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

Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 258 posts

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#221

Post by ivanhoe »

Tepix wrote: post #150
coldtea wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pi…

The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There…

True, although the quality lenses are even more important investment (and way more expensive)

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#222

Post by Kadin »

xelxebar wrote: post #63
patcheudor wrote: post #46

It's interesting the author mentioned the nuclear generators and whatnot used in lighthouses and for small portable power generation. Those use strontium-90 and other byproducts of nastier energetic fissions which if my amateur nuclear physics brain is functioning correctly don't produce iodine-131. Iodine-131 is a byproduct of uranium-235/238 decay & fission. Since practical fusion doesn't yet exist, iodine-131 can…

Kind of off topic, but mind sharing how you molded such an amateur nuclear physics brain?

Not the poster, but I've personally found that old books from the 1950s and 60s about nuclear energy are very approachable. (Plus they have hilariously optimistic assessments of the future. It's cute, in a depressing way.)

"Principles of nuclear reactor engineering" by Samuel Glasstone is a commonly recommended text. If you do a little Googling you can find PDFs of it online, although out of respect for the authors I won't link them directly.

I have a 1955-ish print edition myself, and it's quite wonderful. The first third or so of the book requires no math and is the best overview of nuclear engineering that I've ever read, and then it starts to gradually ramp up the theory. At some point, unless you are coming directly from an undergrad physics program or a related discipline, you may find the math a bit daunting and decide to stop, but you'll still have a better understanding of the subject than probably anyone but a small percentage of humans.

The book does not, however, contain any information on nuclear weapons, such as you might find in a more modern text; at the time of its printing I suppose its inclusion would have gotten the book classified, since I don't think there was much available in the unclassified literature. So if that is an interest it may not be a good source. But this, too, adds a bit to the brave-new-world Atomic Era optimistic charm. I'd love to live in the world that Glassstone thought we'd be living in today from the vantage point of 1955.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#223

Post by Kadin »

VLM wrote: post #176
cocoablazing wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a warhead fizzled, it would have destroyed the submarine carrying it, which would have detonated hundreds of tons of rocket fuel and the rest of the explosives on board. We would have known about the explosion the same way we did the Kursk.

Why does it have to fizzle aboard the sub? Whoops launched the nuclear torpedo instead of the training torpedo good thing the self destruct routine is an intentional near zero yield fizzle. My guess is the board and court martial would so classified we wouldn't hear about it for a century.

That would be a very strange design choice, to have the warhead self-destruct in that way. I don't know how much is really around in the open literature on ex-Soviet / Russian nuclear torpedoes, but certainly there's nothing around to suggest that US nuclear weapons do that, for a variety of good reasons, and I don't think there's any reason to suspect that the Russians designed theirs much differently. Off the top of my head: first, most nuclear weapons don't have a self-destruct or recall capability once launched, because that's a vulnerability during actual use; two, if it were launched unarmed, then the expected result would be a failure of the actual detonation system, leaving an intact weapon somewhere at the bottom of the ocean; third, a fizzle of a nuclear weapon underwater would probably cause a substantial amount of contamination from the fissile materials; it would basically be a (very) "dirty bomb", and difficult to hide. We'd see significant long-lived fissile contamination in the water either already or very shortly.

The much more likely explanation is that a reactor, either onboard a ship or submarine or on shore, had some sort of (probably minor, in the sense of "not catastrophic") mishap and vented steam from a primary cooling loop. You would expect to see short-lived byproducts including Iodine-131 in this case. There have been a number of similar accidents over time, and a release of steam wouldn't necessarily have any other signs and it might be tempting to cover up if it occurred at sea.

Relevant FAS/LANL background on iodine releases from nuclear reactors: https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/pubs/00416674.pdf

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#224

Post by coldtea »

Tepix wrote: post #150
coldtea wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What kind of camera did you use to click these? This is an incredible comment. What keyboard did you use to write it? (Camera choice doesn't matter beyond certain ergonomics and certain capabilities (low noise, more room for cropping, shallow DOF, etc, a lot of which depend on the lens as well). Any $300+ DSLR can give you the exact same results, as can a lot of mirrorless with a speedy lens. And for most of the pi…

The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using: * very low noise * very shallow DOF * long bursts of rapid images * weather proofing (including cold) * improved dynamic range * high resolution (lets you crop the part you are interested in and retain good quality) There…

>The role of the camera is generally overrated, however there are certain characteristics that you only get with expensive full frame cameras such as the Canon EOS 5D Mark III he appears to be using

The "shallow DOF" can be achieved with a longer lens on a crop-factor camera. And most landscape pictures (such as those) use the hyperfocal distance anyway.

A "expensive full frame" camera will have better "low noise" but marginally so compared to a APS C or even 4/3rds camera with the latest (4-5 years) generation of sensors. We're simply above the point of having new cameras really give anything beyond marginal returns in ISO utility (not because they don't get better ISO, but because so much sensitivity is useless for most kinds of photography, including most of landscape work (plus, it affects color rendition). In any case, in all the history of film photography, all known celebrated photographs seldom straiyed outside something like 800-1600 ISO. Not sure why we need 6400+ today, except for pissing contents and/or stalking).

Now, while most of the points are real, they are all marginal returns, and depend so much upon the conditions at the shoot and the skill of the photographer that they might as well not matter at all.

I'd go as far as to say that a $300 APS-C used well will be able to take just as good photos as any $5K full frame (yeah, it might lose a couple of stops of DOF, just use a faster lens on it), and even an expensive lens on the latter wont make that much of a different at any normal print size (at least up to A3).

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#225

Post by coldtea »

sjwright wrote: post #166
neom wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who went to college for digital imaging technology I would say that's not strictly true, crop on a sensor actually has some advantages, for example if you have a 50 1.2 and you can't afford the 85 1.2 you can put the 50 on an APS-C, and in many instances that is cheaper than the second lens, none of the other points you made apply specifically to full frame cameras either. These are all shot on a MkII but…

A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens. In other words, your $1300 lens on a crop body will have comparable performance of a $350 lens on the full frame body.

>A 50mm 1.2 lens on a Canon APS-C body has a full frame equivalent focal length of 80mm and a full frame equivalent aperture of f/1.9 — giving it the characteristics of a comparatively inexpensive lens.

Only as it pertains to DOF. On the other hand, it will still be a 1.2 lens as far as light gathering is concerned.

And you can get a 35mm 1.2 for your 50mm equivalent on APS-C.

The loss of DOF we know, but you still so much DOF latitude on APS-C that you can do pretty much anything. Besides, that 50mm will become a quite handy portrait lens on APS-C.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#226

Post by ocdtrekkie »

smueller1234 wrote: post #99
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people have all of a sudden rushed to defend the media now that Trump is attacking it. But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information. The media is VERY important, I agree. But I feel we've recently decided to forget how awful t…

"But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information." I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to add that this argument can be spun further: the media framework is as rigged for views as it is due to poor prioritization of the media consum…

I did, in fact, also recently buy a Guardian subscription. :)

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#227

Post by omnius19 »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #111
omnius19 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. It is one thing to give reasonable criticism of a specific incidence of news media misconduct. It is another thing to blanket condemn every news organization based on inaccurate hypotheticals and personal opinions with no proof. Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed. By all means, be a skeptical and informed consumer of the news, but d…

> Democracy is in trouble when people lose faith in the media and independent journalism is suppressed To what extent is reporting skewed/slanted in the direction of the owners interests? Each media outlet still has an owner, hasn't it?

Your question is a red herring. Of course the owners of news organizations have biases, as do the reporters, editors, readers, and everyone else in society. Sometimes the bias is political. Sometimes it is sensationalism. Sometimes the writer doesn't like the color blue.

Every reputable news organization follows the journalistic code of ethics that puts institutional barriers in the way to counteract bias. Reputable outlets require multiple sources to corroborate stories before they go to print. They require printed or verbal disclaimers on any story that could pose a conflict of interest for the outlet or author. They require prompt retractions to be printed if an initial story is found to be factually inaccurate in any way.

It's not a perfect system. No system is. Bad articles can still slip through. Some organizations can adhere to it more than others. But it is way better than anything else humans have come up with to keep the news honest. Most journalists take their roles as arbiters of information very seriously and try to keep their biases out of it, even if they are not always completely successful. That is all anyone could reasonably ask.

Instead of labelling all news media as generically biased and therefore not to be trusted, try to understand that all information will have a bias and learn to identify specific incidents of it. Then learn to work around it by reading other sources with different biases, thereby getting the whole picture of a story. It is the news media's job to TRY to be as unbiased as possible. It is the news reader's job to TRY and be as informed as possible by reading varied news from different sources. Neither side will be perfect, as both are full of imperfect human elements, but overall it leads to a reasonably informed and educated populace, which of course is the goal of journalism.

And if you do not agree with what I have said here, I have a follow up question for you... if the current news organizations are so terrible and inherently biased, what alternative would you propose? What is your idea of a perfect, unbiased media landscape? And would your alternative truly lead to a less biased media or just a media with biases you happen to agree with?

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#228

Post by ocdtrekkie »

omnius19 wrote: post #70
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like people have all of a sudden rushed to defend the media now that Trump is attacking it. But I feel like we've lost sight of who is probably chiefly responsible for Trump to begin with: A media framework which rewards views, leading to focus on the most outrageous and entertaining "news" over important information. The media is VERY important, I agree. But I feel we've recently decided to forget how awful t…

Many people, myself included, have supported the media long before Trump became president. It is easy to forget now, but Obama was also known at times for having an adversarial relationship with the media. Of course there are click bait articles and examples of bad journalism to look at. Just as there are examples of good and bad work in every profession. But pointing out singular incidents of questionable journalism…

As I said, I've definitely seen some good journalists persisting to this day. Though it's hard to support and defend what Trump's followers refer to as the "mainstream media" when the outlets I've found producing that great work, like The Guardian or The Intercept, aren't really mainstream.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#229

Post by neom »

dwringer wrote: post #209
PuffinBlue wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you're mixing your arguments. From your education you are aware that the 'equivalence' between APS-C and full-frame extends beyond focal length and into aperture and ISO performance I presume? That's the point the parent you're replying to is making. It is physically impossible to achieve the kind of equivalence you mentioned in your first post because the 'crop factor' is also applied to aperture and the cr…

The difference in DOF is more of a minor technicality than a "Your 1500 dollar lens performs like a 350 dollar one!" though. OP is correct that you are exaggerating, though OP was definitely wrong to ignore the difference.

I ignored it because when you get into practical image making the difference in image related to depth is negligible compared to the image quality to cost ratio. My point was that a small sensor can have a use, telephoto compression as a by-product of a crop is pretty handy when you have very expensive primes you want to make longer, hence i only used L series lenses in my example. I forgot there is tie between mastery, artistry and pedanticism. Source: The studio I co-founded won three Emmys for image production (Game of Honor, StillMotion was the production company) and had great margins.

Re: Has There Been a Nuclear Incident in the Arctic?

#230

Post by throwanem »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #219
throwanem wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what here gives you cause for such a cri de coeur . It would certainly dismay me to see these attitudes taken by an educator. For a working professional with deadlines to meet, they are entirely reasonable, albeit perhaps a bit harsh. But the world can be a bit harsh, too.

> It would certainly dismay me to see these attitudes taken by an educator. What, to you, is the purpose of a university entrance examination?

Fair question. I hadn't considered that.
Post reply on HN