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

Plutonium is Forever

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#61

Post by 3am »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #7
philthy wrote: post #4

The plant should have been dismantled, flooded, and buried within 24 hours of the emergency generators going down. They knew how bad it was/is, this all could have been prevented.

... It is simply not possible to dismantle a nuclear reactor that close after shutdown -- the power produced by radioactive decay heat right after shutdown is in the order of 10MW, and the core is incredibly hot for weeks. If they had done everything as well as they possibly could, they would not be any closer to dismantling the plants than they are today. The best course would have been to maintain cooling so that n…

Germany?

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#62

Post by ErrantX »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #59
ErrantX wrote: post #28

A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…

There was a whole HN thread that very clearly debunked his previous post on the Japan situation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316158 ). If you're finding his writing insightful now it might be a sign that you aren't thinking rationally about the situation. That said I'll list he problems with this paticular article... 1. Japan did ask for our help. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was dispatched the day after the Ts…

Hmm, take a careful re-read. I wouldn't (and didn't) call him insightful. Past experience of his writing screams "take care". What I did say was that in this case they are interesting, and he does have some insight into the Japanese.

As I originally said, he does still over-react, but there are items to reflect on nevertheless.

It's worth noting that the USS Ronald Reagan was dispatched in relation to the relief effort, whereas Cringely is talking about the nuclear issue - which are two distinct entities. From a cultural perspective the two incidents stack up differently. On the other hand some US tech was dispatched to help with the reactors, but in a low-key way that was never reported.

You should never absorb without critique what people are saying, but in this case there is material of worth in his writing.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#63

Post by ErrantX »

pkteison wrote: post #54
ErrantX wrote: post #28

A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…

It actually worries me. When I know something about the topic, I find his writing awful and full of problems and obviously dumb. Then, in another area where I know nothing, it seems decent. Is this because it is actually similarly dumb in this other area also, and I just don't know enough to spot it?

No. He has errors in this area too. But within the text there are things of interest. A critical reader can pick these out.

It's not perfect, but something of use in there.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#64

Post by InclinedPlane »

anamax wrote: post #55
InclinedPlane wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively safe (1/4th as many fatalities per hour and 1/60th as many fatalities per mile, compared to automobiles).

> Whether you measure by hour or by mile air travel is still comparatively safe The problem with that measure is that air accidents don't correlate with either hours or miles, but with takeoffs and landings. The comparable incident for cars is probably intersections. Yes, each plane trip involves only one takeoff and landing while each car trip usually involves multiple intersections, but that just means that simple…

What's important for humans is whether spending time in an airplane or in a car is more dangerous and whether choosing to use an airplane or a car for a trip is more dangerous. In either case the airplane is safer than the car.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#65

Post by yummyfajitas »

kragen wrote: post #39
pasbesoin wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, isn't it also, chemically, extremely toxic?

Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity only describes radiation poisoning.

That seems more like an oversight of Wikipedia. If Plutonium isn't chemically toxic, that would make it pretty much the only heavy metal (besides gold) that isn't.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#66

Post by TomOfTTB »

ErrantX wrote: post #62
TomOfTTB wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a whole HN thread that very clearly debunked his previous post on the Japan situation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316158 ). If you're finding his writing insightful now it might be a sign that you aren't thinking rationally about the situation. That said I'll list he problems with this paticular article... 1. Japan did ask for our help. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was dispatched the day after the Ts…

Hmm, take a careful re-read. I wouldn't (and didn't) call him insightful. Past experience of his writing screams "take care". What I did say was that in this case they are interesting, and he does have some insight into the Japanese. As I originally said, he does still over-react, but there are items to reflect on nevertheless. It's worth noting that the USS Ronald Reagan was dispatched in relation to the relief effo…

First sorry for misunderstanding your point. Though I still say its a warning sign when someone you think is usually full of it starts making sense (even if its in another area)

That said my understanding was the USS Ronald Reagan was dispatched to both help with relief efforts and provide assistance in getting power to the area (they were close enough to the plant that they were forced to flee when things got rough).

The RR has two defining characteristics. One it can produce fresh water by itself and two its (ironically) got its own nuclear power source. So my understanding was it was also providing power to the surrounding area.

Edit: According to news reports the USS Ronald Reagan was actually delivering fresh water to aide in the cooling efforts (http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59318) not power. My bad.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#67

Post by ErrantX »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #66
ErrantX wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, take a careful re-read. I wouldn't (and didn't) call him insightful. Past experience of his writing screams "take care". What I did say was that in this case they are interesting, and he does have some insight into the Japanese. As I originally said, he does still over-react, but there are items to reflect on nevertheless. It's worth noting that the USS Ronald Reagan was dispatched in relation to the relief effo…

First sorry for misunderstanding your point. Though I still say its a warning sign when someone you think is usually full of it starts making sense (even if its in another area) That said my understanding was the USS Ronald Reagan was dispatched to both help with relief efforts and provide assistance in getting power to the area (they were close enough to the plant that they were forced to flee when things got rough)…

It's fine; I probably didn't express it well.

Regarding the RR, I did see about the power thing - but I wasn't sure the extent of that. Or how much that affected the reactors (iirc the issue was not that they had no power, but that the power connects to the plant were disrupted and they had to reconnect them).

Any extra info much appreciated :-)

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#68

Post by joe_the_user »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #59
ErrantX wrote: post #28

A meta point: Cringely is one of those bloggers who, previously, I have slated here on HN - I find his insights into technology poor, badly thought out or both. To make a bad joke; he makes me cringe. So I've been (pleasantly) surprised to find his insights into Japan of actual interest and use. His tone is still a little breathy, and he tends to over-react to some items, but there is some real understanding of the c…

There was a whole HN thread that very clearly debunked his previous post on the Japan situation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316158 ). If you're finding his writing insightful now it might be a sign that you aren't thinking rationally about the situation. That said I'll list he problems with this paticular article... 1. Japan did ask for our help. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was dispatched the day after the Ts…

The idea that the TEPCO plant manager is causing trouble because he's "more concerned about his job than his reactor" is absurd. I GUARANTEE the Japanese government took control of this situation the second it became critical.

Your guarantee is comforting and all but do you have a reference for this? Did you notice headline of the head of TEPCO disappearing?? What about Kan asking TEPCO "what the hell is going on"??

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8619408-tepco-exec...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/122850/20110315/japan-blast-...

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#69

Post by bjelkeman-again »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #65
kragen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity only describes radiation poisoning.

That seems more like an oversight of Wikipedia. If Plutonium isn't chemically toxic, that would make it pretty much the only heavy metal (besides gold) that isn't.

  Recent research with one of the least radioactive isotopes
  of plutonium (plutonium-242, which has a half-life of 
  376,000 years) indicates that plutonium in the body may
  contribute to the development of tumors. In general, 
  however, plutonium isotopic mixtures that are commonly 
  encountered in the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear weapons 
  programs, or thermoelectric generator applications exhibit
  much higher radiological toxicity than chemical toxicity.
Ref: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/pl...

So it is chemically toxic, but not as bad as the radiological toxicity. Although I would love to see a relative scale with this on it.

Re: Plutonium is Forever

#70

Post by TomOfTTB »

joe_the_user wrote: post #68
TomOfTTB wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a whole HN thread that very clearly debunked his previous post on the Japan situation ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2316158 ). If you're finding his writing insightful now it might be a sign that you aren't thinking rationally about the situation. That said I'll list he problems with this paticular article... 1. Japan did ask for our help. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan was dispatched the day after the Ts…

The idea that the TEPCO plant manager is causing trouble because he's "more concerned about his job than his reactor" is absurd. I GUARANTEE the Japanese government took control of this situation the second it became critical. Your guarantee is comforting and all but do you have a reference for this? Did you notice headline of the head of TEPCO disappearing?? What about Kan asking TEPCO "what the hell is going on"??…

The very article you quote says the PM was in the dark "for one hour". That, to me, says the Japanese Government has taken control. They wouldn't replace on the line workers because those are the people who know the most about the plant but those workers are clearly supposed to be reporting to the Government and when they don't they get yelled at.

As for the TEPCO exec I don't know what that proves. We know they cut corners on the plant and if I were the president of TEPCO and I knew that I'd cut corners on the plant I'd find any way I could to get out of there too. But I don't know how that's relevant to the government taking control.

Post reply on HN