
Andreev Bay nuclear accident of 1982 - shangxiao
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreev_Bay_nuclear_accident
======
a-b
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/fotoindex.html](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/fotoindex.html)

picked couple pictures to illustrate:

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms1b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms1b.jpg)

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms2b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms2b.jpg)

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms4b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms4b.jpg)

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms5b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms5b.jpg)

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms8b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms8b.jpg)
\- on this picture they are using concrete cube as a hammer to nail tubes with
radioactive materials into the hole

•
[http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms9b.jpg](http://andreeva.1gb.ru/foto%20albom/foto/nms9b.jpg)

------
QAPereo
Horrendous... each detail is more chilling than the last, culminating in the
immersion in the pool of those two poor bastards. Hell indeed! The USSR and
Russia had/have a horrendous safety record in all NBC domains, anthrax
releases, nuclear disasters, poisoning with Polonium.. it’s almost a bad joke.

Edit:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_al...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident)

Not to mention Chernobyl! Common themes are massive systemic fuckups and
attempts to cover up making it all worse. Even without NBC it’s the same
pattern, turning bad into worse.

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

~~~
ethbro
Underfunded mandates + constant military competition + PR-driven secrecy

It's worth remembering these were the other side of the "beat the Soviet Union
by making it economically unsustainable to maintain military parity" course
charted in the late 70s & 80s.

Ultimately a successful strategy, but cases like this (less so Chernobyl)
can't be ignored as a consequence.

~~~
Yetanfou
Rest assured, the Soviet government did not need any pressure from the outside
to create its own version of hell on earth. If you doubt this, just read the
Gulag Archipel (amongst others). The problems seen here do not relate to any
western policies, they stem from the ineptitude of the Soviet government and
pre-date any western attempt to topple the latter by "forcing" them to
increase military spending:

    
    
       "The repository was constructed in the early 1960s
        by construction brigade soldiers from central Asian
        and Caucasian republics. Many did not have professional
        construction training, and some could not speak the
        Russian language."

~~~
ethbro
If the accident was in 1982, I don't think attributing it solely to events at
its construction in the 1960s is fair.

Construction issues could have been recognize and addressed in any of the
intervening ~20 years.

And yes, chasing parity with the US did lead to unsustainable Soviet military
GDP allocations, ultimately empowering Gorbachev with an economically- rather
than ideologically-derived mandate and thus leading to the dissolution of the
Soviet Union.

It's a fair argument as to whether or not this was intentionally engineered,
but it's a fact that the Soviets spent roughly twice as much of their GDP on
their military, and that the Soviet Union eventually collapsed for economic
reasons.

Soviet military spending by year: [https://nintil.com/2016/05/31/the-soviet-
union-military-spen...](https://nintil.com/2016/05/31/the-soviet-union-
military-spending/)

Reallocation example under Gorbachev:
[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-
budg...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/31/world/soviet-military-
budget-128-billion-bombshell.html)

------
dTal
Two ancient-history Soviet nuclear accidents on the front page of HN in a
single day? Did I miss something?

~~~
chris_wot
No, I originally posted the first because I had just learned of it (and
mistitled it “Russia”, oops).

Perhaps that article jogged someone else’s memory?

------
dsfyu404ed
The article needs citations but it was a good read.

------
himlion
Can we put a [1982] in the title?

~~~
pvg
The article is not from 1982.

~~~
mcgarnagle
fallacy alert.

If an Article was titled "Obama for President [2017]" because the article was
written in 2017, it would be misleading because the article is about his
presidency in 2008.

If an article published this year about the holocaust was titled "6M Jews dead
[2017]," referencing the holocaust of world war 2, it would also be misleading
because is is also not about 2017.

Therefor, the ask for the year was to clarify people clicking in to the
wikipedia page, that it's not current world news...

Just because you reply with a truism, it doesn't make you correct.

~~~
DKnoll
> fallacy alert.

He posted a fact and made no arguments. It's impossible for that to be a
fallacy.

> If an Article was titled "Obama for President [2017]" because the article
> was written in 2017, it would be misleading because the article is about his
> presidency in 2008.

The inverse is true. It would be misleading to put '[2008]' in the title of
such an article because the perspective and facts in the article would be
totally different having been written in 2008 than in 2017. This is a great
case for putting the publication date in the title.

> If an article published this year about the holocaust was titled "6M Jews
> dead [2017]," referencing the holocaust of world war 2, it would also be
> misleading because is is also not about 2017.

That would be a terrible title for an article written in 2017... I'd argue
that's the fault of the author rather than the stylistic standard of including
the publication date in square brackets.

The way dang edited the title (adding 'of 1982') is ideal for this purpose but
unnecessary; the style of the original title made it clear that it's not a
news article.

P.S. Outside the academic world we would take it easy with the thesaurus and
just call it a fact, not a truism. ;)

~~~
mcgarnagle
I suppose implied arguments fly over your head?

Also, "truism," is an elementary school word. I suppose not in your zip code.

