CNN and MSNBC are now reporting that all workers have now been evacuated from Fukushima due to rising radiation levels.
So, there's still nobody hurt then? I hope so.
The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
11–20 of 136 posts
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#12This was quite a 'walk-back' of the original headline.
It started as "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" on one site. The title is now "Modified version of original post written by Josef Oehmen", with the content modified and moved to another site.
It also now includes a disclaimer "Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site." Perhaps they should just come out and say, "we're experts and we're worried".
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is typical MIT hubris. I am getting tired of asking this, but which facts are wrong in the revised article?
I don't know what is wrong with the article since I am not an expert in this. I do know some of the claim have been contradicted by other experts, however. One that I haven't seen agreement with is the claim that if the fuel achieves a full melt down, the chances of that melted fuel escaping are low. Most reports I've read aren't so optimistic to say the least. Another point that is not wrong but simply unmentioned i…
One of the primary reasons the spent fuel problem is not mentioned in the article is because it became an issue fairly recently with the fire in the #4 building. Note that the date on the article is 3/12, whereas the fire and concerns in #4 are fairly recent, occurring on 3/15 and 3/16.
++Also, the spent fuel and the reactors themselves are separate problems, so I fail to see why an article about the reactors in under obligation to mention them.++
UPDATE: I concede that the article should be updated to include the #4 fire, as that is very pertinent (see below).
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#14Idle speculation from someone who is not a nuclear or a chemical engineer: I'm suddenly wondering if the pressure relief valves for the primary coolant system could be designed with ignition circuits. The idea would be to burn off any hydrogen in a controlled fashion as it exits the coolant system, rather than giving it a chance to accumulate and later detonate. It would be similar to the way oil rigs burn off unwant…
I believe the hydrogen that accumulates contains some radition (although mostly harmless) itself: http://mitnse.com/2011/03/15/explanation-of-hydrogen-explosi... (sixth paragraph)
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#15It would be nice if they posted a diff between their version and the original, if only for the people who already read the original and just want to see what changes were made.
Here you go:
Original: http://pastebin.com/UnCYDKbu
Modified: http://pastebin.com/1BAV3A4s
Good online tool to compare both: http://text-compare.com/
Sorry, the tool above doesn't offer a direct link to the diff, so you'll have to do the copy/paste by yourself. Or you could use pastebin's own diff, but it's less clear, in my opinion: http://pastebin.com/diff.php?i=1BAV3A4s
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#16This was quite a 'walk-back' of the original headline. It started as "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" on one site. The title is now "Modified version of original post written by Josef Oehmen", with the content modified and moved to another site. It also now includes a disclaimer "Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site." Perhaps they should j…
Unfortunately, this version is not as entertaining to read. It does seem much more accurate, though.
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what is wrong with the article since I am not an expert in this. I do know some of the claim have been contradicted by other experts, however. One that I haven't seen agreement with is the claim that if the fuel achieves a full melt down, the chances of that melted fuel escaping are low. Most reports I've read aren't so optimistic to say the least. Another point that is not wrong but simply unmentioned i…
One of the primary reasons the spent fuel problem is not mentioned in the article is because it became an issue fairly recently with the fire in the #4 building. Note that the date on the article is 3/12, whereas the fire and concerns in #4 are fairly recent, occurring on 3/15 and 3/16. ++Also, the spent fuel and the reactors themselves are separate problems, so I fail to see why an article about the reactors in unde…
Indeed, I wouldn't expect to know about this wrinkle and I wouldn't expect an average person to know about it.
But I would expect a (supposed) expert in nuclear power who writes an article titled "why I am not worried" to know about this.
And while I am not an expert, I do know enough to know spent fuel has to be considered part of the system of a nuclear power plant and thus keeping it safe is part of keeping the entire plant safe.
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#18It would be nice if they posted a diff between their version and the original, if only for the people who already read the original and just want to see what changes were made.
Here you go: Original: http://pastebin.com/UnCYDKbu Modified: http://pastebin.com/1BAV3A4s Good online tool to compare both: http://text-compare.com/ Sorry, the tool above doesn't offer a direct link to the diff, so you'll have to do the copy/paste by yourself. Or you could use pastebin's own diff, but it's less clear, in my opinion: http://pastebin.com/diff.php?i=1BAV3A4s
Your last link unreadable.
I think one would need a side-by-side comparison.
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#19mitnse.com was registered just two days ago? With no track record what is the credibility of this site?
From whois:
Registered through: Automattic
Domain Name: MITNSE.COM
Created on: 13-Mar-11
Expires on: 13-Mar-12
Last Updated on: 13-Mar-11Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#20It would be nice if they posted a diff between their version and the original, if only for the people who already read the original and just want to see what changes were made.
Here you go: Original: http://pastebin.com/UnCYDKbu Modified: http://pastebin.com/1BAV3A4s Good online tool to compare both: http://text-compare.com/ Sorry, the tool above doesn't offer a direct link to the diff, so you'll have to do the copy/paste by yourself. Or you could use pastebin's own diff, but it's less clear, in my opinion: http://pastebin.com/diff.php?i=1BAV3A4s
Try this for a side-by-side diff: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/171026/japan-nuclear-diff.html
I produced this using a feature of WinMerge (graphical diff utility for Windows, not too shabby) which can produce an HTML report of a diff.
The revisions seem pretty significant.