Not bad, not terrible.
Did you mean “not great, not terrible” or was the change deliberate?
A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
191–200 of 545 posts
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#192Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#193Hopefully the worker is okay. I have to agree that the non-emergency classification seems odd. This should warrant a proper investigation and steps to avoid this in the future.
FTA: “This is an eight-hour notification, non-emergency, for the transportation of a contaminated person offsite“
⇒ the “non-emergency” classification isn’t about the “fell into a nuclear reactor pool”, but about sending the victim off site.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#194I 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.
You describe incidents which become political. At some point the normal rules are being ignored by those on the top of the information food chain. That says nothing about the rules of the game, but does say a lot about the people involved.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does say that. Can you translate that into a measurement of radioactivity & medical risk? I don't think it is obvious. EDIT The report below it seems to literally be "nothing interesting happened". The thresholds here for something to be reportable are very low. Frankly I don't know why this story is upvoted so much but I'm not about to make a bigger deal about it than one sentence.
300cpm is lower than what you’d be exposed to on a commercial airline flight (400-900ish cpm).
But is that the same thing? 300cpm says something about the risk to someone near the worker, not about what the worker has been exposed to
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#196[flagged]
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aussie surfer here, the stings typically are uncomfortable. Some of the deadlier ones can be close to painless and only result in itching and result in you dying from respiratory failure 24 hours later. Others are downright painful with even strong opiate based pain killers struggling to cut through the pain.
Also it's in a way normalised to happen in a few places with beaches. There are vinegar stations every 100m or so. Basically a "yes, it will happen to a few of you". https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-prev...
Just fyi, they don't put vinegars at the beaches anymore, apparently it makes it worse (well I haven't seen any for a long while)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/vinegar-makes-box-jel...
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does say that. Can you translate that into a measurement of radioactivity & medical risk? I don't think it is obvious. EDIT The report below it seems to literally be "nothing interesting happened". The thresholds here for something to be reportable are very low. Frankly I don't know why this story is upvoted so much but I'm not about to make a bigger deal about it than one sentence.
300cpm is lower than what you’d be exposed to on a commercial airline flight (400-900ish cpm).
CPM is a function of the detector sensitivity/size and radiation level.
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fuck me, is there anything fun that isn't nephrotoxic?
shrooms
Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They had 300 counts per minute which would e around 6200 mSv year Are you sure about that? 6200 mSv is 6.2 Sv, which I understand to be near-universally deadly. That dosage would be profoundly incompatible with the news that the worker was being sent offsite to seek non-emergency medical attention. Poking around, it looks like "counts per minute" have to get converted to a dosage using an instrument-specific formul…
no not sure. yeah I used the an average instrument specific rate. The point is a) everything emits, b) we have no idea on severity from the info, could be a little, could be a lot. Could also be short term (haircut) or longer term (ingested) exposures.
> yeah I used the an average instrument specific rate.
Would you provide a link to the source of this average instrument specific rate?
I'm interested in knowing which instruments designed to detect low-to-medium-level radiation sources on a human are configured so that five detections per second would equate to a "You're fucking dead; there's really no hope for you" dose.
(Did you ask an LLM to "convert counts per minute to mSv" and fail to sanity-check the confident-sounding result it gave you?)
> ...everything emits...
Given that the crust and sea and air of this planet are chock full of radioactives, and that every living thing on the planet builds itself out of that material, that goes without saying.