Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe' • Hacker News Board

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#251

Post by saalweachter » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

cdr wrote: post #134

saalweachter wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you think this was an engineering failure and not a business/implementation failure? For instance, in that famous pedestrian bridge collapse (a pedestrian walkway in a hotel in I think Kansas City collapsed shortly after opening, killing and injuring an absurd number of people), the bridge was designed correctly, but a deviation from the design in construction led to a fatal flaw. 2. What do you consider "p…

You're thinking of the Hyatt Regency (now Sheraton): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse It was not as you describe; the original design was absolutely not correct. The original design was additionally so difficult to implement in reality that one of the manufacturers of the structural parts proposed a design change - one that made the flaws of the original twice as bad - that architects appr…

Yeah, re-reading the article the designer doesn't sound blameless.

I'm probably willing to let my claim stand without anecdote (deviations from design occur outside the engineer's control), but honestly it's the weaker point, so let it drop. The more important one is that engineers design within a set of constraints, and if these parameters are exceeded, it is not the fault of the engineer.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#252

Post by niels_olson » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 2:21 PM UTC

mpyne wrote: post #182

CWuestefeld wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory capture is a big problem. Regulatory capture is THE problem. Contrary to the parent post's claim, the problem is not with our "economic system". It's that, if you're going to regulate something (particularly something as complex as nuclear energy), then you need experts. And the only place to get those experts is from the industry. Generally, those people are naturally going to look at the industry from a…

> It's that, if you're going to regulate something (particularly something as complex as nuclear energy), then you need experts. And the only place to get those experts is from the industry. This is a very key point. One of the ways that the Navy's nuclear management agency (NR) has tried to avoid the problem of regulatory capture is that they train their own experts in addition to pulling experienced personnel from…

Interesting point of note: the US Navy's nuclear program has far more miles of safe travel than the shuttle program, or any other program ever, despite a maximum speed in the vicinity of 30 mph. That means the number of operating hours is fantastically larger.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#253

Post by DennisP » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 2:40 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #238

DennisP wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that these reactors were built in the 1970s. Modern designs are a lot better, and some shut down by themselves upon loss of power, with no need for active measures at all. Even some reactors built in the 1980s got through the events at Fukushima just fine.

The problem was not in shutting down the chain reaction - that worked just fine. The problem was in dealing with fuel rods that were still, due to decay processes that nothing in the universe can stop, producing massive amounts of heat that, without active cooling, would melt them and re-start the chain reaction.

Sure, but if the reactor can go a week without cooling and not sustain damage, you've got a lot more leeway. Some of the GenIII+ designs we have now can do that.

The ultimate solution is probably the molten salt reactor. With liquid fuel you continually remove fission products, and with most of those gone you don't have decay heat issues anymore.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#254

Post by saalweachter » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:00 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #120

saalweachter wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Why do you think this was an engineering failure and not a business/implementation failure? For instance, in that famous pedestrian bridge collapse (a pedestrian walkway in a hotel in I think Kansas City collapsed shortly after opening, killing and injuring an absurd number of people), the bridge was designed correctly, but a deviation from the design in construction led to a fatal flaw. 2. What do you consider "p…

>Everyone involved may have agreed that a 1% chance of failure of the lifetime of the plant was acceptable. This is the problem. The solution proposed is that they have a bit more skin in the game.

Why is that a problem?

The roof of my house has a certain maximum load it is designed to carry. This load is mostly based on expected snowfall. Conceivably, in a year with exceptional snow fall the maximum load could be exceeded and the roof could collapse, killing my family and myself. However, I -- both through my representative government which makes the rules on minimum maximums and also through my decision to live in such a home -- have decided the risk is acceptable.

If the architect has not misrepresented the maximum load of my roof, why should he be held responsible if it collapses in unexpectedly extreme weather and kills me? If he should not be punished, why is nuclear special?

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#255

Post by wissler » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:26 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #237

wissler wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I believe that government has a right to make laws regarding the use of drugs. This is the critical issue. By what right? Where does an institution of mere men get the prerogative to interfere with other men deciding to consume certain types/arrangements of matter?

By what right? By the right of a society to make rules that govern those within it. I realize from previous experience that it's likely you think this is an illegitimate right. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is how societies have functioned throughout human history. Edit: I believe this is a distraction from the nuclear regulation debate - which I note you have chosen to ignore. I agree that, ye…

It's funny how you think that getting to the heart of the matter is "distraction."

But from your answer I can see why you don't want to have this discussion, it's just sheer nonsense. The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it."

I don't think you are philosophically equipped to use the word "right" here. For you, "right" simply means "might." So you might as well just say, "Yeah? Whaddya goin to do about it?" Don't pretend to be having a discussion about "right".

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#256

Post by redblacktree » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:39 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #230

redblacktree wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the coal plant won't suffer a catastrophic failure. It has negative effects, sure, but they're diffuse, not acute, like a nuclear meltdown is.

It has negative effects, sure, but they're diffuse, not acute, like a nuclear meltdown is. So killing or having adverse health effects on far more people is OK, as long as the effects are diffuse? I'm not following the logic here. The number of people affected by Fukushima, even on the worst-case estimates, is less than the number of people affected in a year by the various aspects of coal plants that posters here ha…

You're not following the logic because you're using a global perspective, while I'm using a local perspective, based on self-interest. I'm not arguing for or against nuclear power, except to say that the acute effects of a potential meltdown lead to a lot of NIMBY folks.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#257

Post by mpyne » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:39 PM UTC

niels_olson wrote: post #252

mpyne wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's that, if you're going to regulate something (particularly something as complex as nuclear energy), then you need experts. And the only place to get those experts is from the industry. This is a very key point. One of the ways that the Navy's nuclear management agency (NR) has tried to avoid the problem of regulatory capture is that they train their own experts in addition to pulling experienced personnel from…

Interesting point of note: the US Navy's nuclear program has far more miles of safe travel than the shuttle program, or any other program ever, despite a maximum speed in the vicinity of 30 mph. That means the number of operating hours is fantastically larger.

That true, though I'll note it's only "safe" in the context of the reactor, not the whole ship.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#258

Post by redblacktree » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 3:43 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #215

palmer wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulatory capture is when the people tasked with keeping an industry on its best behavior have too close ties to the industry, through personal connections or financial incentives, and are no longer able to do their jobs. I would agree that we have a problem with inadequate or corrupt regulators in several industries.

Regulatory capture can take the form of outright corruption, but the more insidious form is cognitive capture. That's where the regulators simply don't have a sufficiently detached perspective from those they are regulating. They internalize the needs and thought patterns of the industry as there own. A related phenomenon in foreign affairs circles is called "going native".

That's very interesting. It's easy to imagine how, as a regulator, going out to dinner with the regulated (or their representatives) on a regular basis would influence your thinking. It doesn't require a conspiracy theory, so it gives us a great jumping-off point for a rational discussion about how to limit the opportunity for this phenomenon to manifest. Thanks for the new viewpoint!

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#259

Post by nl » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 4:18 PM UTC

wissler wrote: post #255

nl wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what right? By the right of a society to make rules that govern those within it. I realize from previous experience that it's likely you think this is an illegitimate right. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is how societies have functioned throughout human history. Edit: I believe this is a distraction from the nuclear regulation debate - which I note you have chosen to ignore. I agree that, ye…

It's funny how you think that getting to the heart of the matter is "distraction." But from your answer I can see why you don't want to have this discussion, it's just sheer nonsense. The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it." I don't think you are philosophically equipped to use the word "right" here. For you, "right" simply m…

The topic of the discussion is a nuclear accident. Nevertheless I'm still discussing libertarianism with you.

The word "right" doesn't refer to "we've always raped and pillaged after we won a war, so that gives us a right to keep on doing it."

I agree with that 100%. I don't think anything I have said could be taken to mean that I support rape & pillage.

For you, "right" simply means "might."

No it doesn't, and just saying that is what I think doesn't make it so.

I understand the libertarian view: that governmental power is illegitimate because it is derived from force.

I also completely reject that view: I believe that governmental power is derived from a civil society and that power is society's way of imposing an agreed set of behaviour in the face of bad actors. I see nothing immoral or wrong in this - indeed, it is the very principle of democracy.

A couple of additional points:

1) Trying to say I don't want to have this discussion is demonstrably wrong (ie, this reply, and all the other ones). Saying something is sheer nonsense is unhelpful - I'm not clear if you think the discussion is nonsense or if it is merely an expression of frustration?

2) I don't care either way about drugs. Clearly that is something you feel passionate about, but I'm not the person to discuss it with. Sorry.

3) I find it very interesting that you have avoided the problems with your theory about nuclear regulation and insurance. I find that is often the case with libertarians - their ideas sound nice on a surface level but when you dig a little bit there is nothing there. I'm unclear if this is because the ones I discuss it with don't understand their own philosophy, or they are unable to explain it, or because there really is nothing there.

So far you haven't tried to explain it. Unfortunately that leaves me none-the-wiser.

Re: Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

#260

Post by pdonis » Fri, Aug 23, 2013, 4:30 PM UTC

redblacktree wrote: post #256

pdonis wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has negative effects, sure, but they're diffuse, not acute, like a nuclear meltdown is. So killing or having adverse health effects on far more people is OK, as long as the effects are diffuse? I'm not following the logic here. The number of people affected by Fukushima, even on the worst-case estimates, is less than the number of people affected in a year by the various aspects of coal plants that posters here ha…

You're not following the logic because you're using a global perspective, while I'm using a local perspective, based on self-interest. I'm not arguing for or against nuclear power, except to say that the acute effects of a potential meltdown lead to a lot of NIMBY folks.

I'm using a local perspective, based on self-interest.

And I'm saying that this local perspective (which I understand might not be yours, you might just be trying to articulate the perspective of the NIMBY folks) is flawed, because it doesn't treat equal impacts on self-interest equally. It protests against nuclear plants, while not protesting at all against coal plants that have a greater impact on the same person's self-interest, simply because the impact of the coal plant is "diffuse": it pollutes their lungs over time, all the time, instead of bringing some probability of being in a Fukushima zone, but the total impact on expected years of life (or expected quality of life) for that person is still greater for the coal plant.

I understand that this perspective is common, but that doesn't make it right.