Live data from Hacker News

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

mitnse.com

31–40 of 136 posts

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

#31

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?

chuckle I'm getting tired of reiterating this, but NOBODY KNOWS which facts are right and which facts are wrong. They are epistemically bankrupt in the sense that their state of knowledge cannot rationally support the conclusions they are drawing. As I said, typical MIT hubris.

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

#32
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…

I suspect your parent did not realize a nuclear meltdown simply means the melting of the fuel, and instead (like most people) simply directly associates the words with "huge disaster".

(From that frame of reference of course- "a huge disaster would not be a big deal!"- it DOES sound ridiculous)

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

#33
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 bedr…

Why would one meltdown cause evacuation?

The meltdown would still be contained

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

#34
One small nitpick: if earthquakes were still measured on the Richter scale, the difference between 8.2 and 8.9 would be 5 times (as stated in the corrected article). However, the USGS uses the Moment magnitude scale (M_w, see http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/glossary.php#magnitud... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale for details), so the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.9 is 11.2 times--more than double the stated increase. And now that the magnitude has been adjusted to 9.0 (see http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us...), the amount of energy released was 15.8 times more than an 8.2 earthquake.

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

#35

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

You left out:

  Registrant:
   MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
   77 Massachusetts Avenue
   Cambridge
   Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
   United States

and:

   Administrative Contact:
      Subbiah, Ilavenil  subbiah@mit.edu
      MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering
      77 Massachusetts Avenue
      Cambridge
      Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
      United States
      617-576-0593      Fax -- 
Edit: fixed formatting

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

#36
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…

"All good engineering works on the principle of defence in depth."

That line is as much a sound-bite at this point as anything you'll hear on cable television. Yes, good engineering has many levels of fall-backs and redundancies. But when you've reached the point that you've evacuated the last fifty people from your site because it's no longer safe for them to be there, then you've exhausted your defenses. There's no more depth.

Let's stop whistling past the graveyard: a meltdown is, in fact, a really big deal. Maybe the "wide concrete tray" will capture the waste. Maybe it won't. But in the meantime, you're hoping that there's not a secondary fire from the heat, or a steam explosion, or some other kind of explosion that flings radioactive particulate for miles around. You're hoping that the fuel won't melt, form a critical mass in the bottom of the reactor, and re-initiate a reaction that's hard to stop. You're hoping that the containment doesn't breach, and that vast quantities of radioactive waste aren't exposed to the elements before the whole system calms down again. You're hoping that the whole system calms down again.

The point is: they've lost control. The 'engineering' that they're doing right now is desperate and hacky, and they're very nearly out of options. It might be comforting to pretend that this whole thing is scripted out on some intricate Japanese checklist somewhere, but that's really nothing more than a fantasy. I certainly hope that things aren't as bad as they sound, but this isn't just a matter of bad PR by some pessimistic, nuclear-energy skeptics. These guys are actually in trouble.

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

#37
post #3

Idle 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…

Another article mentioned hydrogen wouldn't ignite with steam present.

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

#38
post #11
post #10

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.

There are reports of two missing:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fresh-fire-at-Japan-nuclear-re...

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

#39

One small nitpick: if earthquakes were still measured on the Richter scale, the difference between 8.2 and 8.9 would be 5 times (as stated in the corrected article). However, the USGS uses the Moment magnitude scale (M_w, see http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/glossary.php#magnitud... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale for details), so the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.9 is 11.2 times--m…

AFAIK, all reports of the magnitude were on the Richter scale.

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

#40
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

From the looks of the diff, it appears as though all they did was add clarity. Not really revise any of the facts.
Post reply on HN