Ask HN: Is depleted uranium being spread from the Khmelnitsky explosion? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is depleted uranium being spread from the Khmelnitsky explosion?

7 pointskavalg35 comments

On May 14 an ammo depot was destroyed in Khmelnitsky. There is a thesis (mainly propped in Russian telegram channels) that the UK DU ammo was kept in this warehouse. The evidence being presented, is an anomaly in the background radiation matching the event [1]. I am not an expert in the subject matter and would like to know your opinion about this, shall we be concerned and what can be done in case there is a real danger (e.g. avoiding going out for a while). Bulgarian people are very sensitive to the subject, due to the Chernobyl and the use of DU shells in the Serbia war.

Please, don't turn this into a political discussion, taking sides of Russia, Ukraine, UK etc. I am only interested in how to check the facts and what can be done to minimize health risks.

[1] - https://remap.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Advanced.aspx

View on HN

Probably not a lot to worry about:

https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_l...

The bulk of the readings around the city are sub 100 nSv/hr with a few 113 & 139 - nothing is significantly spiking post the explosion date.

Others have pointed out pragmatic reasons for not being concerned which appear sound, I'd point out that the point source "gross count" map doesn't raise alarms - and you'd really want decent gamma spectrum data in any case - not just total counts in some energy range, but a full channel by channel spectrum measurement showing peaks in uranium breakdown products [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_spectroscopy

No. Depleted uranium rounds have been used in previous conflicts. They exploded in those conflicts. There was no material radioactive impact of this. It’s also unlikely that the Russian claims are accurate. Russia is falsely playing up these things as nuclear weapons. They’re not.

If you’re concerned about radioactivity you can just look at your own link. The measurements of radiation are all that matters. Not some scary cause. As your link indicates, levels are fine.

> No. Depleted uranium rounds have been used in previous conflicts. They exploded in those conflicts. There was no material radioactive impact of this.

Oh yes ? Are you sure about that ?

https://thebulletin.org/2020/07/war-and-the-environment/

https://merip.org/1999/06/the-gulf-war-battlefield-still-hot...

Actually I am not that much concerned about (gamma) radioactive risks, but more about toxicity or DU. As far as I understand it, the latter comes from both uranium being a toxic metal and the alpha particles emitted from the dust in close proximity if inhaled or ingested.

You are very unlikely to see a material concentration of this stuff unless you’re very close to the site of the explosion. The risks, if any, come from people handling hunks of it like armor plating and bullets .

How about people on the receiving end? It is absolutely no secret that the use of DU ammo in Kosovo by NATO forces in 1999 led to an increase in the cancer rates of the civilian population, as well as some military units (most notably the Italian ones). It is no wonder either, DU is pyrophoric (i.e., burns on impact, spreading DU dust in the impact's environs) and should banned just as (even more than) cluster bombs and mines.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7197787/

This study from 2020 found an 89% increase, which is a large effect size, but it’s still just 1’s of people per 100,000 more getting cancers. It’s not a massive public health hazard. War is complicated.

Regardless the effects are highly localized. You’re fine if you’re not nearby.

I do not understand your ultimate point. Going by your line of reasoning, the utilization of nerve gas on the frontlines, chemical weapons and maybe even low-yield nuclear weapons should not be considered a big deal since they are all 'highly-localized' anyways, right?

It might all be 'highly-localized', but DU is there to stay in the ground virtually forever, until it is blow elsewhere by the wind of carried underground by rain, both of which are equally undesirable outcomes.

My ultimate point is that if you are in Bulgaria you have nothing to worry about from DU ammo in Ukraine. Which was the original question. I find your other points to be a straw man. Most banned weapons are about indiscriminate civilian killing or needlessly harming soldiers that would be already removed from the battlefield.

There’s no evidence that this stuff can blow elsewhere at concentrations sufficient to cause harm very far (maybe a couple dozen miles). Hence, “highly localized”.

Highly localized. Radiation in Poland be like

> The evidence being presented, is an anomaly in the background radiation matching the event [1].

Im not seeing any evidence of an anomaly?, do you have a link to one.

The EU radiation map site doesn't provide a link, but you can open the station with ID UA33429, which corresponds to Khmelnytskyi and see that the background radiation went from approx 100 nSv/h to 155 nSv/h. I can only look back to 10th of April and don't see a peak higher than approx 110 nSv/h, with the average hovering around 100.

Or check this video where he does just that https://youtu.be/sdrkvTPnuTw

I am not so worried about smallish spikes in gamma radiation but I think we should all be concerned about longer term impacts of small particles of DU scattered across large area, making it's way into food supply etc. It's sort of inevitable once you have a lot of it in-theater.

The data I am seeing from people suggests that the spike in radiation happened two days before the strike which totally discounts this idea.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwLHn8XWYAMnNt4?format=jpg&name=...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FwLJmZ8XoAknLBo?format=jpg&name=...

Right, thanks a lot for noticing this and for the links. Makes sense.

Buy a radiometer please rather than softcore spreading Russian propaganda here.

Not sure what "softcore" has to do with it, but the initial claim had been made by a former Azov member. It's a fair assumption to make that he is no Russia lover. From here [1]:

> Igor Mosiychuk, ex-Ukrainian member of parliament, ex-deputy commander of Azov, recorded a 4 minute video talking about the latest strikes in Khmelnitsky & Ternopol, he claims the depleted uranium theory is correct, recommends evacuating children far from the explosion sites

[1] https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1657822892342607874

RWA is a Russian propaganda account, that you quote it is telling. Either way a radiometer will give you an objective instrumental answer.

I know about the RWA, go by the screenshot, there's where the Azov guy is. They (the RWA guys) didn't photoshopped it. I don't have Telegram or whatever social media channel that Azov guy might have used to communicate his stuff.

> Either way a radiometer will give you an objective instrumental answer.

The moment the recorded radiations are too high is already too late, especially if you have kids, that's why we need to know about this type of things before the instrumental devices might show us that the radiation levels have crept up. So in that regard "get a geiger!" is of no practical use when it comes to protecting your closed ones.

"The moment the recorded radiations are too high is already too late, especially if you have kids, that's why we need to know about this type of things before the instrumental devices might show us that the radiation levels have crept up."

This is incorrect.

Radiation can be managed even after a nuclear strike and largely depends on proximity and subsequent weather patterns.

The half-life is short enough that sheltering indoors (preferably in a basement with taped windows) suffices for most scenarios.

In 1986 I lived in east of Belarus, downwind from Chernobyl. A radiometer is absolutely of practical use. You don't have to protect anyone if the radiation is background level.

If you feel that radiometer here would be an unjustified expense perhaps that indicates you aren't really taking this threat seriously yourself.

Again, what do you do if you see high radiation levels? You just pack up and leave on the spot? Where to? How do you know that the place you're moving to isn't also affected by the same levels of radiations? Communication by the powers that be is the key element here, this shouldn't be put on us, civilians.

Yes, I was also a kid back in April 1986 living in a country bordering present-day Ukraine (in Romania), and as destiny had it a close childhood friend of mine died of leukemia in the spring of 1990 and I know directly of at least another kid that died of the same cause in the late '80s.

If we are talking about DU dust cloud, maybe you could avoid going out for a while and doing intense physical activities. Also, avoiding freshly picked vegetables and resorting to packaged food for a while may help reduce exposure. AFAIK, most harm goes by inhaling the dust or eating it with contaminated food.

This man was expelled from Azov about a decade ago for being anti semetic and went to jail for a domestic terror plot. Do you think he is a credible source?

You are right. This is obvious propaganda with no value to HN. The two following sentences speak volumes about intention. For sentence 1 to be true, sentence 2 should not exist. If one was seeking truth, they would not yet be concerned with minimizing risks.

"Please, don't turn this into a political discussion, taking sides of Russia, Ukraine, UK etc. I am only interested in how to check the facts and what can be done to minimize health risks."

Mutually. Either stop being allergic to other nations point of views OR start from yourself by not posting strong political statements[1]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35454126

What's your problem with my assessment of authoritarianism in Belarus? I am Belarusian who was around when Lukashenka ascended to power. Certainly more entitled to my opinion on events in the former USSR than you are.

Either way as a week has passed it's fair to say I was right and you were wrong.

Depleted uranium is not stored in warehouses. It is stored as liquid UF₆ (uranium hexafluoride) in tanks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/30mm_DU_...

Doesn't look liquid to me

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

You are linking the wrong page. UF is also a solid, but it is soluble [0]. I do not have a source for his statement about deleted uranium being stored in this liquid form though, so still curious about that.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride

I'm linking the right page, depleted uranium ammunitions aren't made of UF at all

Nuclear engineer here. UF6 is solid at ambient temperature and pressure, though it is extremely voltatile and can be turned into a gas with ease. It is mainly used as an intermediary Uranium compound which has physical properties (first and foremost, being turned easily into a gas) that are very conducive to it enrichment. Once it is enriched though, it is turned through various other chemical processes into either various forms of ceramics (e.g. Uranium Oxides) or metal (e.g. pure Uranium metal). DU rounds are made of purely metallic Uranium and are, of course, stored that way too. There is no UF6 involved in the storage of DU rounds since... the rounds have already been fabricated out of metallic (depleted) Uranium.

Yes. Depleted uranium rounds have been used by NATO in previous conflicts: Serbia, Iraq, etc. It is radioactive and causes enormous harm.

Do you have a link that proves that any DU was even in that warehouse, far far behind the front line just before an offensive starts?.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com