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

171–180 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#171

Post by cindyllm »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #170
arthurcolle wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I actually feel like I shared fairly demure commentary and then presented my background with full transparency. I care mostly about the health of this worker, and less about the opinions of a 1 minute old account.

My account is a couple years old, and I’ll agree with what fekxpurrrt said — you expressed doubt without evidence, people challenged your doubt, and you’ve never really satisfied their objections. The experts do know more than you. A brief Wikipedia investigation corroborates what the experts have said. They seem trustworthy, it’s unclear why your doubt should be taken seriously. Everyone is wrong sometimes. When you…

[dead]

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#172

Post by SkyPuncher »

arthurcolle wrote: post #145
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't have the necessary credentials, and you still wouldn't be qualified to comment even if you did have them unless you had access to the internal data. But no worries, I'm sure you'd be OK getting surgery from a surgeon's son who never went to medical school nor read your chart.

But I am not doing surgery. I am expressing skepticism at the "oh no it's all fine" from literally everyone reporting on this story

You're being unnecessarily attacked for what is largely a casual forum where people make casual comments and speculation all of the time.

Further, your reasoning is biased towards safety (rather than risk), which seems completely sane.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#173

Post by arthurcolle »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #170
arthurcolle wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I actually feel like I shared fairly demure commentary and then presented my background with full transparency. I care mostly about the health of this worker, and less about the opinions of a 1 minute old account.

My account is a couple years old, and I’ll agree with what fekxpurrrt said — you expressed doubt without evidence, people challenged your doubt, and you’ve never really satisfied their objections. The experts do know more than you. A brief Wikipedia investigation corroborates what the experts have said. They seem trustworthy, it’s unclear why your doubt should be taken seriously. Everyone is wrong sometimes. When you…

What claims specifically have I made that you have evidence to the contrary indicating that I am wrong

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#174

Post by mananaysiempre »

godelski wrote: post #168
LeoPanthera wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CPM value means nothing without additional context. Counts vary based on detector type and size, radiation type, energy, distance and geometry, all sorts of things. They're not comparable except in identical contexts. This is why the Sievert exists as a unit. As a general rule, falling into a reactor pool is probably fine, as long as you don't reach the bottom. (But please don't try it.) There's even an XKCD "What…

> A CPM value means nothing without additional context Here to confirm this. If you're googling "CPM" you'll find charts that say different things. That's why you need to read carefully. Better, just chill, it is okay that you don't know. It's nuclear physics. It's not a subject you're expected to know about. For CPM, what matters is "CPM of " CPM just tells you the number of particle detection. It does not tell you…

> [Y]ou are getting over 100bn CPM right now. The reason it doesn't matter is that this is neutrinos and they're not interacting with you.

I mean, if you actually had a neutrino detector that produced 10e10 CPM over your cross-section, then it would matter for you, because particle physicists would kidnap you to learn the secret :)

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#175

Post by godelski »

arthurcolle wrote: post #142
LeoPanthera wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CPM value means nothing without additional context. Counts vary based on detector type and size, radiation type, energy, distance and geometry, all sorts of things. They're not comparable except in identical contexts. This is why the Sievert exists as a unit. As a general rule, falling into a reactor pool is probably fine, as long as you don't reach the bottom. (But please don't try it.) There's even an XKCD "What…

Thank you for the followup (familiar with the XKCD) Dumb question from a true non-expert: So CPM varies with all those factors you mention, but wouldn't the site HP team know exactly what detector they used, the geometry, distance, etc.? They could convert to dose if they wanted, right? Why report the ambiguous "300 CPM" instead of an actual dose estimate in mSv/μSv? Seems like that would be more useful for any medic…

  > Why report the ambiguous "300 CPM" instead of an actual dose estimate in mSv/μSv?
It is a technical document. It is meant to communicate between experts, not to the public.

  > Is there any legitimate reason to report CPM instead of dose after a contamination event?
It's not nefarious, it is the measurement that they had. CPM is an easier measurement to get. And keep in mind that these notices are just a small part of the communication going on. They're meant to be brief.

To get the actual effective dosage you'll need a lot more information and calculations. The CPM can give you a decent estimate, if you already know context, but it is meaningless if you don't. So to an expert in that space it's a good quick estimate, but to an average person it isn't (even to above average people).

In context is also being used as a stepping stone for quick evaluation. They sent the guy to the hospital and he'll get a better estimate of dosage there. I'm sure they also were doing those calculations prior to sending him out. It may just be customary to use CPM units. That part I don't know. Here's the page they reference though[0] (there's only a single (xii) so easy to find).

[0] https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/p...

[disclosure] I have training in nuclear physics, including in radiation dosages (I worked on developing shielding materials), but I have not worked on a reactor (though I've seen reactors and Cherenkov Radiation :) so the customs of the bureaucracy are beyond my wheelhouse. But from my experience I'm not surprised by this. I would expect a lot more documentation and accurate measurements are being passed through other channels.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#176

Post by cornonthecobra »

yard2010 wrote: post #163
LeoPanthera wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A CPM value means nothing without additional context. Counts vary based on detector type and size, radiation type, energy, distance and geometry, all sorts of things. They're not comparable except in identical contexts. This is why the Sievert exists as a unit. As a general rule, falling into a reactor pool is probably fine, as long as you don't reach the bottom. (But please don't try it.) There's even an XKCD "What…

From the what if: > On August 31st, 2010, a diver was servicing the spent fuel pool at the Leibstadt nuclear reactor in Switzerland. He spotted an unidentified length of tubing on the bottom of the pool and radioed his supervisor to ask what to do. He was told to put it in his tool basket, which he did. Due to bubble noise in the pool, he didn’t hear his radiation alarm. When the tool basket was lifted from the water…

One of my favourite bits (and a fine example of Randall's sublime humour), comes right at the end:

But just to be sure, I got in touch with a friend of mine who works at a research reactor, and asked him what he thought would happen to you if you tried to swim in their radiation containment pool.

“In our reactor?” He thought about it for a moment. “You’d die pretty quickly, before reaching the water, from gunshot wounds.”

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#178

Post by godelski »

mananaysiempre wrote: post #174
godelski wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A CPM value means nothing without additional context Here to confirm this. If you're googling "CPM" you'll find charts that say different things. That's why you need to read carefully. Better, just chill, it is okay that you don't know. It's nuclear physics. It's not a subject you're expected to know about. For CPM, what matters is "CPM of " CPM just tells you the number of particle detection. It does not tell you…

> [Y]ou are getting over 100bn CPM right now. The reason it doesn't matter is that this is neutrinos and they're not interacting with you. I mean, if you actually had a neutrino detector that produced 10e10 CPM over your cross-section, then it would matter for you, because particle physicists would kidnap you to learn the secret :)

Honestly, the military would probably come after you first. Or maybe an oil company? Frankly because if you could detect neutrinos at that resolution you would be able to produce a really good mapping of... just about anything. From the inside of the Earth to the inside of a secret military facility on the opposite side of the planet. Not to mention you've also invented a communication device that is essentially unjammable[0].

Sufficient to say that you'd be very popular, but in probably the least fun way possible.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2847

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#179

Post by dooglius »

almosthere wrote: post #102
jasongill wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, yes; he will die no matter what.

As you get older this pedantry gets really tiring.

There is a deeper point here, not just pedantry. The point is that harm is a spectrum not a binary and one cannot meaningfully answer a question that assumes a binary.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#180

Post by sebmellen »

Relevant from Randall Munroe https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

> What if I took a swim in a typical spent nuclear fuel pool? Would I need to dive to actually experience a fatal amount of radiation? How long could I stay safely at the surface?

> Assuming you’re a reasonably good swimmer, you could probably survive treading water anywhere from 10 to 40 hours. At that point, you would black out from fatigue and drown. This is also true for a pool without nuclear fuel in the bottom.

Post reply on HN