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

301–310 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#301

Post by drysart »

sparky_z wrote: post #62
christina97 wrote: post #5

Relevant xkcd content: https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

Is it relevant? It's writing about a pool for storing spent fuel, which is not a part of the actual reactor system. This incident report says that the worker fell into a "reactor cavity" containing water and that there was a measurable amount of radiation detected in their hair after the initial clean-up. The two situations don't seem remotely compatible to me.

I guarantee you there's 'a measurable amount of radiation' in your hair right now. Unless you're bald, I suppose.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#302

Post by drysart »

lavela wrote: post #259

These are quite a few reports for one day for a technology we purportedly have under full control, nothing to worry.

Which do you consider as being under better control: a technology that we exhaustively create reports on even in the face of incidents like this where the only real chance of harm was that the guy couldn't swim and might have drowned; or a technology where we don't report on anything at all whatsoever and thus have no idea what's actually going on?

Reports don't mean danger, and they don't mean lack of control. Reports are information.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#303

Post by elcritch »

yetihehe wrote: post #264
tialaramex wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather more like "Guy fell over looking into the volcano but fortunately there's a metal fence". The most immediate danger to you is that you'll drown because radioactive water is water and you can't breathe. So the life vest avoids this. In contrast volcanic lava absolutely can kill you before you drown, no problem. Yes, radioactivity isn't good. You should not, for example, drink this water, or swim in it once a we…

> If you’re concerned about staying within safe radiation levels, Ken Jorgustin explains on the Modern Survival Blog that it would take 432 days at a CPM of 100 to up your chance of getting cancer to odds of 1 in 1,000 > The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair. This event will result in acute hair loss. From shaving machine.

Unfortunate because for the first time in his life he had RAD hair. ;)

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#305

Post by Razengan »

trhway wrote: post #299
adastra22 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you misread. One of the least radioactive areas, full stop. It is less radioactive than your house.

My experience so far has been that when people say "full stop", it usually makes a lot of sense to fact-check further what they said. In this case the notice says his hair is 300 counts per minute after decontamination. The typical background is under 100.

[flagged]

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#306

Post by Razengan »

adastra22 wrote: post #282
stavros wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly, but I wouldn't think "least radioactive environments in a nuclear reactor" is a low bar. I don't know, though.

No you misread. One of the least radioactive areas, full stop. It is less radioactive than your house.

Reminds me of the "your keyboard is dirtier than your asshole" and similar 'myths' that no one would bother to verify.

I mean I would rather lick a keyboard than a butthole (with exceptions of course)

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#307

Post by nkrisc »

wiz21c wrote: post #229
Animats wrote: post #45

Palisades MI reactor. Currently shut down and de-fueled but a restart of this reactor is apparently underway, with new fuel assemblies being delivered.[1] Worker was wearing a life vest.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palisades_Nuclear_Generating_S... [2] https://www.mlive.com/news/2025/10/michigan-nuclear-plant-wo...

dunno if the life vest bit comment of yours was sarcastic, but it is a funny remark for sure :-) it sounds like "guy felt down in a volcano, but fortunately, he had a life vest"

Anyone working around a large pool of deep water should be wearing a personal floatation device.

He was not working in a volcano.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#308

Post by lazyasciiart »

dubbel wrote: post #272
unglaublich wrote: post #227

The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board has a great YouTube channel where they carefully analyze similar accidents. https://www.youtube.com/@USCSB/videos Not necessarily nuclear (since chemical and industrial accidents are much, muhc more likely), but highly recommended if you're interested in such incidents and their causes.

I loce their videos, too, but as far as I know the current US administration will shut them down at the end of this year. [0] [1] But just now I read that a (sharply reduced) budget had passed the house? [2] does anyone know what the current state is? [0]: https://www.csb.gov/assets/1/6/csb_cj_2026.pdf [1]: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/only-federal-agency-that-i... [2]: https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/ar…

That’s from July, and it says a committee has approved a specific line item to be put into the budget that would eventually be voted on.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#309

Post by K0balt »

pseudalopex wrote: post #275
tomcam wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. These violent reactions aren’t unusual for HN but they are unnecessary and acutely disappointing.

Skepticism and sarcasm are not violence.

Off topic, but the idea that the “violence” of ideas, where the only thing in play is your point of view, is somehow equatable to physical violence, where physical integrity is at risk, is one of the least endearing features of the 21st century so far.

I cannot overstate how dangerous to human prosperity this false equivalence is. It is a first-tier ideological scourge that we entertain at great peril both to critical thought and the notion of objective truth itself.

On the other hand, it’s an excellent proxy to clarify that an idea, position, or sometimes even an entire ideology or its sycophant exist for entertainment purposes only and must not, on their own merits, be taken seriously.

Are we really so isolated from the brutality of nature to think that the inconvenient beating of a butterfly’s wings is the same category of experience as being disemboweled and eaten alive by a hungry beast?

Or is it that the whole ideological sham of the violence of ideas is merely a cowardice, a poverty of ingenuity, a plea for clemency by virtue of infantilism?

The pen, or the thought given flight, is mightier than the sword.

That does not make an idea a sword. It is in character , spirit, reach, and endurance a very different type of thing. A sword can be forged from an idea, but an idea will never spring forth from a blade.

Hell in a hand basket, get off my lawn, and uphill both ways to school. Lol.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#310

Post by robviren »

smilespray wrote: post #124
robviren wrote: post #83

I 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.

Totally valid perspective. I only became part of the industry after Fukushima. I only knew an industry by its disasters. I will say, having gone through the training programs we studied the nuclear incidents and spent a year in training before going to the plants. I just don't see parallel experiences looking back like that. The people in nuclear (at least from what I saw) want the industry to be safe and successful.
Post reply on HN