Skip to main content

The Meteorite Over Russia–and Its Nuclear Facilities

When I think of a meteorite, it’s usually the one that hits Earth at the beginning of The War of the Worlds (1953). In that movie, you start with this:


And end up with this:


The meteorite that flew over Russia today provided some very striking videos itself, minus Martians and heat rays. This video shows both the tail and and the air burst, complete with shattering glass and a lot of car alarms going off:

The title means Explosion in Chelyabinsk. Naturally, we were curious about the nuclear plants in the region. The closest to where many of the videos were taken is also called Chelyabinsk, about 140 miles distant, but it looks as though Rosatom, the Russian nuclear authority, got more questions about Mayak, which is not a reactor but a reprocessing plant.

Russia’s state-run atomic agency, Rosatom, said there were no damage to the nuclear facilities in the region and all operations continued as usual. Mayak nuclear plant -- one of the largest nuclear facilities of Rosatom -- is located in the area that was hit by the meteorite.

“All facilities are working as usual. They haven’t been damaged by the meteorite strike,” a Rosatom source said.

We may say that the risk of a large meteorite striking a nuclear energy facility – or anything else – is vanishingly small. From the NRC’s Safety Regulations:

2.10 Extraterrestrial Activity (Meteorite Strikes, Satellite Falls) Extraterrestrial activity is considered to be natural satellites such as meteors or artificial satellites that enter the earth's atmosphere from space. Because the probability of a meteorite strike is very small (less than 10-9) (NUREG/CR-5042, Suppl. 2), it can be dismissed on the basis of its low initiating event frequency.

It would be more plausible as a SyFy channel movie than as a reality. There are different opinions as to whether this meteor struck the earth (meteorite) or did not (meteor) – the growing consensus is that it did, but I imagine we’ll find out for sure soon enough. In the meantime, the Washington Post has posted a bunch of information about meteor(ite)s

Q: How common are meteorite strikes?

A: Experts say smaller strikes happen five to 10 times a year. Large impacts such as the one Friday in Russia are rarer but still occur about every five years, according to Addi Bischoff, a mineralogist at the University of Muenster in Germany. Most of these strikes happen in uninhabited areas where they don’t injure humans.

I guess the Post has gone with meteorite on this. This has added considerable excitement to a Friday, not least because it’s the first large meteor(ite) caught on video by so many people, probably a gold mine for astronomers and definitely a exciting event for everyone all over – how else would we have a chance to see something like this? Good to know that Russian consumer society has grown to the point that so many folks have phone video devices.


Let’s remember that this event has had a human toll, with glass blowing out from the air bursts and hurting people in its path. The current figure is more than 1000 injured and no casualties. Let’s hope that latter number remains zero.


Now, that’s the meteor. What about the asteroid, DA14? Well, it’s coming upon us even as we speak. You can keep track of it as it passes as close as 17,000 miles. That puts it between the moon and the earth and there’s a slim possibility that it could smack into a satellite. But, let’s be clear, not the earth. The asteroid is about three times the size of the meteor.

Visit here for a dashboard that provides screens for Live Jet Propulsion Laboratory Video, Live NASA TV Channel - to carry fly by later today, Live Russian Television (Russia will be able to see it during their night), What the world is saying about the asteroid on social media (updated live) and What NASA is saying about the asteroid on social media (updated live).

What’s the difference between an asteroid and a meteor? An asteroid is a small object that orbits the sun. (Comets do, too, but generate a small atmosphere and tail; asteroids do not.) Meteors are space debris, smaller than asteroids, but otherwise similar. The Russian meteor(ite) did not chip off from DA14.

No nuclear connection I can find, but who cares? May we continue to live in interesting times.

UPDATE 2:30: That was fast. Asteroid back out to space. We can still see pictures and video of it as it speeds away.


jimwg said…
Ironic. Only a year ago I among some nuclear advocates were joking that anti-nukers would probably dredge up asteroid-proofing reactors as another stall to stop nuclear plants with unreasonable pricey protections, and now this Russian meteor just stroked up that fantasy issue. Life is funny.

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Anonymous said…
Do you mean to say the Russians actually reprocess used nuclear fuel? Say it isn't so, comrade... or did someone else say, "You didn't build that!"
Anonymous said…
Given as the kinetic energy of this meteorite was the size of a boosted fission device I would say that a strike on a nuclear facility would be far from the worst case. Had the meteorite not exploded in the air and had instead struck ground in a populated city it would have been far more devestating than if it had struck a nuclear facility. Given as there are several orders of magnitude more cities than there are nuclear facilities the risk of an impact on one is much greater. A nuclear facility being struck is far from the worst case because most (at least in the USA) are in largely unpopulated areas and the radioactive material released would result in cancer related deaths far fewer than if a nearby city were decimated by a 50kT explosion.
Anonymous said…
It is more likely that a meteor would land in the sea and perhaps produce a tsunami which could affect a nuclear power station.
Anonymous said…
Out of interest. Can anyone explain what the 10 to the -9 means.

Is it one in a billion per year per plant, or one in a billion per year over the whole country or what?

Popular posts from this blog

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…