
Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic? - bootload
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7758/has-there-been-a-nuclear-incident-in-the-arctic
======
chris_overseas
I travelled on a (non-nuclear) icebreaker out from Murmansk back in 2012. On
the way out to the open ocean we passed several moored nuclear powered
icebreakers and other vessels in various states of decay[0]. It was both
fascinating and disturbing to see - many of these had not yet been
decommissioned and it seemed to me that they were huge disasters waiting to
happen.

In Murmansk itself there is a nuclear icebreaker (The Lenin) that has been
decommissioned and converted into a museum where you can tour the vessel and
see everything including the engine rooms and nuclear reactors. Despite it
being decommissioned, I discovered some systems were clearly still functioning
when I accidentally leaned on a random control panel and a bunch of lights lit
up!

Photos from the trip are here[1], with the first seven photos being taken of
or onboard the Lenin.

Note that one of the most powerful nuclear icebreakers in the world, The 50
Years of Victory, is available for tourists to travel to the North Pole[2]

[0]
[http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/lar...](http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/content/bin/images/large/AH5A5916.jpg)

[1]
[http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/index.html](http://www.redyeti.net/FranzJosefLand/index.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Let_Pobedy)

~~~
pratyushag2
These are incredible pictures. What kind of camera did you use to click these?

~~~
coldtea
> _What kind of camera did you use to click these?_

This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it?

(Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain
capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of
which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same
results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the
pictures shown, any modern compact or even smartphone will do just as well).

~~~
Tepix
The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain
characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as
the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using:

* very low noise

* very shallow DOF

* long bursts of rapid images

* weather proofing (including cold)

* improved dynamic range

* high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality)

There are also other improvements such as better autofocus.

Which means, no a $300 camera will not be good enough for some of these shots.

PS: I use a MFT camera myself and it's good enough for my needs.

~~~
neom
As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say
that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for
example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the
50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens,
none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras
either. These are all shot on a MkII but they could just a well have been shot
on a 300D: [https://500px.com/john](https://500px.com/john)

~~~
sjwright
A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a _full frame equivalent_ focal
length of 80mm and a _full frame equivalent_ aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the
characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens.

In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable
performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.

~~~
coldtea
> _A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal
> length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f /1.9 — giving it
> the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens._

Only as it pertains to DOF. On the other hand, it will still be a 1.2 lens as
far as light gathering is concerned.

And you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C.

The loss of DOF we know, but you still so much DOF latitude on APS-C that you
can do pretty much anything. Besides, that 50mm will become a quite handy
portrait lens on APS-C.

~~~
sjwright
> you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C

According to DxOMark[1][2], the $1400 Canon 35mm f/1.4 on an APS-C body is
comparable to a Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM on full frame and stopped down to f/2.4.

[1] [https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-
EF-35mm-F14L-USM-...](https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-
EF-35mm-F14L-USM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__977)

[2] [https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-
EF-50mm-F18-STM-m...](https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/Canon-
EF-50mm-F18-STM-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__795)

------
exabrial
I do have to complement the authors of this article. It presents the facts and
leaves out political rhetoric and noise. I'm pleased with the title too; if
the article were featured on a mainstream news site in the USA, it would have
declared it as a definitive event and give a list of what products to buy from
their advertisers.

~~~
matt4077
I feel this vilification of the media is far overblown.

Specifically: I cannot imagine that a quality news site (say the NY Times,
Atlantic, or WSJ) would not mention such uncertainty.

More easily provable: I challenge you to find a single article of about a
disaster that includes unwarranted product recommendations (i. e. not
"authorities are asking citizen to stock water and other necessities in
preparation for the hurricane...")

I'd also like to point out that the "mainstream media" is doing an excellent
job regarding these reports: not reporting on them. By now, they have
certainly seen these reports. The excitement that grips HN and your comment
speak to the fact that it would make for excellent clickbait. But there's
nothing anywhere.

On the other end of the spectrum, there's alarmist clickbait with "nuclear
incident" in quotes that make it appear as a euphemism for a meltdown
(otherwise it'd just be a nuclear incident), posted in a series called "The
War Zone".

Here are some other issues I find with the article. It's splitting hairs in a
way, but I wish people had a bit of an appreciation for the work of
professional journalists and editors:

\- The article is tagged "nukes" and "atmospheric testing" when it's almost
certainly not a nuclear test. Because that would be stupid. And it would have
been picked up by seismographs.

\- "Because of the low levels of concentration, there is no health risk to the
public or the environment, at least on a wide scale." This leaves open the
possibility of smaller-scale health hazards, falsely sensationalising the
available data. OTOH, "Levels of concentration" is a phrase capable of
inflicting some serious health effects among english language teachers.

\- "The highly unique aircraft are specifically designed to respond to nuclear
incidents—especially those that include the detonation of nuclear warheads."
There is so much wrong with this sentence:

    
    
      - There's only one WC-135, so the plural is wrong.
    
      - Everything that's "designed to..." is "specifically designed to..."  
    
      - Which "nuclear incident that involves the detonation of nuclear warheads" is not described more succinctly as "the detonation of (a) nuclear warhead(s)"?
    
      - The latter half of the sentence seems designed to fuel speculation 
    

\- "What are WC-135s doing up there?" There's still only one of these in
existence (the plural form is used another 4 or 5 times).

\- "There has been some talk about even the US restarting its nuclear testing
under President Trump..." If this is speculation mixed with hyperbole, do not
bring it up! Any mention, no matter how dismissive, just serves to legitimise
such speculation. In this case the best argument against it isn't even
mentioned: you don't set up a nuclear test in 3 weeks.

\- " The Russian submarine K-27 [...] is said to be literally a ticking time
bomb." If the evil media conspiracy saves me from such uses of the word
"literally", I think I'm ok with their control of my thoughts.

~~~
omnius19
I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific
incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn
every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal
opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the
media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical
and informed consumer of the news, but don't contribute to the discrediting of
the fourth estate without good reason.

Edit: I made this comment before the parent added a bunch of, mostly
grammatical, complaints about the article. I agree with other posters that
those are mostly superficial.

~~~
rtx
People lost faith in media after their support for Iraq war. I haven't seen
anything from them which shows they are trying to improve.

~~~
mfukar
You say "media" as if it's a singular entity. It is not. It encompasses Fox
News (which I don't watch but I gather is a cesspool), The London Review of
Books, Vogue, Infowars, YouTube, etc. A set of _competing_ companies. Not all
of them support or supported (the Iraq) war. Like so many others that refer to
"the media" in the same way, I have to ask:

Are you sure you're not falling into the trap of "I didn't see it, so it
doesn't exist"?

~~~
xupybd
The "media" has a major problem. Its main driver is its entertainment value.
News is more entertaining when sensationalised and heavily biased. I don't
think there is a conspiracy or negligence causing this. Just simple economic
drivers. It's the same thing we see with fast food. Yeah it's bad, but it's
exactly what the market demands.

~~~
mfukar
Despite what anyone will claim, good journalism still exists. I am not going
to discuss obviously false generalisations.

~~~
xupybd
Good journalism still exists, yes I couldn't agree more. But I don't think
it's rewarded as much as poor journalism. This is the problem.

~~~
EdHominem
I think that's precisely the trump issue... "Reality" TV costs peanuts and
gets more views, even if everything in it is staged.

~~~
xupybd
Yeah politics has had this issue for a while too.

------
patcheudor
It's interesting the author mentioned the nuclear generators and whatnot used
in lighthouses and for small portable power generation. Those use strontium-90
and other byproducts of nastier energetic fissions which if my amateur nuclear
physics brain is functioning correctly don't produce iodine-131. Iodine-131 is
a byproduct of uranium-235/238 decay & fission. Since practical fusion doesn't
yet exist, iodine-131 can only come from more energetic reactions like
U235/238 fission. It's hard to imagine Russia left fissionable uranium
abandoned, even in the Arctic.

~~~
xelxebar
Kind of off topic, but mind sharing how you molded such an amateur nuclear
physics brain?

~~~
cperciva
I suspect he was being sarcastic. The fact that a 90 amu atom doesn't yield
131 amu atoms when it decays doesn't require you to know about anything beyond
conservation of mass.

~~~
twic
There are plenty of people whose nuclear physics isn't even up to that, so i
think it was a reasonable question, even if the answer is "i paid attention in
physics at high school and remembered it"!

------
advisedwang
The discussion of waste and derelict reactors should probably be ignored given
the earlier statement that the presence of I-131 means fission took place in
the last few days.

As the article states, nuclear explosions are unlikely as we would be hearing
about seismic measurements too like in the case of N. Korean detonations.

My bet is on a small accident on a nuclear vessel or another small reactor
around Europe (e.g. university research reactors).

~~~
wallace_f
Asking for clarification: could the nuclear reactors of atomic submarines
carrying nuclear warheads not conceivably release I-131?

~~~
ctrlrsf
Nuclear reactor on the sub, yes. Nuclear warhead, no, unless there was a
detonation.

~~~
cperciva
You could get I-131 from a warhead fizzling. I don't know exactly how weak a
fizzle it would need to be in order to escape seismic detection and whether
that would be large enough to produce the measured amount of I-131 though.

~~~
cocoablazing
If a warhead fizzled, it would have destroyed the submarine carrying it, which
would have detonated hundreds of tons of rocket fuel and the rest of the
explosives on board. We would have known about the explosion the same way we
did the Kursk.

~~~
VLM
Why does it have to fizzle aboard the sub?

Whoops launched the nuclear torpedo instead of the training torpedo good thing
the self destruct routine is an intentional near zero yield fizzle. My guess
is the board and court martial would so classified we wouldn't hear about it
for a century.

~~~
Kadin
That would be a very strange design choice, to have the warhead self-destruct
in that way. I don't know how much is really around in the open literature on
ex-Soviet / Russian nuclear torpedoes, but certainly there's nothing around to
suggest that US nuclear weapons do that, for a variety of good reasons, and I
don't think there's any reason to suspect that the Russians designed theirs
much differently. Off the top of my head: first, most nuclear weapons don't
have a self-destruct or recall capability once launched, because that's a
vulnerability during actual use; two, if it were launched unarmed, then the
expected result would be a failure of the actual detonation system, leaving an
intact weapon somewhere at the bottom of the ocean; third, a fizzle of a
nuclear weapon underwater would probably cause a substantial amount of
contamination from the fissile materials; it would basically be a (very)
"dirty bomb", and difficult to hide. We'd see significant long-lived fissile
contamination in the water either already or very shortly.

The much more likely explanation is that a reactor, either onboard a ship or
submarine or on shore, had some sort of (probably minor, in the sense of "not
catastrophic") mishap and vented steam from a primary cooling loop. You would
expect to see short-lived byproducts including Iodine-131 in this case. There
have been a number of similar accidents over time, and a release of steam
wouldn't necessarily have any other signs and it might be tempting to cover up
if it occurred at sea.

Relevant FAS/LANL background on iodine releases from nuclear reactors:
[https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416674.pdf](https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416674.pdf)

------
mikeash
A rare example where the answer to the headline's questions is not "no,"
although neither is it "yes."

~~~
drharby
WOW I'm impressed.

I literally never open headlines with rhetorical questions because the rule of
thumb for media headlines is that the answer is always 'no'

~~~
aisofteng
That principle is encoded as Betteridge's Law of Headlines:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines)

------
tradersam
Somewhat related, the WC-135 Constant Phoenix is one cool looking plane.

~~~
stuckagain
It's a Boeing 707, essentially.

~~~
dingaling
Only in general shape. Dimensions, internal systems and even the type and
gauge of aluminium were different between the C-135 and 707; Boeing had to go
back to the drawing board when Douglas started cutting metal on the DC-8, and
the redesign process for the 707 led to a cascade of changes.

About 20% of systems and components were common ( such as the cockpit windows
).

~~~
notatoad
the shape is probably what's being discussed when the parent says it's "a
really cool looking plane" though.

------
bootload
update on this article ~
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676570](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13676570)

------
jefe_
Really shows the size and capability of U.S.A.F. when they have a plane and
team they can casually deploy to what appears to be a highly specific
situation. The article says the aircraft is specifically designed to use
atmospheric data to determine cause and nature of nuclear incidents. Imagining
the manpower and testing and everything that goes into designing and
implementing a system like this, and then multiplying it by all of the other
teams and special aircraft and systems at their disposal, it really is
impressive. All done over a period of 70 years.

~~~
njharman
Considering nuclear warfare has been there primary mission for 60+ years, I'm
not impressed.

~~~
captainlego
And the insane size of our military's budget...

------
mmaunder
Could be a satellite reentry. It's not unprecedented.

In 1978, Soviet satellite Kosmos 954 crashed into the atmosphere and spread
50kg's of Uranium across western Canada. They only recovered 1% of the fuel.
One of the pieces recovered was radioactive enough to kill a person in a few
hours.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954)

~~~
westbywest
Comment made in other threads is that this particular isotope of iodine is
very short-lived (8 days) and a known product of uranium and plutonium
fission. So, its source is assumed to be recent fission event, or medical
radiotherapy generation. Any unrecovered material from defunct satellites
probably no longer undergoing active fission.

------
prdonahue
Came here just to say if you're interested in this type of material, highly
recommend following Tyler Rogoway. He was the heart and soul of Foxtrot Alpha
before Thiel torpedoed Gawker.

------
acd
There is a lot of Nuclear waste left from the cold war.
[https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9504/950406.PDF](https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1995/9504/950406.PDF)

The US version of what can happen is documented in the movie Command and
control. When a service engineer accidentally drops a wrench that rips up a
fuel rift in a missile.
[http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/](http://www.commandandcontrolfilm.com/)

We should cooperate in trade and peace as that is a better strategy for all
according to game theory.

------
dsfyu404ed
Pretty good article.

I'm betting on Russian scrap yard accident. I'm sure the CIA knows what's
really up.

------
bahularora
Recently a small blast occurred in Flamanville station in France.

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-
nuclea...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-nuclear-
power-plant-explosion-latest-injured-flamanville-la-manche-normandy-accident-
fire-a7570876.html)

~~~
alexeckermann
> Authorities said there was "no nuclear risk" following the blast in
> Flamanville shortly before 10am local time (9am GMT) on Thursday.

> Officials said the blast took place in the turbine hall and confirmed there
> was no radioactive leak.

------
lexsys
Iodine-131 is used in cancer treatment so there may be a leak from
pharmaceutical company. [0]

The similar case was observed in 2011 when the some I-131 isotopes leaked from
the laboratory in Budapest. [1]

[0]: [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nobody-is-sure-
wh...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nobody-is-sure-what-caused-
a-mysterious-radiation-spike-across-europe)

[1]:
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172312)

------
mmaunder
Mystery solved.

[http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_European_iodine_mystery...](http://www.world-nuclear-
news.org/RS_European_iodine_mystery_solved_1711112.html)

~~~
205guy
That's the incident from 2011, and the article has a clear dateline.

------
droopybuns
This is the nuclear version of "who farted?"

------
dll
Many European countries share radiological monitoring data with each other,
and this is made available to the public through the Joint Research Council:
[https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu/](https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu/)

I'm not sure if it's possible to get historical data, but if so it could be
interesting to have a look at data from January.

~~~
puzzlingcaptcha
There are also communities of hobbyists that track radioactivity with custom
or home-brew stations. While less sophisticated in what they measure they can
be an another point of reference. One of the oldest around is
[http://radioactiveathome.org/map/](http://radioactiveathome.org/map/) another
is [http://www.uradmonitor.com/](http://www.uradmonitor.com/)

------
anovikov
I-131 can be only a consequence of recent nuclear reaction taking place.
Sudden criticality and explosion of an old submaride won't produce enough of
that - while will release whole lot of other isotopes, so no one would mention
iodine. It can be little but a reactor meltdown or a nuclear explosion (while
that must have seismic signature hard to not mention)

------
anovikov
The quoted levels are unimaginably small! Almost invisible. I wonder how they
manage to detect them. Just calculated that if whole of the Earth's atmosphere
was filled with I-131 with maximum reported concentration (0.5E-6bq/m3), it
would be an amount of iodine that is produced with a nuclear explosion of
0.00024kt, i.e. 240kg TNT equivalent. That is so small that it hardly
qualifies as a nuclear explosion - more like 'critical assembly accident'.

And YES, this could be explained by a disposed nuclear reactor of an old
submarine suddenly going prompt critical and blowing up! In the split second
when it explodes it could release that and even much larger amount of iodine.
I just couldn't imagine that levels so low are detectable.

It could be also an explosion on non-disposed, fresh nuclear reactor. That can
explain lack of other detectable isotopes. And that is an event too small to
produce a detectable seismic signature.

------
Tepix
What equipment does it take to take these kinds of detailed readings (iodine
131)?

I've considered running a simple DIY geiger counter RadMon monitoring kit
([https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/gk-
radmon](https://sites.google.com/site/diygeigercounter/gk-radmon) ) however
that would only give me CPM and µSv/h.

~~~
cocoablazing
You need a concentrating system and a spectroscopic radiation measurement
system to produce a signal with sufficient SNR.

------
jnsaff2
Obligatory Omega Tau Podcast episode if you you want to understand how these
things get measured and what kind of data is available.

[http://omegataupodcast.net/185-nuclear-test-monitoring-
and-t...](http://omegataupodcast.net/185-nuclear-test-monitoring-and-the-
ctbt/)

------
arisAlexis
I read that particulate vs gaseous iodine can only come from detonation. can
anybody comment on that?

------
edem
So what are the Russians planning in the Arctic? The article hints on it but
does not explain it.

~~~
keithpeter
Probably resource exploitation, trying to manage the nuclear waste and a bit
of sabre rattling.

[http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content...](http://www.geopoliticsnorth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=153:russias-
arctic-strategy-ambitions-and-constraints&catid=35&Itemid=103)

------
rodionos
[http://www.feerc.ru/RadiationMonitoring/](http://www.feerc.ru/RadiationMonitoring/)
\- gamma ray parameter shows all green at Feb-20 13:00 GMT.

------
cocoablazing
This could also be leakage from peaceful isotopic production operations, which
are and will be a persistent source of false positives for the global iodine
detection system.

------
julienchastang
On the general subject of the Arctic, I would recommend the book Arctic Dreams
by Barry Lopez.

------
dewiz
It could also be that something came to air due to the continued melting of
polar ice

------
eldiablochetan
What's going on with the trace amounts of uranium across EU

------
MR4D
Didn't a Russian ship catch fire some months ago and travel through the
English Channel?

Seems to me that if it affected the nuclear aspect of the ship, it could
pollute the water, and also flow into some of the major rivers of Europe.

~~~
hydrogen18
How would that work? Does the Atlantic ocean flow into the rivers of Europe?

~~~
wallace_f
Barring yet-undiscovered, below-sea-level anti-gravity rivers, perhaps through
wildlife migration?

------
Findeton
Can it be Fukushima? From what I read there has been a recent incident in
another reactor in Fukushima.

------
tomxor
Watchout, this site is a disgrace... maxes out my CPU, it's just text for fuck
sake what are they doing bitcoin mining in javascript?

~~~
tomxor
Tracked it down to a fucking "typingAnimationFrame" function, woot... lets
melt peoples computers because we can't write efficient basic animations.

~~~
hyperdunc
Maybe the site developer isn't very good. Why don't you send them an email
telling them how they can fix it?

~~~
jnbiche
So provide them with expert advice for free? Do you think lawyers get this
urge?

~~~
throwanem
Lawyers don't decline to give legal advice for free just because they want
paying, although they do, and fair enough. Law is a highly complex and
recondite field, and a solid answer on any but the most trivial question
requires nontrivial research to identify with confidence.

Lawyers also have a professional guild to which to answer, and if they say
something offhand which turns out to be erroneous in a way that brings someone
to grief, their guild will not be pleased with them.

In fairness, I probably wouldn't take the time here either; on the one hand, I
block ads anyway and so don't have such problems, and on the other, I tend
only to do that when it's to my own direct benefit that the issue be fixed,
and broken ads on a site I'll visit once ever don't meet that test - when
Postmates screws up their UI and I have to stub out some analytics functions
to place an order, they get an email; here, I'd just add the site to my JS
blacklist, reload, read, and go on about my day.

~~~
RugnirViking
'A highly complex and recondite field, and a solid answer on any but the most
trivial question requires nontrivial research to identify with confidence.'

So very much like the problem identified here then?

I agree with your sentiment though.

~~~
throwanem
No, the problem identified here is utterly trivial by comparison.

------
ebcode
> Even the US left its own portion of nuclear waste in the northern latitudes,
> such as the once secret reactor at Camp Century, in Greenland, although this
> is minuscule compared to what the Soviets left behind.

The pro-US bias in this article is strong. It appears to be more of the same
wardrum-beating, anti-Russian propaganda that took hold of the mainstream
media towards the end of the US election.

On one hand, Russia does appear to have adopted a more aggressive military
stance, especially with regards to Crimea and The Ukraine.

On the other hand, the present military stance of the US looks not unlike the
full-tilt, batshit-crazy world domination plans of Germany during World War
II.

It appears obvious to me that our current US military leaders are not above
conducting false-flag operations for the purpose of gaining public support for
foreign aggression, and it would not surprise me if they were responsible for
this release of Iodine-131.

After all, they've done it before:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Run](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Run)

~~~
BEEdwards
Or you know, the USSR's collapse literally left a lot of nuclear material odd
places.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-
race-f...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/world/asia/a-secret-race-for-
abandoned-nuclear-material.html)

Not everything is a realpolitik double blind.

~~~
hexane360
And also generally released a lot more radiation than the US:
[https://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-
contam...](https://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-contaminates-
you/) (ignore the bad title)

