Twitter

They took part in an ecumenical service in the cathedral of Digne les Bains that morning and then drove to the small parish of Le Vernet. There is a communal grave there in which the remains were buried that could no longer be assigned to any of the victims. At the grammar school in Haltern, all 1,100 students interrupted classes and gathered in the schoolyard in front of a memorial.

Instead, a small group of silent remembrance: At the time of the crash at 10.41 a.m., a bouquet of flowers was laid in the Le Vernet cemetery. The mayors of the municipalities of Le Vernet and Prads Haute-Bléone, in whose area the crash site is located, are present, apart from them because of the exit restrictions in France only five or six other people.

In Haltern, too, only a few come to the memorial at the school, including some parents. They lay down white roses and light a candle. At the time of the crash, they stand silently in a large semicircle with a lot of distance from each other and look at the steel plate from which the names of their children have been cut out. The bells ring all over Haltern for five minutes. "You can tell how difficult it is today not to be allowed to commemorate the deceased children with the other parents"says school principal Ulrich Wessel shortly afterwards.

The Prime Minister and the Ministry of Education have sent mourning bands. The city of Haltern had a wreath set up in the forest cemetery. For the evening the population was called to put a candle as "Light of remembrance" to put in the window. Then 18 candles should also be burning in the windows of the school.

Experts have been measuring radioactive material in Germany for weeks. It clearly comes from Russia. The physicist Gerald Kirchner explains how dangerous Eastern European nuclear facilities are. And why he is worried about the behavior of the Russian authorities.

An interview by Marc von Lüpke

t-online.de: Professor Kirchner, winds have been driving radioactive ruthenium-106 to us in Central Europe for weeks. Russia has now been identified as the source. How reliable is this assumption?

Gerald Kirchner: The source can be clearly identified using relatively complex calculations. In principle, atmospheric air flows are mathematically allowed to run backwards. Whether this radioactive material was detected in Germany, Scandinavia or also in the Balkans: All calculations repeatedly point to the southern corner of the Urals.

What could have happened there?

It is clear that there must have been an accident there that was accompanied by a massive build-up of heat. Otherwise this ruthenium-106 would not have reached higher air layers in such concentrations that it would have been transported over thousands of kilometers to us in Central Europe. In this fire, we can assume a massive fire with central temperatures of 800 to 1000 degrees Celsius – only then will the ruthenium-106 be released in vapor form and in the determined particle forms.to kill a mockingbird essay

Radiation source: Distribution path of radioactive ruthenium-106 (source: t-online)

Why didn’t the Russian authorities warn neighboring countries about the radiation?

I would like to briefly remind you of the catastrophic accident in Chernobyl in 1986. At the time, I myself was involved in the measurements in Germany and the radiological risk assessments. For us scientists it was one of the worst at that time that we did not receive any information about what was going on in the Soviet Union. The then Soviet government officially informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) only three months later that there had been a serious reactor accident. One consequence was that practically all countries that operate a nuclear power plant acceded to a convention: In the event of an incident at a nuclear facility, they must provide the IAEA with detailed information on the course of the accident and emissions as well as a risk assessment as quickly as possible.

What the Russian authorities have also failed to do in the case of the ruthenium-106 that has now been measured.

Right, Russia didn’t do it again. I find the behavior of the Russian authorities appalling. Only at the end of November – if I am properly informed – was there information from this state that there had been an accident. Before that, it was even denied. I will say it again: for any efficient civil protection, it is essential that the authorities know what has happened as quickly as possible.

Are we in Germany now better prepared for a disaster like the one in Chernobyl?

Definitely yes. We are almost perfectly prepared in the event of an accident in a nuclear power plant in Germany or abroad. We have set up early warning systems with measuring methods that are so sensitive that we even notice if there is a forest fire in the area around Chernobyl in summer and radioactive particles are thrown up there by the heat and driven towards us west. The measuring system also includes around 1700 probes that are distributed all over Germany and, if necessary, transmit a value every ten minutes. The authorities have invested a great deal of money, time and knowledge in analyzing these values ​​in such a way that a situation assessment can be made within a very short time. Our neighboring European countries have also set up similar systems and interlinked them with ours.

Let’s talk again about the ruthenium-106 that has now been measured. The notorious Mayak reprocessing plant is located in the designated area of ​​origin. Is she the source?

What can be ruled out immediately is a nuclear power plant accident like Chernobyl in 1986. In this case we would not only have measured ruthenium-106, but also other radioactive substances. For the same reasons, an incident in a reprocessing plant like Mayak would not be plausible to me either. Possibly it was an accident in a separate part of this plant in Mayak, in which ruthenium-106 could have been produced in pure form, for example for medical applications. But I say this with caution!

Mayak reprocessing plant: a serious nuclear accident occurred there as early as 1957. (Source: EPA / CARL ANDERSON / dpa)

What is the general state of the security of Russian or Ukrainian nuclear reactors?

Some reactors of the type also used in Chernobyl have been technically upgraded with funds from the EU and the USA. However, many of these power plants are now very old – 30 years and far more. Aging effects such as the embrittlement of the material affect the entire reactor park in Ukraine and Russia.

Exaggeratedly asked: It can pop again at any time?

Soviet-type nuclear power plants that were in operation or under construction in the GDR were all shut down after the fall of the Wall in 1989 due to safety reviews. This was because the Soviet nuclear power plant planners did not implement certain Western safety standards one-to-one from the start. Exactly these types of power plants are still in operation in the east to this day – and we have to state that the risk of serious accidents there was and is significantly higher than with the systems built in Germany.

Now Ukraine has been the scene of an armed conflict for a long time.

Measured in terms of the number of reactor units and total capacity, the world’s largest nuclear power plant, Zaporizhia, with six units in eastern Ukraine, is relatively close to the current theater of war. The tense financial situation in Ukraine is another factor. It is therefore difficult to carry out desirable retrofitting measures.

The residents of Russia and Ukraine would be the first to suffer in the event of a nuclear disaster. Why don’t governments protect their citizens better?

Accidents in nuclear power plants that have become public cost money. As a rule, downtimes are arranged and organizational or technical retrofitting measures are taken. I’ll put it very simply: if you’ve built a nuclear power plant and it produces electricity, that’s better than any money printing machine – especially when the investment costs are written off and there are no additional costs for safety measures. From an economic point of view, for a state like Russia, which has taken over the Soviet nuclear power plants, there are strong incentives to keep these plants running for as long as possible.

Are these highly explosive materials actually kept safe in Russia?

I can’t answer that well. To do this, one would have to have access to such facilities. But: It took around 15 years until the fuel elements of the disused Soviet and Russian warships were at least transferred to safe interim storage. And only with Western help. Previously, these radioactive elements were simply stored in abandoned ships near Murmansk. These substances have to be permanently cooled and monitored – but there have always been problems with the power supply. Anyone who is familiar with reactor safety has raised the hair on the back of the neck.

Russian nuclear submarine near Murmansk in 2000: For a long time, nuclear fuel rods were completely inadequately stored on old ships. (Source: Str / dpa)

In addition to civil use, nuclear technology is also used for military purposes. Can you say something about the status of nuclear weapons in the former Soviet successor states?

This area is always an estimate. During the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had up to 30,000 warheads. Today there are believed to be 6,000 to 7,000 in Russia. About a thousand of these warheads are ready for use. You can assume similar figures for the USA.

Both Russia and the US are currently modernizing their nuclear arsenals.

The aim is, among other things, to increase the explosive effect of the existing weapons through technical improvements. From my point of view, however, this modernization is not something that takes the nuclear military threat into another dimension. The 1,000 ready-to-use warheads on each side alone could destroy our planet far more than once.

Nuclear accident disguised ?: Russian authorities measure drastically increased radiation levels Nuclear failure in the Urals ?: Was there a nuclear accident in Russia? t-online.de asked what happened in the Urals ?: Radioactivity puzzles authorities

Professor Kirchner, thank you for talking to us!

A Malaysian has been imprisoned for almost three years after killing a cat in a laundromat. The verdict is intended to set an example against cruelty to animals.

A Malaysian has been sentenced to 34 months in prison for killing a pregnant cat in a tumble dryer. The 42-year-old also has to pay a fine of just under 9,000 euros, as the state news agency Bernama reported on Wednesday. The verdict should be given to the perpetrator and the public "be a lesson that they are not cruel to animals"said the judge Rasyihah Ghazali accordingly.

The mistreatment of the cat in September 2018 caused an outcry among animal rights activists. A surveillance camera video showed the cat being put into a clothes dryer late at night in a laundromat near Kuala Lumpur. Two men then tossed tokens into the machine, switched them on, and ran away. A customer of the laundromat later found the cat’s carcass. 

Ellwangen: Nine pupils injured by experiment in chemistry class Exposed: Russian smuggled almost two kilos of gold – in her shoes

 The prison sentence against the 42-year-old has been suspended for the time being because he wants to appeal. Tuesday’s ruling was the second court decision in the case. In January a taxi driver was sentenced to two years in prison for killing the cat.

Sources used: AFP news agency

The verdict in a lawsuit for cruelty to animals was passed before the Landau regional court: a veterinarian was found guilty. She had locked up a number of animals.

A former veterinarian from Rhineland-Palatinate has been sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment without parole for violating the animal welfare law and fraud. In addition, the woman is not allowed to look after or keep animals in the next four years, as the Landau district court decided.

The veterinarian had already been sentenced to two and a half years in prison by the local court in October 2018. She was also banned from practicing for three years. She appealed against this decision.

"Massively dirty with dirt and feces"

A search of the doctor’s living and business premises in April 2017 found a total of 44 dogs, 18 cats and three kangaroos. The rooms were according to investigators "massively dirty with dirt and feces". The dogs, cats and kangaroos were housed in animal shelters at the time.

The district court upheld the conviction for cruelty to dogs and cats and for fraud. However, the chamber acquitted the woman of the charge of keeping kangaroos in her veterinary practice. The court found that the kangaroos were not found to have suffered significant pain or suffering over a long period of time or repeatedly. 

divide Pinning Tweet To press To mail editorial staff

more on the subject