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

A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

nrc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#121

Post by Brian_K_White »

happyopossum wrote: post #80
mlindner wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't even call it bad. Reactor pools have basically zero radiation at the surface. The water is constantly filtered and kept very pure to remove contaminants that can be activated by neutrons. Even drinking it I would think would be completely fine. The water itself doesn't get activated.

Then where did their radioactive hair come from?

That's what I was thinking, but it does look like 300 cpm for a few hours is essentially nothing, or it looks real bad, I can't tell.

I found this:

  Days to receive chronic dose for increase cancer risk of 1 in a 1,000
  432 (at 100 CPM)
  86 (at 500 CPM)
Ok so 300 for an hour (we'll assume the hair is cut off and the exposure either stops or 90% reduces) means no problem. Don't do that every day that's all.

But it's from a prepper site that doesn't cite their own sources.

I found this: https://www.energy.gov/ehss/articles/doe-ionizing-radiation-...

Which uses rem instead of cpm. An on-line converter of unknown quality says 300 cpm is 500 rem, and the pdf from the .gov site says 500 rem is "death probable in 2-3 weeks", but I think that chart is saying that's whole body & no therapy. Where this is probably mostly hair that can be just cut off totally let alone washed, and so the elevated exposure is probably both low and short duration, and medical therapy (whatever that means, if any in this case) on top.

I can't tell, could be the same as just visting a country with a slightly higher background that isn't a problem for anyone, to dead in a month. Leaning towards no problem just because of the short time and apparently mostly external and removable source.

However, it's not nothing either. It's maybe no problem for this person only because they avoided ingesting the water and the water was very quickly washed off and presumably their hair was cut off and all clothes etc removed as fast as possible. It's clearly at least "rather hot" and you can't just play in it and have prolonged exposure and ingestion. It doesn't seem to be "basically zero".

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#122

Post by malfist »

arthurcolle wrote: post #120
malfist wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?

I learned a few things from my father along the way. I can share my notes if you'd like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coll%C3%A9?wprov=sfti1

I'm sure your father is a very accomplished gentleman. But I was asking why your armchair analysis is better than the experts who actually know what happened here?

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#123

Post by tgtweak »

malfist wrote: post #117
arthurcolle wrote: post #108

300 CPM in hair after decontamination is a massive red flag. If this is from systemic circulation, could be GBq-level total body activity. The non-emergency classification is bureaucratic nonsense. This is an internal contamination event with unknown but potentially severe consequences.

Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?

300CPM above background is considered very low - likely why they classified this as non-emergency - the only reason it was reported was per NRC cfr that states any time there is transportation of a radioactively contained person offsite, it must be notified.

For reference, in Canada, that is considered trace contamination and not dose. You would experience 300-800 CPM on a commercial airliner during the entirety of your flight, for comparison.

edit: adding to this that the site in question, Palisades, is shut-down and is under decommissioning and was not operating at the time - so while the water would have had some radioactivity due to exposure to the formerly active core, it was not like falling into an operating reactor or into moderating heavy water... also something that cannot happen with a pressurized reactor such as this one.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#124

Post by smilespray »

robviren wrote: post #83

I greatly appreciate the nuclear industry. Nuclear field engineering was my first "real" job out of college and they really committ to safety. Transparency in this industry is inspiring because everyone involved knows that one screw up and that's the end of the US nuclear industry. Good luck getting oil and gas to be accountable and as transparent about incidents. I carry the culture into the rest of my work and appr…

I've lived through three major nuclear incidents, and what they had in common, regardless of the political systems of the US, The Soviet Union or Japan, was not the transparency, it was the lying. It started immediately after each incident.

I'm essentially pro-nuclear, I just don't trust people who run it.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#125

Post by throwawaymaths »

hshdhdhehd wrote: post #7

> Non Emergency I guess in a nuclear reactor there is a lingual shift and the word emergency cant be used for just any old 911 call. Like how Australians apparently call a jellyfish bite "uncomfortable"

i mean it might be a medical emergency but not a reactor emergency?

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#126

Post by SoftTalker »

PaulHoule wrote: post #21
hshdhdhehd wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like what is a reactor cavity? HN title makes it sound like they fell into the reactor but maybe this is some sort of moat or something? what did they fall into and why?

Almost certainly a refueling outage, this video will give you a good image of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCfapqYy00

Palisades is not an operating reactor. It has been shut down since 2022. It's in the process of being recommissioned/restarted.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#127

Post by DoctorOetker »

Why didn't they shave off the hair and measure again before sending off to medical? They have the opportunity to report lower numbers, and would enable identifying non-hair-adsorbed radiatioactive matter on the subject. It sounds so easy and actionable it boggles the mind that it's not part of the protocol.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#128

Post by arthurcolle »

tgtweak wrote: post #123
malfist wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?

300CPM above background is considered very low - likely why they classified this as non-emergency - the only reason it was reported was per NRC cfr that states any time there is transportation of a radioactively contained person offsite, it must be notified. For reference, in Canada, that is considered trace contamination and not dose. You would experience 300-800 CPM on a commercial airliner during the entirety of y…

I thought 50-130 CPM above background was considered trace exposure. But yeah I didn't realize it was a decommissioned core... idk there are so many red flags in this story.

EDIT: 300-600 CPM above background radiation levels is for EXTERNAL environmental monitoring, not for POST-DECONTAMINATION readings on a contaminated person.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#129

Post by roenxi »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #121
happyopossum wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then where did their radioactive hair come from?

That's what I was thinking, but it does look like 300 cpm for a few hours is essentially nothing, or it looks real bad, I can't tell. I found this: Days to receive chronic dose for increase cancer risk of 1 in a 1,000 432 (at 100 CPM) 86 (at 500 CPM) Ok so 300 for an hour (we'll assume the hair is cut off and the exposure either stops or 90% reduces) means no problem. Don't do that every day that's all. But it's from…

The report doesn't read like something involving 500 rem and potential death in 3 weeks. It says "Non Emergency". Can you link to this converter? It seems to be a rather key step that got handwaved. Wiki says [0] there isn't a standard on what a "count" counts.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counts_per_minute

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#130

Post by aunty_helen »

arthurcolle wrote: post #120
malfist wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?

I learned a few things from my father along the way. I can share my notes if you'd like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coll%C3%A9?wprov=sfti1

> Collé and his collaborators have maintained, expanded and improved radioactivity measurement standards...

Story checks out. I think this would pass.

Post reply on HN