Reasons against a low yield nuclear test

[Ryan]

I'm seeing some technical, practical, and political reasons to think a low yield nuclear test did not occur.

The radiation lab results do not directly support it. Fission products include significant gamma in addition to beta. And alpha should be present, too. The lab only detected beta.

This itself isn't definitive proof. The report does not say how alpha and gamma were ruled out. The STS-6 Geiger tubes used for quantifying beta contamination on the clothing are completely insensitive to alpha. So that means the lab must have had some other type of detector that was alpha sensitive, but the report didn't name it. I don't know whether the lab likewise had a very sensitive gamma detector (like a scintillator) or not. This is important to know; it would give us a better idea of whether we can rule out a fission explosion, or if it is possible that the clothing did contain fission fallout that was above the detection threshold for beta but below the detection threshold for alpha and gamma.

Still, this is why I'm suggesting the incident was caused by conventional explosives spiked with Sr-90. It would explain the contamination without us needing to make any assumptions about the lab's equipment. A fission device could only be possible if the lab missed the gamma.

But the bigger reason I don't think a nuclear test was responsible for the incident was that the USSR had a moratorium on nuclear testing from November 1958 to September 1961. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty for more background.

Khrushchev had been lobbying since 1955 for a test ban. This makes a whole lot of sense from his perspective. The USSR's economy was weaker the US's, which would make matching the US's R&D efforts relatively more costly. One could view the USSR's ultimate collapse as stemming from the economic strain of the nuclear arms race and space race with the US, which supports the necessity of a test ban from a Soviet perspective. And it would have kept France and China from getting the bomb.

Eisenhower initially wasn't interested. There was concern that the Soviets would cheat. But an interesting point is that the US believed atmospheric tests as low as 1 kT could be detected reliably; one of the big technical sticking points was whether detecting underground tests reliably was possible.

Khruschev finally got what he wanted in November 1958, with the US, UK, and USSR agreeing to a voluntary testing moratorium. Had the moratorium held, I think we'd be in a very different place. For starters, I don't believe miniaturization of H-bombs was completed by then, so ICBMs with MIRVs would not have been possible.

I cannot see Khruschev taking the risk of cheating just 3 months into the moratorium, especially with something as easily detected as an atmospheric test. The stakes were too high. I believe getting caught cheating would have closed the door on future international cooperation around nuclear test bans.

Plenty of people in the US weren't happy with the test ban, either. I'm sure the US was watching the USSR for any violation that would enable the US to resume testing. And the US didn't catch any cheating, in spite of the motive, at least up until the USSR withdrew.

The USSR was doing the bulk of their nuclear testing in Kazakhstan and in the Barents Sea. Nuclear testing is not simple. It takes a lot of equipment and personnel. On one hand, if the USSR wanted to cheat, they probably would need to do so in an area different from these. But that would require relocating and setting up a lot of new infrastructure. And the military would need a lot of build up in the area to make sure the test area really is evacuated; having witnesses to it could lead to an international scandal. As was mentioned in a different thread, the area had indigenous people and other tourists, so I don't see it as a good place to do a test where absolute secrecy is essential. Meanwhile, such a military presence, plus setting up the testing infrastructure, likely would draw attention, which increases the risk of discovery.

Also, testing is typically done as part of a series. A test of a single very low yield device isn't going to produce much valuable information. And trying to pull off a series of such tests is going to increase the risk of getting caught.

I just think the risk vs. reward ratio is far too high for Khruschev to cheat by attempting a nuclear test in the Urals. The US never detected any cheating. And fission contamination would be possible only if the lab missed detecting the gamma that would have been present. Overall, it seems too unlikely.

Ultimately, the moratorium fell apart. France began conducting nuclear tests in February 1960. The Berlin Crisis happened between June and November of 1961. The USSR pulled out of the testing moratorium in September of 1961. This also enabled them to test the Tsar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 50 MT, in October 1961. The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962. In October 1963, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty went into effect, which mandated that all nuclear testing occur underground. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1974, which limited underground testing to 150 kT. Ultimately, the Soviet Union fell before the US finally stopped nuclear testing in 1992 as part of negotiations for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Of note, the US has not ratified this treaty and it has not formally entered into force, so nothing is stopping the US from resuming nuclear tests.

[Star man]

I think spiked device, dirty device or low yield are all credible.  I would not rule it out on politics.  It’s more reason to cover it up.

What gamma nuclides would you expect to be there after 3 months?

Regards
Star man

[Nigel Evans]

"I'm seeing some technical, practical, and political reasons to think a low yield nuclear test did not occur."I'd concur, it looks like a outlier theory imo. But what about a crashed rocket with an experimental fission powered satellite? Sputnik was 1957 and both 1 & 2 only lasted days before batteries ran out. The US was using plutonium (!!!) from 1961 https://www.space.com/12118-space-nuclear-power-50-years-transit-4a.html so the timeline fits for the theory. The NO2 theory accepts rocket fuel as a source...
The problem of course is that a crashed rocket is a big clean up job! 

[Star man]

If I had to bet on low yield device I would put 5:1 on it.  But you can’t rule it out without proper evidence.

Tree rings and soil core samples would provide a definitive test.

What is becoming clearer though is that we can’t ignore the radiation and dismiss it as not important.

Spiked device, dirty device or low yield look more likely now.

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

[sarapuk]

I'm seeing some technical, practical, and political reasons to think a low yield nuclear test did not occur.

The radiation lab results do not directly support it. Fission products include significant gamma in addition to beta. And alpha should be present, too. The lab only detected beta.

This itself isn't definitive proof. The report does not say how alpha and gamma were ruled out. The STS-6 Geiger tubes used for quantifying beta contamination on the clothing are completely insensitive to alpha. So that means the lab must have had some other type of detector that was alpha sensitive, but the report didn't name it. I don't know whether the lab likewise had a very sensitive gamma detector (like a scintillator) or not. This is important to know; it would give us a better idea of whether we can rule out a fission explosion, or if it is possible that the clothing did contain fission fallout that was above the detection threshold for beta but below the detection threshold for alpha and gamma.

Still, this is why I'm suggesting the incident was caused by conventional explosives spiked with Sr-90. It would explain the contamination without us needing to make any assumptions about the lab's equipment. A fission device could only be possible if the lab missed the gamma.

But the bigger reason I don't think a nuclear test was responsible for the incident was that the USSR had a moratorium on nuclear testing from November 1958 to September 1961. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Nuclear_Test_Ban_Treaty for more background.

Khrushchev had been lobbying since 1955 for a test ban. This makes a whole lot of sense from his perspective. The USSR's economy was weaker the US's, which would make matching the US's R&D efforts relatively more costly. One could view the USSR's ultimate collapse as stemming from the economic strain of the nuclear arms race and space race with the US, which supports the necessity of a test ban from a Soviet perspective. And it would have kept France and China from getting the bomb.

Eisenhower initially wasn't interested. There was concern that the Soviets would cheat. But an interesting point is that the US believed atmospheric tests as low as 1 kT could be detected reliably; one of the big technical sticking points was whether detecting underground tests reliably was possible.

Khruschev finally got what he wanted in November 1958, with the US, UK, and USSR agreeing to a voluntary testing moratorium. Had the moratorium held, I think we'd be in a very different place. For starters, I don't believe miniaturization of H-bombs was completed by then, so ICBMs with MIRVs would not have been possible.

I cannot see Khruschev taking the risk of cheating just 3 months into the moratorium, especially with something as easily detected as an atmospheric test. The stakes were too high. I believe getting caught cheating would have closed the door on future international cooperation around nuclear test bans.

Plenty of people in the US weren't happy with the test ban, either. I'm sure the US was watching the USSR for any violation that would enable the US to resume testing. And the US didn't catch any cheating, in spite of the motive, at least up until the USSR withdrew.

The USSR was doing the bulk of their nuclear testing in Kazakhstan and in the Barents Sea. Nuclear testing is not simple. It takes a lot of equipment and personnel. On one hand, if the USSR wanted to cheat, they probably would need to do so in an area different from these. But that would require relocating and setting up a lot of new infrastructure. And the military would need a lot of build up in the area to make sure the test area really is evacuated; having witnesses to it could lead to an international scandal. As was mentioned in a different thread, the area had indigenous people and other tourists, so I don't see it as a good place to do a test where absolute secrecy is essential. Meanwhile, such a military presence, plus setting up the testing infrastructure, likely would draw attention, which increases the risk of discovery.

Also, testing is typically done as part of a series. A test of a single very low yield device isn't going to produce much valuable information. And trying to pull off a series of such tests is going to increase the risk of getting caught.

I just think the risk vs. reward ratio is far too high for Khruschev to cheat by attempting a nuclear test in the Urals. The US never detected any cheating. And fission contamination would be possible only if the lab missed detecting the gamma that would have been present. Overall, it seems too unlikely.

Ultimately, the moratorium fell apart. France began conducting nuclear tests in February 1960. The Berlin Crisis happened between June and November of 1961. The USSR pulled out of the testing moratorium in September of 1961. This also enabled them to test the Tsar Bomba, the largest thermonuclear bomb with a yield of 50 MT, in October 1961. The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in October 1962. In October 1963, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty went into effect, which mandated that all nuclear testing occur underground. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1974, which limited underground testing to 150 kT. Ultimately, the Soviet Union fell before the US finally stopped nuclear testing in 1992 as part of negotiations for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Of note, the US has not ratified this treaty and it has not formally entered into force, so nothing is stopping the US from resuming nuclear tests.

There are many factors pointing to the unlikely hood of there being any kind of Nuclear Explosion involved in the demise of the Dyatlov Group. Not just the Radiation factor. An EXPLOSION is an EXPLOSION. You would expect to see many things as a result of such an event. Things that we dont see with what evidence or reports we have. Even the Radiation debate is now looking at something other than Radiation from any kind of weapon that exploded near by. Doubt can be raised about the reason why Lev Ivanov's Geiger Counter went crazy at the Tent Site. Maybe it went crazy because of some kind of ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE  !  ? 

[Puchiko]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

[Star man]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

Yes.  This was also my conclusion in my theory of the low yield tactical nuke.  A nuke detonated 1-2km up wind, results In a toxic cloud of fallout gases.  Also radioactive.  The explosion would not have caused any significant injuries at the tent.  The toxic gas cloud coupled with what they had seen and heard in terms of the explosion forces them to get away from the area.  The toxic cloud affected their breathing and leads to hypoxia and loss of consciousness, which in turn led to some of the significant injuries.  It may have been some other kind of device as Ryan has posted, but I don't think the injuries were a direct result of the explosion.

One thing that is becoming clearer though is that there was radioactive contamination of the hikers and possibly the area as a whole.

[sarapuk]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

The Nuclear Weapon theory has been discussed in other parts of the Forum. There is absolutely nothing that points to any kind of Nuclear Explosion that caused or led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.  In this Post you are suggesting that explosions some distance away scared them out of their Tent. Is that really feasible. I dont think so. Experienced out doors people are not going to abandon their refuge and put their lives at risk. Its been said many times and it appears to need repeating. They are not going to leave the Tent without proper clothing and equipment and walk a mile to their certain DEATH of exposure to the elements because they heard some explosions in the distance.

[Star man]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

The Nuclear Weapon theory has been discussed in other parts of the Forum. There is absolutely nothing that points to any kind of Nuclear Explosion that caused or led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.  In this Post you are suggesting that explosions some distance away scared them out of their Tent. Is that really feasible. I dont think so. Experienced out doors people are not going to abandon their refuge and put their lives at risk. Its been said many times and it appears to need repeating. They are not going to leave the Tent without proper clothing and equipment and walk a mile to their certain DEATH of exposure to the elements because they heard some explosions in the distance.

There is evidence that points toward some kind of nuclear device - the radioactive contamination + the fact they brought Geiger counters when investigations were ongoing.  There would be no physical evidence on the north east slope even if a device had exploded 1 to 2 km away.  Probably not even much around the point of detonation.

In the nuke theory I have presented I suggest that it is the fallout gases that drives the group away from the tent.

I would only give my own theory 5:1 odds.  However there is clear evidence of radioactive contamination and that IMO can’t be ignored or brushed off.

[sarapuk]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

The Nuclear Weapon theory has been discussed in other parts of the Forum. There is absolutely nothing that points to any kind of Nuclear Explosion that caused or led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.  In this Post you are suggesting that explosions some distance away scared them out of their Tent. Is that really feasible. I dont think so. Experienced out doors people are not going to abandon their refuge and put their lives at risk. Its been said many times and it appears to need repeating. They are not going to leave the Tent without proper clothing and equipment and walk a mile to their certain DEATH of exposure to the elements because they heard some explosions in the distance.

There is evidence that points toward some kind of nuclear device - the radioactive contamination + the fact they brought Geiger counters when investigations were ongoing.  There would be no physical evidence on the north east slope even if a device had exploded 1 to 2 km away.  Probably not even much around the point of detonation.

In the nuke theory I have presented I suggest that it is the fallout gases that drives the group away from the tent.

I would only give my own theory 5:1 odds.  However there is clear evidence of radioactive contamination and that IMO can’t be ignored or brushed off.

There is no real evidence that points to any particular theory. Just very vague information that may suggest this that or the other theories.  We have to assume a lot in the Dyatlov Case. And assumptions as they say, can be dangerous. We assume that Lev Ivanov had a Geiger Counter that went crazy around the Tent. We assume that others involved in the search also brought in Geiger Counters.  We assume that as a result of the Geiger Counters READOUTS it was decided to carry out further tests, on some of the bodies, at the Laboratories. We dont know why they only chose the Ravine 4 to carry out the tests on. As regards your theory and RADIATION FALLOUT GASES, the smell or taste affect would only be viable if a very large event had taken place, for instance as happened at CHERNOBYL. And no event of that scale happened in the area that the Dyatlov Group were hiking. And even if it had there would still have been time for them to get properly dressed and equipped.

[Star man]

Also the injuries are not consistent with a shock wave blast.  Would expect more significant secondary injuries and also evidence of damage to surrounding areas and trees.  Injuries are more consistent with a fall. But why and how would more than one person succumb to the same type of fall? Unless their cognitive processes were affected?

Disclaimer: I don't have a complex theory, but I am leaning towards some sort of military involvement.

I think that the bomb was what scared them from the tent, but wasn't necessarily responsible for all of the injuries. Group hears bombs detonating in the distance, planes flying overhead. They leave the tent in a shell shocked panic, perhaps not fully rational. Maybe the smoke, debris and fog from the bomb makes it to the pass and impairs their vision, maybe not. They head for the forest to hide from planes (or maybe just run like a frightened animal away from the noise). A toxic smog makes it over the mountain, the guys later found with edemas on their lungs start suffocating, the others try to climb up the cedar but fall, causing some weird injuries. They crawl to the ravine seeking shelter from the elements. Zina and Igor try to make it to the tent (maybe they thought  - rightly or wrongly that the danger had passed), but they die of exposure. Maybe there's a second explosion at some point and the shockwave causes some more weird injuries - but not necessarily.

What I'm trying to say is that the bomb need not have necessarily dropped directly on the site: in fact, the lack of damage to surroundings suggests it did not. Once they were confused and far from the tent, death was inevitable.

Ivanov later claimed some young pine trees at the edge of the forest had burn marks, this is often used to support "alien death ray" theories. It could also be some sign of a thermobaric bomb. But since it isn't documented at all, we can't draw conclusions from it.

The Nuclear Weapon theory has been discussed in other parts of the Forum. There is absolutely nothing that points to any kind of Nuclear Explosion that caused or led to the demise of the Dyatlov Group.  In this Post you are suggesting that explosions some distance away scared them out of their Tent. Is that really feasible. I dont think so. Experienced out doors people are not going to abandon their refuge and put their lives at risk. Its been said many times and it appears to need repeating. They are not going to leave the Tent without proper clothing and equipment and walk a mile to their certain DEATH of exposure to the elements because they heard some explosions in the distance.

There is evidence that points toward some kind of nuclear device - the radioactive contamination + the fact they brought Geiger counters when investigations were ongoing.  There would be no physical evidence on the north east slope even if a device had exploded 1 to 2 km away.  Probably not even much around the point of detonation.

In the nuke theory I have presented I suggest that it is the fallout gases that drives the group away from the tent.

I would only give my own theory 5:1 odds.  However there is clear evidence of radioactive contamination and that IMO can’t be ignored or brushed off.

There is no real evidence that points to any particular theory. Just very vague information that may suggest this that or the other theories.  We have to assume a lot in the Dyatlov Case. And assumptions as they say, can be dangerous. We assume that Lev Ivanov had a Geiger Counter that went crazy around the Tent. We assume that others involved in the search also brought in Geiger Counters.  We assume that as a result of the Geiger Counters READOUTS it was decided to carry out further tests, on some of the bodies, at the Laboratories. We dont know why they only chose the Ravine 4 to carry out the tests on. As regards your theory and RADIATION FALLOUT GASES, the smell or taste affect would only be viable if a very large event had taken place, for instance as happened at CHERNOBYL. And no event of that scale happened in the area that the Dyatlov Group were hiking. And even if it had there would still have been time for them to get properly dressed and equipped.

The Geiger counter information for the tent is speculative.  But it seems that the contamination of the clothes shows that all four hikers in the ravine were contaminated above background and this is after 3 months of potential washing in the steam.  The contamination was not confined to the clothes of Krivonischenko or Kolevatov and according to Ryan above that expected for nuclear workers.  Ryan’s analysis seems sound to me.  So given the lack of evidence for the DPI I don’t think this should be overlooked

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

Regards
Star man

[Ryan]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

[Star man]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Ryan,

I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?

Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres.  Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests.  The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground.  I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size.  If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it.  Have a read of my thread.  Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.

Regards

Star man

[sarapuk]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Good point about the Nitrogen Dioxide. There is nothing that I have come across that mentions Nitrogen Dioxide, in Nuclear Explosions, as being of such a strength as to cause injuries to people. We certainly know about the usual affects of such explosions.

[sarapuk]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Ryan,

I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?

Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres.  Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests.  The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground.  I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size.  If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it.  Have a read of my thread.  Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.



Regards

Star man

I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon  !  ?  And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.

[Star man]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Ryan,

I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?

Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres.  Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests.  The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground.  I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size.  If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it.  Have a read of my thread.  Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.



Regards

Star man

I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon  !  ?  And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.

1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage

We don't really know what was found at the tent.  Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away.  It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed.  Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in.  The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.

[sarapuk]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Ryan,

I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?

Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres.  Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests.  The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground.  I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size.  If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it.  Have a read of my thread.  Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.



Regards

Star man

I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon  !  ?  And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.

1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage

We don't really know what was found at the tent.  Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away.  It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed.  Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in.  The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.

Its interesting discussing this aspect of the mystery. As you probably know there is much controversy even today about the exact effects of the explosions of Nuclear Weapons. Even reliable scientific sources can differ a fair bit with one another. And the exact extent and effect of FALLOUT is probably the biggest talking point. One thing I have noticed is that many sources are far to pessimistic about the AMOUNT of Radiation that Nuclear Weapons give off once they have exploded. By pessimistic I mean that they are of the opinion that HUGE AMOUNTS of deadly Radioactive Particles are given off and travel hundreds of miles and cause instant death ETC ETC. Not even the CHERNOBYL disaster caused that sort of EVENT. So you see where Iam coming from  !  ? 

[Star man]

In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.

I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.

Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.

I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.

My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.

Ryan,

I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?

Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres.  Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests.  The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground.  I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size.  If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it.  Have a read of my thread.  Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.



Regards

Star man

I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon  !  ?  And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.

1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage

We don't really know what was found at the tent.  Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away.  It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed.  Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in.  The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.

Its interesting discussing this aspect of the mystery. As you probably know there is much controversy even today about the exact effects of the explosions of Nuclear Weapons. Even reliable scientific sources can differ a fair bit with one another. And the exact extent and effect of FALLOUT is probably the biggest talking point. One thing I have noticed is that many sources are far to pessimistic about the AMOUNT of Radiation that Nuclear Weapons give off once they have exploded. By pessimistic I mean that they are of the opinion that HUGE AMOUNTS of deadly Radioactive Particles are given off and travel hundreds of miles and cause instant death ETC ETC. Not even the CHERNOBYL disaster caused that sort of EVENT. So you see where Iam coming from  !  ?

Yes, there are many people who don't really understand.  Most of the deadly radiation is within the first few hours.  If I remember correctly, the intensity of radiation is 60 times lower even after the first hour.  It's still dangerous but relatively safe after 2 weeks.

90% of radiation is carried away at the top of the mushroom cloud for smaller yields.

Also a few kilotonnes exploded as an air burst is not that much.  The chelyabinsk meteorite exploded with force of 33 Hiroshima's at altitude of 18k but on the ground it only managed to break a few windows and shake things up a bit.  Could have been a completely different story if it was 10 miles lower of course.