Advertisement

Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry

, Volume 298, Issue 3, pp 2075–2083 | Cite as

Reinforced evidence of a low-yield nuclear test in North Korea on 11 May 2010

  • Lars-Erik De GeerEmail author
Article

Abstract

In May 2010 unique aerosol-bound and noble gas (xenon) radionuclide signatures were observed at four East Asian surveillance stations designed to detect evidence of nuclear testing. An article published in early 2012 provided an analysis that suggested the findings were due to a low-yield underground nuclear test in North Korea on 11 May 2010. As the aerosol and noble gas datings, however, only agreed on the fringes of their uncertainties an official North Korean telegram that on 12 May 2010 reported about a nuclear fusion experiment 1 month earlier inspired a solution. Assuming that included a low-yield nuclear explosion and that it had left xenon isotopes in the same cavity, the xenon dating could be “moved” to overlap with the aerosol dating. The article stirred a serious controversy where representatives of the U.S. government and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) refused to comment on it. In this paper the xenon dating agrees with the aerosol one without resorting to a previous explosion. It shows instead that fractionation during lava cooling is the explanation and how that plays a paramount role in how xenon signatures from underground nuclear explosions should be interpreted. It also presents new observations that effectively imply that no nuclear reactor or any other nuclear installation could have caused the May 2010 signals. All in all these are the most interesting and rich ones ever encountered by the Organization and they truly demonstrate that the verification system can deliver much better sensitivity than it was originally designed for.

Keywords

CTBT North Korea Underground nuclear testing Xenon leaks 

Supplementary material

10967_2013_2678_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (128 kb)
ESM-1: For convenience this file essentially reproduces Table 1 and Fig. 2 in Ref. 1, De Geer, L.-E. Radionuclide Evidence for Low-Yield Nuclear Testing in North Korea in April/May 2010. Science & Global Security 20, 1–29 (2012). The 137Cs data was, however, moved from the text to the Table and the 141Ce data is new as reported in the present article. (PDF 128 kb)
10967_2013_2678_MOESM2_ESM.nb (678 kb)
ESM-2: This Mathematica program, Xebate, is a general purpose routine for handling detailed Bateman expansions of the fission product decay chains (A = 131, 133, 135, 137, 140 and 141) that involve xenon isotopes and metastable states that are of interest for analysing nuclear explosion debris collected by verification systems of the types run by the CTBTO. In addition to undisturbed decay, it also contains code to simulate different degrees of iodine precursor trapping. To check the code the supplied version controls that the number of atoms in each chain stays constant with time (except for the small effects of some very short-lived delayed neutron decays). It then calculates the pre-release transport time and calculates and plots the basis for Fig. 4. Finally a sensitivity-check for Fig. 4 is done by using six different fission yield compilations. (NB 679 kb)
10967_2013_2678_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (96 kb)
ESM-3: Here the soundness of using the 140Ba to 140La decay for dating within the first week is demonstrated. (PDF 96 kb)
10967_2013_2678_MOESM4_ESM.xls (601 kb)
ESM-4: It is important for the current analysis that the gamma peak integrations are very carefully done. Ref. 1 used the results reported by the IDC, but now also the well-known software UniSampo was tested. As some discrepancies were detected a manual integration was used in Excel such that full control could be exercised. This file shows all these results. The file encompasses five sheets, the 487 keV 140La peak data for 13 days during and around the positive detections, the same for the 537 keV 140Ba peak, the 487 keV 140La peak data for four 15 May spectra, the same for the 537 keV 140Ba peak and finally a summary of all analyses. In the summary corrections are made for small radon daughter contributions to the 487 keV peak and for the impact of cosmic radiation on the 537 keV peak. (XLS 601 kb)
10967_2013_2678_MOESM5_ESM.nb (131 kb)
ESM-5: This Mathematica program is used to calculate the maximum likelihood explosion time (in days) before the start of acquisition of the first sample. It also gives the probability density distribution around this maximum. The 84-point case is active, but the 14-point data is also given for anyone who wants to check that. The results are given in Fig. 3. (NB 131 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    De Geer L-E (2012) Radionuclide evidence for low-yield nuclear testing in North Korea in April/May 2010. Sci Glob Secur 20:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ENSDF (Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data File) (2012) National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) at Brookhaven, USA. http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/ensdf/. Accessed 15 Jan 2012
  3. 3.
    JEFF 3.1.1. (Joint Evaluated Fission and Fusion File) (2013) Nuclear Energy Agency, reached via JANIS 3.2. http://www.oecd-nea.org/janis/. Accessed 20 May 2013
  4. 4.
    Wotawa G (2012) Meteorological analysis of the detection of xenon and barium/lanthanum isotopes in May 2010 in Eastern Asia. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. doi: 10.1007/s10967-012-2012-7 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McLaughlin TP et al (2000) A review of criticality accidents, 2000 revision. Los Alamos Report, LA-13638, May 2000Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pakhomov SA, Dubasov YV (2010) Estimation of explosion energy yield at Chernobyl NPP accident. Pure Appl Geophys 167:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wright CM (2013) Low-yield nuclear testing by North Korea in May 2010: assessing the evidence with atmospheric transport models and xenon activity calculations, radionuclide evidence for low-yield nuclear testing in North Korea in April/May 2010. Sci Glob Secur 21:3–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    De Geer L-E et al (1978) Particulate radioactivity, mainly from nuclear explosions, in air and precipitation in Sweden mid-year 1975 to mid-year 1977. FOA report C 40089-T2(A1) (1978). Also published in Environmental Quarterly Report EML-349, Environmental Measurements Laboratory, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mishra UC, Sethi SK, Negi BS (1977) Analysis of fission product mixtures in fresh fallout from Chinese nuclear explosion of January 23, 1976 by Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrometry. Atomkernenergie 29:49–55Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NOAA-Air Resources Laboratory (2013). http://www.ready.noaa.gov/READYamet.php. Accessed 10 May 2013
  11. 11.
    Ihantola S, Toivonen H, Moring M (2013) 140La/140Ba ratio dating of a nuclear release. J Radioanal Nucl Chem. doi: 10.1007/s10967-013-2504-0 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hinkley DV (1969) On the ratio of two correlated normal random variables. Biometrica 56:635–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalinowski MB (2011) Characterisation of prompt and delayed atmospheric radioactivity releases from underground nuclear tests at Nevada as a function of release time. J Environ Radioact 102:824–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smith DK (1995) Characterization of nuclear explosive melt debris. Radiochim Acta 69:157–167Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith DK (1993) A review of literature pertaining to the leaching and sorption of radionuclides associated with nuclear explosive melt glasses. Lawrence Livermore Laboratory report, UCRL-ID-113370Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sykes LR (1994) Dealing with decoupled nuclear explosions under a comprehensive test ban treaty, Phillips Laboratory report PL-TR-94-2301Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baker EH (1967) The boiling point relation for tellurium at elevated pressures. J Chem Soc A: 1558–1560Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Panel on Basic Research Requirements in Support of Comprehensive Test Ban Monitoring, National Research Council (1997) Research Required to Support Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Monitoring, Committee on Seismology, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Academies Press, Washington, DC. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=5875
  19. 19.
    Radionuclide experts from six U.S. Organizations: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Air Force Technical Applications Center, Environmental Measurements Laboratory, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Source Term Review. A Report of the Peer Review of the Conference on Disarmament International Monitoring System Expert Group, CD/NTB/WP.224 Part II, 1996Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    DPRK Succeeds in Nuclear Fusion (2010) Korean News Service, News from the Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Pyong-yang, 12 May 2010. http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm. Accessed 20 May 2013
  21. 21.
    England TR, Rider BF (1994) Evaluation and compilation of fission product yields. Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LAUR-94-3106Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sloan C (2007) A review of the North Korean nuclear test. Presentation at the INGE (International Noble Gas Experiment) Workshop in Las Vegas 5-9 Nov, 2007Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brumfiel G (2012) Isotopes hint at North Korean nuclear test. Nature News (03 February 2012). www.nature.com/news/isotopes-hint-at-north-korean-nuclear-test-1.9972. Accessed 3 Feb 2012
  24. 24.
    Schaff DP, Kim W-Y, Richards PG (2012) Seismological constraints on proposed low-yield nuclear testing in particular regions and time periods in the past, with comments on “radionuclide evidence for low-yield nuclear testing in North Korea in April/May 2010” by Lars-Erik De Geer. Sci Glob Secur 20:155–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Research Council (2012) The comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty—technical issues for the United States. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12849
  26. 26.
    Leith W (2001) Geologic and engineering constraints on the feasibility of clandestine nuclear testing by decoupling in large underground cavities, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, Open File Report 01-28Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pabian FV, Hecker SS (2012) Contemplating a third nuclear test in North Korea. Bull Atom Scient. www.thebulletin.org/contemplating-third-nuclear-test-north-korea. Accessed 1 May 2003
  28. 28.
    KCNA (2013) Report on Successful 3rd Underground Nuclear Test, Rodong Sinmun 13 Feb. 2013 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alexander D, Kim C, Kim N (2013) North Korea can launch nuclear missiles, U.S. spy agency says. Reuters, New York, 11 Apr 2013Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Upplands VäsbySweden

Personalised recommendations