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

Post by borism » Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 8:39 AM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #53

kitsune_ wrote: post #50

This is BULLSHIT, the guy (Oehmen) is a mechanical engineer with a management focus. He worked at my alma mater (ETHZ). His field of experties is supply chain risk management. Look up his papers, he isn't a nuclear physicist. I'd say he's about as qualified to make a comment on the situation as I am. The "essay" by Oehmen was first published by a notorious nuclear lobbyist, Jason Morgan. Look at this: http://nuclearf…

> In short: FUD by nuclear energy lobbyists. So mechanical engineer cannot possibly say anything truthful about nuclear energy? The fact still remains: nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest we have for now. So far we had what, three serious incidents with total number of causalities of 35, all in Chernobyl. Sure it affected much more people but still: the single incident at Sayano-Sushenskoye hydroelectric power…

Post by adsr » Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 8:55 AM UTC

timr wrote: post #36

cperciva wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Post by icarus_drowning » Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 9:34 AM UTC

adlep wrote: post #30

icarus_drowning wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Y…

Post by paganel » Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 9:51 AM UTC

marshray wrote: post #52

Confusion wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the IAEA, Reactors 1-3 have been in cold shutdown since yesterday, which means they finally are where they were supposed to end up, in a stable situation where no water is boiling off anymore, so all the risk is gone.

It seems that the IAEA is not a useful source of up-to-date information here. Apparently they're bound by agreements not to say anything without TEPCO's approval. The little they've said has been hours or days late. Unit 2 and 3 are believed to have lost containment integrity. Unit 3 is currently billowing smoke/steam.

Post by brazzy » Wed, Mar 16, 2011, 10:10 AM UTC

kitsune_ wrote: post #50

This is BULLSHIT, the guy (Oehmen) is a mechanical engineer with a management focus. He worked at my alma mater (ETHZ). His field of experties is supply chain risk management. Look up his papers, he isn't a nuclear physicist. I'd say he's about as qualified to make a comment on the situation as I am. The "essay" by Oehmen was first published by a notorious nuclear lobbyist, Jason Morgan. Look at this: http://nuclearf…