# Statement by the head of the IAEA about the N. Korean blast factual or political? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 19, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049 "2004-09-19T21:58:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/1 "2004-09-19T21:58:57Z")
[According to this Reuters story,](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=3&u=/nm/20040919/wl_nm/nuclear_korea_dc) IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei said to CNN (regarding the possibility of the blast being of nuclear origin): > [@](#): > > I think it’s unlikely, but we are not there and we cannot validate this conclusion for sure… If North Korea would like to exclude that possibility completely they would be well advised to allow us and other experts to go and inspect that. > "As long as we are not there, I cannot exclude that possibility 100 percent Is it possible that a nuclear explosion that raised a debris cloud kilometers across would have no radioactive material detectable by atmospheric sampling once the winds brought remnants of the cloud across the border? Is the implied demand for on-site inspection based on science, or does it reflect a political agenda? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/2 "2004-09-19T22:02:59Z")
Finding certain radioactive isotopes in the debris cloud would absolutely confirm the nuclear nature of the explosion. Not finding them could leave some doubt. If the test was underground, then the debris might just be dust from the surface and not be made up of any of the material from the blast itself. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/3 "2004-09-19T22:05:51Z")
It seems a stretch that dust from the surface could make up that large a cloud in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/4 "2004-09-19T22:10:02Z")
And if it was an underground nuclear test, how would an on-site inspection be assured of getting samples from deep enough to confirm or deny it? Who’s to say that they didn’t simply dig a hole considerably deeper than striclty necessary so the evidence would be buried deeper than expected? ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/5 "2004-09-20T01:58:33Z")
There was a mushroom cloud reported, so I don’t think that it was an underground explosion, as it seems to me that the entire point of having the underground nuke test would be lost if it was close enough to the surface to make such a cloud. As for the missing radiation, the (still debated, probably S. African) Vela nuclear test never produced any clear radioactive signature, but that was an atmospheric test over the Indian Ocean, not an “on the ground” test in a populated country between two other populated countries with a nearby US navel fleet and about a thousand spy sattelites and aircraft above it as is the case with N. Korea, and so only proves that its vaguely conceivable that radiation from a nuke test _could_ be undetected in some cases. My official guess: they were testing a MOAB type bomb, which is a conventional weapon that does produce a mushroom cloud. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/6 "2004-09-20T02:03:28Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > Is the implied demand for on-site inspection based on science, or does it reflect a **political agenda?** Its political, but not sure of the axis of the demand. They have a nuclear program ongoing , this may be a way of getting in to see whats really been going on. It may also be expected that the North Koreans will deny any demand for onsite verification or investigations , thus the security council will enact sanctions and what not. For the North Koreans , this is gonna be a lose/lose situation. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/7 "2004-09-20T02:17:49Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > …As for the missing radiation, the (still debated, probably S. African) Vela nuclear test never produced any clear radioactive signature, but that was an atmospheric test over the Indian Ocean, not an “on the ground” test in a populated country between two other populated countries with a nearby US navel fleet and about a thousand spy sattelites and aircraft above it as is the case with N. Korea, and so only proves that its vaguely conceivable that radiation from a nuke test _could_ be undetected in some cases. > > My official guess: they were testing a MOAB type bomb, which is a conventional weapon that does produce a mushroom cloud. Wasn’t the South African thing in the early 80s? I always assumed that the US didn’t _want_ proof of a nuclear event involving S. Africa and Israel. The Reagan administration was resisting Congressional pressure for sanctions or other acts aginst the the Botha government of the time. Has the South African government officially acknowledged that the test took place? Maybe the Mandela government would be more forthcoming than Botha’s. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/8 "2004-09-20T02:46:28Z")
More info on the [Vela incident](http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html). The gist is that, yes, the US gov’t did try to obfuscate whether or not it was an actual nuke test, but they were aided by the fact that results for tests of fallout were ambiguous, since fallout is the one “smoking gun” indicator of a nuclear detonation (seismic activity and satellite data indicated the test did occur). That said, the fact that many nuke experts still hold that this was an actual test makes me think that it isnt completely inconceivable that one can have a test without detectable fallout. **Boyo Jim** , the S. African’s have not stated uniquivcally that it was their test, the article I linked to gives several theories about it being S African, Israeli or both. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/9 "2004-09-20T03:27:25Z")
> [@Boyo Jim](#): > > Is it possible that a nuclear explosion that raised a debris cloud kilometers across would have no radioactive material detectable by atmospheric sampling once the winds brought remnants of the cloud across the border? Maybe if you detonated a small (~20kT) nuke under a 60 meter thick sheet of vulcanized rubber that had been piled liberally with talcum powder? We all know that Kim Jong Il is crazy, but is he _that_ crazy? As far as fallout from an above ground explosion, as this must have been, the [Chinese conducted a 300kT test in 1967](http://www.ki4u.com/transpacific.htm) that contaminated cows in Tennessee with radioiodine. (Not the best link in the world, but I remember the stir it caused when the cloud went over. The US had ratified the Atmospheric test ban treaty in 1963.) It defies common sense that a nuclear ground burst in North Korea would not have set off geiger counters in Japan by now. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/statement-by-the-head-of-the-iaea-about-the-n-korean-blast-factual-or-political/265049/10 "2004-09-20T03:41:01Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > It defies common sense that a nuclear ground burst in North Korea would not have set off geiger counters in Japan by now. I think it was a matter of hours , before sweden realized something was very wrong about the quality of air , days before the soviets owned up to the fact that chernobyl had gone wonky. Yes , we would have heard by now. Declan