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?
The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
31–40 of 136 posts
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#32I'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…
(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
#33I'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…
The meltdown would still be contained
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#34Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#35mitnse.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
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 formattingRe: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#36I'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…
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
#37Idle 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…
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#38CNN 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.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Fresh-fire-at-Japan-nuclear-re...
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#39One 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…
Re: The 'why I am not worried' article, edited by MIT nuclear scientists
#40Earlier 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.