Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

mitnse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#21

Post by basugasubaku »

gojomo wrote: post #12

This 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…

Is there anything in the article to actually support the headline "we're worried"?

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#22

Post by hristov »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #7
RandyHelzerman wrote: post #4

Or how I learned to stop worrying and love category 6 nuclear disasters. This is typical MIT hubris. Nobody knew om march 12 what was happening, even the operators, and even now nobody knows how bad thing are or how bad things will get.

>This is typical MIT hubris. I am getting tired of asking this, but which facts are wrong in the revised article?

Well the fact that it was necessary to be revised, should give you a hint that some things were wrong with the original one.

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#23

Post by Duff »

I'm really kind of sick of listening to people talk about how everything is hunky-dory. I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. The lesson to learn here is when a government tells you everything is ok regarding an event with potential regional impact, get the hell out of town.

I'm assuming the reactors are melting down and are out of control. Pumping seawater in may be keeping the thing from blowing up, but obviously isn't cooling the reactors down. So what happens now? Do they keep melting down indefinitely, or do the reactions eventually fizzle out?

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#24

Post by icarus_drowning »

joe_the_user wrote: post #17
icarus_drowning wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

If your accusation is that the article should have been updated to include this, I think that's fair. But my original question was about the facts of the article as is.

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#25

Post by brown9-2 »

colinprince wrote: post #19

mitnse.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-11

mitnse.com is linked to from http://web.mit.edu/nse/.

I imagine it would be either hard to fake that or it'd be noticed quickly if a MIT department's website was hacked.

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#26

Post by btmorex »

Duff wrote: post #23

I'm really kind of sick of listening to people talk about how everything is hunky-dory. I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. The lesson to learn here is when a government tells you everything is ok regarding an event with potential regional impact, get the hell out of town. I'm assuming the reactors are melting down and are out of control. Pumping seawater in may…

That particular lesson was actually learned decades ago (see my comment 3 days ago http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316593)

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#27

Post by wallflower »

Duff wrote: post #23

I'm really kind of sick of listening to people talk about how everything is hunky-dory. I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. The lesson to learn here is when a government tells you everything is ok regarding an event with potential regional impact, get the hell out of town. I'm assuming the reactors are melting down and are out of control. Pumping seawater in may…

The worst case scenarios are bad:

If one reactor gets so bad (meltdown) forcing permanent evacuation - all the remaining reactors won't be maintainable/saveable and thus in a domino effect - if one goes, all go (meltdown).

It is unlikely that a meltdown through the core will occur but if that happens - the scary term China Syndrome - the melted radioactive fuel will melt through steel, concrete, rock, maybe even bedrock.

For the USA and rest of the world: Irradiated food supplies will be a real concern if hundreds of tons of radioactive melted fuel merge with the outside environment

To put it in perspective: If you were in Japan near Tokyo or closer to the affected nuclear plant, would you be more skeptical of the seemingly contradictory news coming out.

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#28

Post by cperciva »

Duff wrote: post #23

I'm really kind of sick of listening to people talk about how everything is hunky-dory. I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. The lesson to learn here is when a government tells you everything is ok regarding an event with potential regional impact, get the hell out of town. I'm assuming the reactors are melting down and are out of control. Pumping seawater in may…

I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal.

He's right, in a sense. Modern nuclear reactors are designed so that if the fuel melts it will end up in a wide concrete tray which sits under the reactor, where -- thanks to the fact that the tray is very wide and not at all deep -- it will cool down to a safe temperature.

All good engineering works on the principle of defence in depth. This is the last step to safely contain the hot fuel, after the many redundant cooling systems fail, and it's certainly not ideal -- but it's nothing like the mythical "China syndrome". (Or like Chernobyl, which involved a graphite fire causing fuel to go up rather than down.)

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#29

Post by guscost »

basugasubaku wrote: post #21
gojomo wrote: post #12

This 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…

Is there anything in the article to actually support the headline "we're worried"?

I would guess they're worried about some unknown or unprecedented contingency caused by the unique circumstances, as any rational person should be. Still, this has not happened and there is no scientifically sound reason that it should happen, based on our experience.

Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists

#30

Post by adlep »

icarus_drowning wrote: post #24
joe_the_user wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 en…

If your accusation is that the article should have been updated to include this, I think that's fair. But my original question was about the facts of the article as is.

Well, it is all in the original title. The author's conclusion of "Why I am not worried" was based on the facts listed in his article. However, given the gravity of the current situation at the power plant we can assume that even though the facts listed in the article were all correct the author has misinterpreted them and reached a conclusion that that is wrong.

Edit: Think of it as a physic text homework problem. You have various facts listed throughout the problem, but your job is to use a correct formulas applied in the right sequences in order to derive a correct answer (aka interpret data "facts"). Simply re-stating the facts won't give you credit for the problem - the correct answer will (aka "conclusion").

Post reply on HN