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."

23 of 543 comments (clear)

  1. Hardware? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think it's funny that this article is under the Hardware section. Maybe we could get Tom's Hardware to produce a 25-page full benchmark test of this nuclear explosion v. competing nuclear tests, and then we'll really get to the bottom of this.

  2. Halifax Explosion! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pfft, Canada does accidental explosions best: Halifax Explosion:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion Atleast 200kTons there...

    1. Re:Halifax Explosion! by nasor · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Halifax explosion was only around 2 kt, two orders of magnitude less than the 200 kt figure that you claim.

      Instead of very large accidental explosions, it might be a bit more topical to talk about known instances in the past where nations have deliberately simulated nuclear bombs with conventional explosives, like the 4 kt Minor Scale experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale_(explosio n)

    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. If North Korea says so... by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?

    This is more than an abstract question (like the famous "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there...").

    Saddam's Hussein downfall was (at least partially) brought about by his insinuating that he still has WMDs privately — to keep neighbors in fear, soldiers brave, and citizens proud, while claiming loudly, that he got rid of them all (which turned out to be true, after all)...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:If North Korea says so... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are we justified sanctioning and otherwise punishing it, even if it lied?

      Well, consider this: if someone comes to you and says "hey, I just crapped in your locker" without laughing, what do you do? either you punch him in the face rightaway for having crapped in your locker, or you don't believe him, look inside your locker, discover no turd, then turn around and punch him in the face for being a stupid asshole. Either way, you punch him in the face.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:If North Korea says so... by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even without WMD Iraq is no cakewalk (as we see in present day).

      The present-day insurgents weren't in Iraq until after we removed Saddam from power. He ran a run-of-the-mill dictatorship that used his religion (and that of most of his country) as a tool to control people, but he was no religious fanatic. He disliked the Taliban and the Bin Laden extremists almost as much as the U.S. does.

      Saddam's Iraq was a cakewalk. We "accomplished" that mission quickly, efficiently, and with minimal casualties on our side. Then, we started screwing almost everything up, and haven't stopped yet. We needed to create a stabler, more secure country faster, before zealots and extremists had time to enter the country and set up shop. Probably having more troops from a wider variety of allies would have helped tremendously, but that would have required us to earn more allies through discourse and compromise, something this administration is not able to do.

      Had we not entered Iraq, Saddam would have continued to do an adequate job of suppressing religious fanatics, and Iraq would not have become another Taliban country. (He would have continued suppressing his own people, too; he was still a dictator, murderer, and thug. I'm not denying that. But there are plenty of other murderous dictators in power around the world, some of which are our allies.) Overall, we've probably left the country in worse shape than if we'd just left it alone.

      We should have sent many, many more troops to Afghanistan (where we had internation support and justification for our invasion) to avoid the problems that country is having - resurgent Taliban because we didn't kill them all back then when they were in the open, and the country falling back into its longtime role as the world's opium supplier (something the Taliban had tried to suppress, but now profits from).

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:If North Korea says so... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, the sarin was not largely potent, it was degraded and no longer sarin at all.

      Bush claimed that Saddam had an active program and was continuing to stockpile. This is false, and continues to be false.

      The only WMD that have been found are the ones that nobody on earth doubted he had. That they were badly accounted for is also not in doubt, as it was all part of Saddam's suicidally stupid bluff. It was not a "stockpile" if it was not maintained, and hence claiming that he had WMD is incorrect if you accept that an impotent WMD is not a WMD.

      No relevent devices have been found to this day.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Isn't this like a fairy tale? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have nukes!

    No you don't

    Boom!

    That wasn't a nuke!

    Boom!

    Sorry, just don't believe you!

    Boom!

    No no.. never. That was just gas.

    errrr.

    Oh.. you used all your material and you are out now?

    (reminds me of puss and boots with the mouse).

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  5. C'mon by blang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How the hell would NK come up with some 500 fully loaded dump trucks worth of fertilizer, and dump it in a hole? It would be visible from the friggin moon.

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  6. 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.

    1. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Informative


      I find it very implausible that it could have "fizzled." It's a damn chain reaction - set it and forget it, as the saying goes.

      Then you need to learn a bit more about nuclear physics. Plutonium is a bit trickier to set off as a nuclear weapon do the fact that it can start a reaction before it's compressed down to the intended size. What happens is the chain reaction stops short of the intended yield because the ball of plutonium literally blows itself apart before you get enough generations of neutron reactions to yield enough energy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by partofthething · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We had a departmental meeting about this the other day where a bunch of nuclear engineering professors got together and discussed what they thought had happened. The concensus was that this was actually a nuclear device. Almost definately. The seismic signals are the giveaway, and here's why. When a pile of chemicals explodes, they explode on a timescale of the speed of sound. So, the seismic signal from the explosion would be on the order of micro- to milli-seconds. When a nuclear device explodes, it happens in the time it takes for fast neutrons (>200keV) to get across a few centimeters. Now we're talking about nanoseconds. The seismic people have enough experience looking at explosions to be able to tell chemical from nuclear, and this one apparently looks nuclear. It also looks to be 0.5kT or so. That makes it by far the smallest yield 1st test ever. Which either means they have perfected making small bombs (which is incredibly complicated and wasn't done by the Los Alamos people until 15 years after their first test), or they failed in their test. The latter is very likely. They've also wasted a lot of Pu-239 or U-235 (probably Pu) and contaminated their expensive underground test facility. Lets count the days together to see how long they take to test again. If it's quick, they have plenty of material. Only time will tell.

    3. Re:Chemical explosion, is my bet by AJWM · · Score: 4, Informative

      We had a departmental meeting about this the other day where a bunch of nuclear engineering professors got together and discussed what they thought had happened.

      You should have called in some mining engineers. Your analysis is a bit off.

      The speeds involved were close enough -- although the detonation of 500 tons of TNT takes about half a millisecond and given your energy for the neutrons that takes closer to a microsecond -- but either kind of explosion has to couple the energy to the rocks surrounding and propagate out from there as seismic waves for the seismic people to detect it. That coupling is going to be affected by the precise nature of the surrounding rock -- density, water content, etc. Without knowing that, it will be hard to tell the difference even with good seismic signals (or a much more powerful blast).

      There were only (as I recall) a few stations that even detected the blast, enough to triangulate it but not enough for really good signal data. Good enough to tell that it was an explosion rather than an earthquake, but not to determine the kind of explosion.

      --
      -- Alastair
  7. Re:Choreography! by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe all the North Koreans jumped up and down at the same time.

    Oddly enough, external microphones on the jet picked up something that sounded like singing... "I'm so wronery..."
    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  8. Re:In Other News by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the news is that there is still *no* confirmation. North Korea said they were going to test a nuclear bomb, there was an explosion, and AFAIK, they claimed success. However, we're a week out and we are still not sure.

    So yes, we should know by now, but we don't. This is news.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  9. Underground Nuclear Explosions by anshil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IANAE (I am not an expert), but underground nuclear explosions do usually not emmit radioactivity, at least at the moment.

    As far I understood an article I read some time ago, the gigantic heat of the explosion melts the surronding soil into a glass cave which conceils the radioactive mess.

    The problem is only after years of even decades, this glass sealing can (and at some point will) break and set the radioactivity free. Then the radiation levels will boost up... Thats another problem of humanity waiting we create now (our legacy for our kids).. all this sealed nuke-eggs from past underground expiriments loosing integrity at some future point.

    --

    --
    Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
  10. Especially since by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are using it as a point of blackmail. If you look at their rhetoric they are demanding that the world congratulate them on their successful test, saying that any sanctions will be an act of war (wtf?), and that how they proceed from here will depend on how nice people are to them.

    To run with your analogy this is like someone holding a gun to their child's head and demanding you give them money to not shoot their kid. Regardless of if it's a cap gun, the fact that they'd stoop to that level of blackmail means that they need to be stopped.

  11. Re:Choreography! by Y0tsuya · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wonder if Kim Jong Il has ever watched that movie.

    The Dear Leader watches everything. He is all-knowing. The Dear Leader was born on Mt. Paektu the Sacred Mountain. His birth was attended simultaneously by a double rainbow and a radiant star in the heavens. Surely that's a sign of Godhood. He is the light of our lives. We are blessed to have his benevolent gaze shining over our great nation.

  12. Re:In Other News by Lally+Singh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is really the best confirmation data we have. DPRK says they set off a nuke. Even if a nuke had fizzled, it would've been bigger than the 550T explosion the seismometers felt. From here, "A geology professor at Yale, Jeffrey Park, emails to tell me that the updated Richter magnitude for the North Korea event is 3.5, which he calls "mighty small for a crude nuke." And that's true: it suggests a very small yield. But the odd thing is that it's actually harder to build a 1 kiloton weapon than a 5 or 10 kiloton weapon, and it's unlikely North Korea has the expertise to do this."

    So, nobody's really sure what to believe right now, and eventually it'll just fall to consensus on the data we already have.

    The best place to hear about the debate's over at ArmsControlWonk. New radionucliotide data, insider info from some well-placed anonymous sources, and insights into the scientific cultures within dictatorships paints an interesting picture.

    --
    Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
  13. correction by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why, I bomb the locker for a few weeks and then send in 150,000 troops to the locker next to it. What else could I possible DO in a situation like this???"

    Fixed it.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. 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

  15. According to CNN, radiation has been detected by Deslock · · Score: 4, Informative

    U.S. intelligence statement: N. Korea radioactivity detected

    From http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/13/nkorea .test.sample/index.html

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

    The statement, from the office of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, was sent to Capitol Hill but not released publicly. CNN obtained it from a congressional source.

    If confirmed, the nuclear weapons test that North Korea claimed it conducted on Monday would be the first of its kind since Pakistan's underground blast in 1998.

    Pyongyang's claim has renewed fears of a regional arms race and that North Korea might aid terrorists with nuclear materials or technology.

    The national intelligence office statement said the air samples were collected Wednesday, and analysis found debris that would be consistent with a nuclear test "in the vicinity of Punggye" on Monday.

    "Additional analysis is ongoing and will be completed in a few days," the statement said.

    The South Korean Defense Ministry told CNN that the United States has informed it that radioactivity has been detected.

    The report is in contrast to information provided to CNN earlier Friday from two U.S. government officials with access to classified information. Those officials said that an initial air sampling over North Korea showed no indication of radioactive debris.

    The White House said it had no confirmation that the North Koreans conducted a nuclear test.

    "We've seen the various press reports," said National Security Council spokesman Fred Jones. "We still have no definitive statement on the event. The intelligence community continues to analyze the data."

    The U.S. Air Force flew a WC-135 Constant Phoenix atmospheric collection aircraft on Tuesday to collect air samples from the region.

    The intelligence community and the military will also continue to collect air samples in the region and use satellite information to try to collect radiological data that would confirm a nuclear test, officials said. But as time goes on, it will be increasingly difficult to achieve confirmation.

    Officials emphasized earlier Friday that the data collected are preliminary and provide no conclusive evidence about the North Korean event.

    It is possible there was no radiological data. That could be the case if: the North Koreans successfully sealed the site; it was such a small detonation and so deep underground there was no escape of nuclear debris; or the test was actually conventional explosives.

    The U.N. Security Council has agreed to vote Saturday on whether to impose sanctions on North Korea over the purported nuclear test, according to John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

    CNN's Suzanne Malveaux, Jamie McIntyre and Barbara Starr contributed to this report.