t stop anything), and the protests didn’t seem to do much either.

Difference is here we have more than two parties. The "centrist" Liberals are always in fear of losing voters to the left wing NDP, which is always anti-militarist. The size of the protests were indicative that a bunch of Liberal ridings would have been under threat if the Liberals had joined what was clearly going to be an unpopular war.

In the US, with only two parties to choose from, so-called "centrists" and "liberals" in the US almost all fell in line and nobody could do anything to punish them. "Who else are you going to vote for?"

Similar dynamic in the UK. Labour ("New Labour") was in power and supported the invasion for god knows what reason. Hugely unpopular move, but what were voters on the left going to do about it?

Whataboutery.

I have no compassion for the Russians invading Ukraine, it wouldn't be a terrible at all if they all keeled over dead in an instant due to Big Daddy In The Sky doing something right for once.

U ok, hun?

Being sent into war is also not very good for them. The radiation is probably the least of their worries.

They aren't just passing by. There's an ongoing fight for the control over this terrain. And, in the unlikely event of Russian troops retreating, I wouldn't put past Russia bombing it.

Considering the whole reason for this crisis is Russia's proximity to Ukraine, wouldn't that mean contamination spreading to Russia too?

Wind in this area is primarily a westward one.

There's an invasion on, nothing about it sounds good!

The danger is mostly for themselves. Bringing tiny amounts of dust with them is not a huge problem. However, having alpha emitters in your lung and intestines because you breathed, drank and ate in a contaminated environment is a death sentence.

Dose makes the poison. It’s very unlikely the amounts they’re getting will make any difference.

Alpha emitters in your body will kill you. Dose pretty much does not change that, only the time frame. Particularly if the dose is lodged next to cells that divide very quickly, like those lining the lungs and intestines (which have to renew frequently because of their role as barriers protecting the organism from a whole lot of bad things).

“Dose makes the poison” sounds good and is a good rule of thumb in most cases, but 1) it is not absolute, and 2) some things have an unbelievably small lethal dose.

Thanks for agreeing with me I guess?

Or do you have any concrete information that the risk to then is actually higher from this than catching a bullet (or a mine) from the Ukrainian army or resistance?

Because there definitely are already a lot more dead Russians from the Ukrainians than from radiation sources they exposed themselves to a part of this invasion.

Compared to the other things the soldiers will likely be doing, this sounds like an irrelevant problem.

Most wartime deaths are not combat deaths. Disease, dehydration, accidents, etc. have always been the greatest source of casualties.

Unless someone goes into the main containment building and starts licking things, this is unlikely to do much of anything.

Getting shot by Ukrainians however, is very real danger.

If they have any sense they'll be wearing NBC suits and filtering respirators.

They (or their leadership) may not have any sense.

According to https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/ukraine/chernobyl/histor... , there was light rain in Chernobyl since Thursday. This should reduce the dust hypothesis, no?

It depends on the particular isotopes, most aren't water soluble but some would precipitate out of the air on rain. So it's hard to say.

> Russians came from Belarus and with their tanks disrupt the radioactive soil and create dust

Dust from soil doesn't explain why the readings from sensors around the reactors themselves has been sharply increasing over the last couple of days:

- https://mobile.twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/149701116634159...

- https://www.saveecobot.com/en/radiation-maps

What are the environmental / health risks of this radioactive dust getting kicked up?

Unless there is a strong wind it likely will settle back, especially since it is a thick forest around the station.

I don’t know about where you live but here in Europe there have been storms warnings with pretty strong winds in the last week. Not a meteorologist and I have no idea how that would impact radioactive dust spread.

Are the prevailing winds are typically West to East?

According to https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/historyclimate/weathera... they're blowing from the West to the East so it's blowing from Europe towards Pripyat, so at least there is that.

But how likely is this? 39 years of weather and you drive for a few hours about and the dust from your vechicles raised the radiation levels? It’s winter now and I can’t imagine dust is raised so easily. Either the amount was not significant or something else happened.

It's wet soil, there is no dust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com