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

Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#31

Post by _delirium »

lukeschlather wrote: post #14
btmorex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the containment vessel will fail or that they will have to do more steam releases. I'm simply saying that the arguments presented in the article are illogical.

This isn't logic, this is science. Have you done experiments with large amounts of radioactive material that verify your hypothesis?

That criticism could be directed just as well at the original article, which is attempting to logically deduce why failure is unlikely (using questionable logic and analogies). It'd be much more convincing if the article instead presented something more like evidence, which likely also exists (since of course these designs are extensively tested).

Unsurprisingly, the article isn't written by a scientist; William Tucker is a pundit and journalist who writes about energy from a popular and political perspective. In his multiple books and hundreds of articles, he has done no experiments to verify any of his hypotheses.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#32

Post by adsr »

mistermann wrote: post #29
adsr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely agree with this. On the other hand, all their safety mechanisms so far have failed. Electric, diesel based and the automatic steam based. Which is why they now manually try to pump in sea water (according to what I have understood from the news). I'm not against science, but still, it seems that the situation is surrounded by a fair amount of uncertainty. So, to my way of thinking the most wise is to treat…

>On the other hand, all their safety mechanisms so far have failed. Electric, diesel based and the automatic steam based. Wrong and wrong. Some backup cooling mechanisms have failed, not all safety mechanisms. The electric backup worked as designed. The diesel backup did not, as I understand it, because it was affected by the tsunami (which is inexcusable in my opinion). And the backup diesel generators brought in fr…

>The electric backup worked as designed.

No, that is the reason they where suppose to fall back on diesel based pumps. The electrical outage after the quake made the electric pumps fail. The diesel based pumps also failed as we agree upon. After that there was a mechanism simply based on preasure which supposed to push out hot steam, cool it off and feed it back as water. However this mechanism led a decreased level of water (from what I have heard). Which is why they now resort to pumping it in manually. I think it's safe to say that two major explosions at the plant (even though it wasn't the reactor it self apparently) is a sign of failed safety mechanisms.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#33

Post by vilhelm_s »

I certainly agree with his main point: the nuclear reactor accidents are a comparatively small part of the earthquake catastrophe. But the rest of the article reads like pure propaganda-- like he started out writing the article with the goal of downplaying rather than assessing the risks involved.

I can spot at least one inaccuracy. He claims that TMI showed that there is no risk of nuclear fuel melting through the steel containment structure. But at TMI, the core was actively cooled through the entire incident, and the temperatures were not even high enough to melt the fuel itself. So this does not given any information about what would happen in the absence of cooling.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#35

Post by neutronicus »

api wrote: post #9
neutronicus wrote: post #3

That article makes it sound like the decision to use graphite is stupid and will never be made again. This isn't true, a lot of the gen-4 designs are graphite-moderated.

But I am sure they take into account the properties of graphite, and I'm sure making sure that Chernobyl thing doesn't happen is high on the list.

Right, just pointing out that graphite is not in and on itself a stupid choice.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#36

Post by _delirium »

vilhelm_s wrote: post #33

I certainly agree with his main point: the nuclear reactor accidents are a comparatively small part of the earthquake catastrophe. But the rest of the article reads like pure propaganda-- like he started out writing the article with the goal of downplaying rather than assessing the risks involved. I can spot at least one inaccuracy. He claims that TMI showed that there is no risk of nuclear fuel melting through the s…

I agree his TMI comparison isn't very useful, but about 1/3 of the fuel at TMI did melt, according to http://www.ans.org/pi/resources/sptopics/tmi/whathappened.ht...

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#37

Post by Tichy »

dicemoose wrote: post #2

Really appreciated the following especially as I try to balance local (JP) coverage and international news. "With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor."

I don't see how it is obscene. It makes sense to think about things you can do something about. I am sure in Japan they are also thinking about improving their defenses against Tsunamis right now. Where I live, Tsunamis really aren't a problem, but we do have nuclear power plants. We also have air that can be contaminated.

I actually feel sorry about the deaths and devastation in Japan, but I have no illusions that my feelings will do anything at all to help over there.

Btw., who knows how many people are currently dying in Libya. People are dying all over the place, all the time, unfortunately. I am just saying, maybe it would have been best if I hadn't even switched on the news, and concentrated on things that I CAN do something about.

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#38

Post by gallamine »

orblivion wrote: post #34

"These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate." How do you compare nuclear radiation/poisoning (apples) to electro-magnetic radiation (oranges)?

It's all electro magnetic. It's an issue of energy. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#39

Post by gallamine »

_delirium wrote: post #31
lukeschlather wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't logic, this is science. Have you done experiments with large amounts of radioactive material that verify your hypothesis?

That criticism could be directed just as well at the original article, which is attempting to logically deduce why failure is unlikely (using questionable logic and analogies). It'd be much more convincing if the article instead presented something more like evidence, which likely also exists (since of course these designs are extensively tested). Unsurprisingly, the article isn't written by a scientist; William Tuck…

" ... he has done no experiments to verify any of his hypotheses."

Personal experience or experimentation are not the only means of acquiring knowledge. In fact, most of our knowledge is gained by other methods (e.g. trusted sources).

Re: Japan Does Not Face Another Chernobyl

#40

Post by jbooth »

lukeschlather wrote: post #14
btmorex wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that the containment vessel will fail or that they will have to do more steam releases. I'm simply saying that the arguments presented in the article are illogical.

This isn't logic, this is science. Have you done experiments with large amounts of radioactive material that verify your hypothesis?

Is he getting published in the Wall St Journal?

Look, I agree with the general viewpoint that we should build more nuclear power. But his points about the article are valid, and I don't see why he should be held to a higher standard than the PR flack getting free op-ed space.

Post reply on HN