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

131–136 of 136 posts

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

#131

Post by blastek »

jellicle wrote: post #122
mchouza wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each reactor core holds over 100 tons of uranium, of which about 3-5 tons is U-235. Critical mass under perfect conditions is 50 kilograms. Critical masses don't work that way: the additional U-238 absorbs neutrons making more difficult to achieve criticality. In fact, even an infinite amount of unmoderated natural uranium cannot sustain a chain reaction. See the figure 3.1 in [1] for more information about unmoderat…

Chernobyl used UNENRICHED uranium, containing only .7% of U235, and went kablooey. Which you just said can't happen, so I suppose Chernobyl didn't actually happen. /thread This thread has brought out the worst aspects of Hacker News - reasonably bright people who feel compelled to opine, in their usual arrogant "I am always right" manner, about subjects where they have no clue.

What the FUCKKKKKKKK? You DO know Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear explosion right? It was a STEAM explosion.

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

#132

Post by Gamble180 »

Hi, Jack Gamble here, editor and founder of Nuclear Fissionary. Would kitsune_ care to post a link to where my website allegedly published the story by Dr Oehmen?

The reason I asked is, though I agree with the papers content, Nuclear Fissionary never published it. So basically, kitsune, you're a liar.

As for the attack on Jay Morgan, we're getting a kick out of that. Jay likes to describe himself as a Corporate Bean Counter, but he doesn't work in the nuclear industry like I do. I'm a nuclear engineer, not a lobbyist. I suppose you could describe me as an ADVOCATE for nuclear energy, but I'm no lobbyist.

But if you know of someone was willing to pay me a lobbyists salary to do what I do, I'd gladly take it. Until then, I shall bask in the tens of dollars that Google Adsense has paid out to my website in the last 13 months.

Of course, you're all welcome to come by nuclearfissionary.com and ask me technical questions about what's happening in Japan. Just don't expect me to give you the kind of chicken-little song and dance you're hearing in the media. I don't do fear, I'm a science guy.

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

#133

Post by assemble »

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…

Nuclear engineering is a sub-discipline of mechanical engineering at many schools that offer it... Mechanical engineers do LOTS of thermodynamics.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #129
timr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Physics isn't biology/medicine. The laws of physics are not discovered by running experiments to enumerate every possible combination or permutation of configurations." Wanna bet? Guess how we know most of what we know about criticality and neutron cross-sections? People like Louis Slotkin, who spent hundreds of hours poking at piles of radioactive material in the lab, to derive those mathematical models that you're…

So tell me again about the "laws of physics", and how they're not tested through pemutation. Ok. You generally perform a sequence of experiments, construct a low entropy theory, and then apply that theory in the future. Kind of like what Louis Slotkin did. He doesn't need to redo them on a train, a plane, in a car, at the bar. The fundamental principles discovered tend to be pretty solid. Prove it. Not that hard. Tak…

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by mchouza »

jellicle wrote: post #122
mchouza wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each reactor core holds over 100 tons of uranium, of which about 3-5 tons is U-235. Critical mass under perfect conditions is 50 kilograms. Critical masses don't work that way: the additional U-238 absorbs neutrons making more difficult to achieve criticality. In fact, even an infinite amount of unmoderated natural uranium cannot sustain a chain reaction. See the figure 3.1 in [1] for more information about unmoderat…

Chernobyl used UNENRICHED uranium, containing only .7% of U235, and went kablooey. Which you just said can't happen, so I suppose Chernobyl didn't actually happen. /thread This thread has brought out the worst aspects of Hacker News - reasonably bright people who feel compelled to opine, in their usual arrogant "I am always right" manner, about subjects where they have no clue.

Please read carefully before making absurd accusations. I said: "even an infinite amount of unmoderated natural uranium cannot sustain a chain reaction". The nuclear excursion at Chernobyl occurred in a graphite-moderated reactor core.

I don't claim any special expertise in nuclear power but, as you don't seem to know the importance of moderation in criticality, I think you should refrain from accusing others of cluelessness in this topic.

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

#136

Post by lobster_johnson »

timr wrote: post #127
SamReidHughes wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The physical principles behind criticality calculations are not fiendishly complicated. The computations are computationally intensive, yes (Slotin was around in a time where experiments were cheaper and easier than simulations), and (maybe -- I don't know) the exact nature of physical materials involved was not well known, and needed to be measured. Prove it. Why don't you prove it? It's not other people's job to do…

"Why don't you prove it?" Because I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. I'm also arguing that you can't 'prove' anything in this situation; there are too many unknowns.

> > "Why don't you prove it?"

> Because I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

You are, though. You're the one suggesting a nuclear catastrophe, contrary to apparent scientific evidence.

Post reply on HN