Slashdot Mirror


North Korea Air Sample Shows Radiation

Apocalypse111 writes, "According to CNN.com, air samples taken over North Korea have not yet shown any radiation from the event on Monday that North Korea claims was a nuclear test. This is not definitive proof that the event was non-nuclear, as it may either have been so small and deep that it did not let any radioactive debris escape, or perhaps the North Koreans sealed the site." Furthering speculation over whether North Korea has actually exploded a nuclear device, vk38 writes to point out a (free) article in today's Wall Street Journal claiming that the blast could have been set off by exploding fertilizer (ammonium nitrate). The article points to the Texas City disaster of 1947, in which 7,700 tons of ammonium nitrate exploded in the hold of a ship with the estimated power of 2 to 4 kilotons of TNT.
Update: 10/14 08:03 GMT by Z : The story at CNN has been updated: "A preliminary analysis of air samples from North Korea shows 'radioactive debris consistent with a North Korea nuclear test,' according to a statement from the office of the top U.S. intelligence official."

3 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. Chemical explosion, is my bet by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not so hard to pile up ten thousand tons of conventional explosive, and as discussed in the previous thread on the test itself there is some value in convincing your neighbors that you have nuclear weapons regardless of whether you actually have them.

    The revised seismic figures were (if I recall right) something like 0.5 kT equivalent. The smallest easy-to-build bombs (those that have supercritical assemblies without hyper-compression of the metal) yield something like 10-30 kT, so this was either a fizzled nuke or a large pile of ANFO (or something like that).

    In the last discussion I made a big deal about the Kamioka observatory and how they "should" have been able to see neutrinos from the blast -- but with an 0.5kT blast the number of neutrino interactions is only 1 or 2, so they can't be expected to distinguish a large chemical explosion from a very small fizzled nuclear explosion.

  2. Re:Halifax Explosion! by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was a larger deliberate explosion in Canada: the explosion of Ripple Rock, off Vancouver Island in 1958. It used 1,375 tons of explosives.

    I have seen the Ripple Rock explosion characterized as the "largest man-made non-nuclear explosion ever" or the "largest peacetime man-made non-nuclear explosion ever."

    You can watch the CBC footage here.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  3. Re:Of course they don't by Kagura · · Score: 5, Informative

    UPDATE ON THIS STORY AS OF 8:30PM EASTERN:

    US has evidence of radioactivity from North Korea