Meteorite Causes Illness in Peru 357
eldavojohn writes "A meteorite struck in Peru on Saturday leaving cinders, rock & water boiling out of the ground. Villagers nearby reported headaches & vomiting and attributed it to the event. From the article, 'Seven policemen who went to check on the reports also became ill and had to be given oxygen before being hospitalized, Lopez said. Rescue teams and experts were dispatched to the scene, where the meteorite left a 100-foot-wide (30-meter-wide) and 20-foot-deep (six-meter-deep) crater, said local official Marco Limache.' It's not yet clear whether this is from the meteorite, gas trapped underground that was released or a chemical reaction between the two."
Re:(Almost) Useless without pics (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article/0,,2171920,00.html [guardian.co.uk]
Photo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:(Almost) Useless without pics (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:3, Informative)
nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, let's refute your specious points one by one.
The Chernobyl reactor that failed was not built to not melt down - and it was being operated outside of its designed normal operating envelope which is what actually caused the catastrophic failure. Hell, the thing didn't even have a containment vessel.
The Space Shuttle Challenger didn't initiate the explosion, the solid rocket boosters did, which was because they were being used at too cold of an environmental temperature and, against warnings from the manufacturer, the shuttle was launched anyway (human error once again, but not in the design, in the use of the machine in question).
The Tacoma Narrows bridge apparently was not designed not to collapse - the designer failed to factor in the high wind speeds in the Tacoma Narrows and the resulting resonant effect on the structure into the bridge design.
In other words, your post is a bunch of pointless fear mongering along the lines of "humans can't do anything right". That is complete and utter nonsense - humans design things that work in extreme circumstances all the time. You might as well have said "Won't somebody think of the children!?!?".
Perhaps Nickel Vapour (Score:5, Informative)
If the meteorite was of Iron/Nickel composition there's a good chance a fair amount of nickel was boiled off and carried into the area, possibly some produced by the head of the impact and blast.
Please see: Toxicity Summary for NICKEL AND NICKEL COMPOUNDS [ornl.gov]
Re:Andromeda Strain!!! or not... (Score:5, Informative)
No, sorry. That's horrendously incorrect. There have only been a handful of missions that used RTGs as power sources. Most satellites rely on Solar Power and batteries to operate. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear materials are EXPENSIVE. Far too expensive for anyone other than NASA to use. And NASA only uses them for very specific missions where no other option is feasible. (For example, while the current rovers have a few grains of plutonium to keep the joints from freezing on Mars, they are still powered by solar panels. The follow-up mission was supposed to use RTGs to provide a longer-lasting robot, but that's being reevaluated in light of the longevity of Spirit and Opportunity.)
Wikipedia has a list of RTGs and their missions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#RTG_models [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fungus is among us (Score:2, Informative)
Reuters video might help (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Andromeda Strain!!! or not... (Score:5, Informative)
There is an exception to this rule though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Use [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT [wikipedia.org]
Spreading misinformation (Score:1, Informative)
Given the amount of information we have to go on from the articles, there is little chance this is ARS. More information may come to light later, but for now I think it's premature to try to blame radiation.
Re:Bridge failure (Score:5, Informative)
Before you re-write history, check the news reports of the day. It wasn't a very windy day. The bridge was stable at much higher winds. The moderate wind and the direction was just right to produce a resonant feedback. It wasn't high winds that too the bridge down. It was steady mild wind that kept putting more motion into a resonant system.
References;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bridge/meetsusp.html [pbs.org]
At the time it opened for traffic in 1940, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was the third longest suspension bridge in the world. It was promptly nicknamed "Galloping Gertie," due to its behavior in wind. Not only did the deck sway sideways, but vertical undulations also appeared in quite moderate winds. Drivers of cars reported that vehicles ahead of them would completely disappear and reappear from view several times as they crossed the bridge. Attempts were made to stabilize the structure with cables and hydraulic buffers, but they were unsuccessful. On November 7, 1940, only four months after it opened, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed in a wind of 42 mph--even though the structure was designed to withstand winds of up to 120 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Narrows_Bridge [wikipedia.org]
The wind-induced collapse occurred on November 7, 1940 at 11:00 AM(Pacific time), due partially to a physical phenomenon known as mechanical resonance. [4]
And for sake of balance here is a modern study stating it wasn't resonance but instead a negative feedback;
http://www.ketchum.org/wind.html [ketchum.org]
" . . . in many undergraduate physics texts the (1940 Tacoma Narrows bridge) disaster is presented as an example of elementary forced resonance . . . Engineers, on the other hand, have studied the phenomenon . . . and their current understanding differs fundamentally from the viewpoint expressed in most physics texts. In the present article the engineers' viewpoint is presented . . . It is then demonstrated that the ultimate failure of the bridge was in fact related to an aerodynamically induced condition of self-excitation or "negative damping" . . . This paper emphasizes the fact that. physically as well as mathematically, forced resonance and self- excitation are fundamentally different phenomena.
The one common thread in all the above is it was not a high wind that took the bridge down. It was the feedback pumping energy into the motion.
Re:what makes you think its cold? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds Like Commander Data's Work (Score:5, Informative)
Galloping Gertie (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the winds were moderate when the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed.
It could be said that the bridge was designed to collapse, but not intentionally. The designers failed to take in to account the effect of resonance. From the wikipedia article here:
The winds were considered moderate for the day 40-42mph, however they were steady allowing the destructive resonance to build. The bridge was considered strong enough to withstand hurricane force winds. It was not the strength of the wind but the design of the bridge that led to the collapse.
Re:Andromeda Strain!!! or not... (Score:2, Informative)
So while I don't know much about plutonium, satellites or vomit-inducing meteors, but after the fuss NASA made about the plutonium-carrying Galileo, it sounds like satellites (even satellites of distant planets) carrying plutonium are the exception rather than the rule.
Plain dirt isn't healthy (Score:5, Informative)
Worse if it hits a guano site, town dump or septic landfarm.
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:3, Informative)
Note that "lower dose" in this context is 50-100 REM within a short period. Which is a LOT of radiation to be emitted from a SNAP reactor. I don't think anything in orbit has a reactor large enough to do that these days.
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:4, Informative)
I'm no expert on Chernobyl, but I thought the test actually required low power. In fact, when they started the test, they slowed the reactor down so much that they were worried about accidental shutdown and subsequent startup procedure. So, to get things going again, they ended up bringing out too many control rods (more than the allowed limit) -- this, of course, got the reaction going too quickly which caused the coolant to steam and explode.
Maybe not. (Score:3, Informative)
Or maybe not. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obligatory Revelation Quote (Score:1, Informative)
'Chornobyl' (note spelling) refers to mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris).
The wormwood and revelations story is more interesting though, so it has become truthy.
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:5, Informative)
The soviet union deliberately compromised safety for military advantage, and yes it was a known bad design.
"The test in question was meant to determine how much power could be extracted from a nuclear plant in meltdown."
Not exactly - the test initially conducted was an extreme low power test, where the reactor was being run at such a low level it didn't provide enough power to run all the feedback systems designed to control the reactor itself. Extra power to run control systems was supposed to come from outside sources. A reactor near meltdown under some configurations may be producing much less power than usual and so this test had applicability to some meltdown research, but this particular design, in weapons production mode, would also have greatly reduced spare power for control in normal operation, so this test was probably to confirm the military applications of Chernobyl 4.
Here's a link to Gordon Prather's page, which is a good explanation for the non-technical. Note Dr. Prather's credentials at the bottom if you think he's just some guy spouting off.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=20062 [worldnetdaily.com]
Re:nonsense (Score:3, Informative)
Yes the RSO position is one of great responsibility. But I have no doubt that they would do what must be done and the crews do understand his position.
Re:Plutonium thermal generators (Score:3, Informative)
Wiki is your friend. I won't even try to summarize, just read the article. It's an interesting study in the confluence of poor design choices, poor training, and bad luck.
Re:Perhaps Nickel Vapour (Score:3, Informative)
Pic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Galloping Gertie (Score:2, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Scientist Confirms Meteorite is a Chondrite (Score:2, Informative)
Volcanologist for Peru's Geological, Mining and Metallurgical Institute (INGEMMET), Luisa Macedo, confirmed that a chondrite meteorite had caused the 17 meter (55 foot) wide and 5 meter (16 foot) deep crater when it landed on earth.
http://www.livinginperu.com/news-4730-environmentnature-scientist-confirms-meteorite-in-puno-peru-is-a-chondrite [livinginperu.com]
Re:Perhaps Nickel Vapour (Score:2, Informative)