41–50 of 136 posts
This was quite a 'walk-back' of the original headline. It started as "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" on one site. The title is now "Modified version of original post written by Josef Oehmen", with the content modified and moved to another site. It also now includes a disclaimer "Note that the title of the original blog does not reflect the views of the authors of the site." Perhaps they should j…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here you go: Original: http://pastebin.com/UnCYDKbu Modified: http://pastebin.com/1BAV3A4s Good online tool to compare both: http://text-compare.com/ Sorry, the tool above doesn't offer a direct link to the diff, so you'll have to do the copy/paste by yourself. Or you could use pastebin's own diff, but it's less clear, in my opinion: http://pastebin.com/diff.php?i=1BAV3A4s
Try this for a side-by-side diff: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/171026/japan-nuclear-diff.html I produced this using a feature of WinMerge (graphical diff utility for Windows, not too shabby) which can produce an HTML report of a diff. The revisions seem pretty significant.
Very interesting, thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the fact that it was necessary to be revised, should give you a hint that some things were wrong with the original one.
From the looks of the diff, it appears as though all they did was add clarity. Not really revise any of the facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst case scenarios are bad: If one reactor gets so bad (meltdown) forcing permanent evacuation - all the remaining reactors won't be maintainable/saveable and thus in a domino effect - if one goes, all go (meltdown). It is unlikely that a meltdown through the core will occur but if that happens - the scary term China Syndrome - the melted radioactive fuel will melt through steel, concrete, rock, maybe even bedr…
Why would one meltdown cause evacuation? The meltdown would still be contained
Because of fire, explosions, and excessive radiation exposure to workers.
The meltdown would still be contained
Containment is believed to have failed in reactor 2 and likely 3 at this point. Smoke or steam has been billowing from number 3 for hours now and its fuel is in the reactor, not the spent fuel pool.
CNN and MSNBC are now reporting that all workers have now been evacuated from Fukushima due to rising radiation levels.
So, there's still nobody hurt then? I hope so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html?...
Meanwhile, 2 days after this article was published on March 13: "A small crew of technicians, braving radiation and fire, became the only people remaining at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on Tuesday — and perhaps Japan’s last chance of preventing a broader nuclear catastrophe." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16workers.html?...
They have just been pulled out because of increased radiation. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2330500
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. He's right, in a sense. Modern nuclear reactors are designed so that if the fuel melts it will end up in a wide concrete tray which sits under the reactor, where -- thanks to the fact that the tray is very wide and not at all deep -- it will cool down to a safe temperature. All good engineering works on the principle of defence…
"All good engineering works on the principle of defence in depth." That line is as much a sound-bite at this point as anything you'll hear on cable television. Yes, good engineering has many levels of fall-backs and redundancies. But when you've reached the point that you've evacuated the last fifty people from your site because it's no longer safe for them to be there , then you've exhausted your defenses. There's n…
Maybe the laws of physics will change, but I'd be willing to bet that they won't.
But in the meantime, you're hoping that there's not a secondary fire from the heat
Concrete doesn't burn.
or a steam explosion
At the point when the nuclear fuel melts, all the water has boiled off 1000 degrees ago.
or some other kind of explosion that flings radioactive particulate for miles around.
Explosions don't just happen for no reason.
You're hoping that the fuel won't melt, form a critical mass in the bottom of the reactor, and re-initiate a reaction that's hard to stop.
Nuclear reactors don't hold enough fuel to form a critical mass. In order to become critical, they need a moderator (usually water) which thermalizes neutrons.
I'm really kind of sick of listening to people talk about how everything is hunky-dory. I heard one supposed expert on CNN basically state that a nuclear meltdown is no big deal. The lesson to learn here is when a government tells you everything is ok regarding an event with potential regional impact, get the hell out of town. I'm assuming the reactors are melting down and are out of control. Pumping seawater in may…
I'd say he's about as qualified to make a comment on the situation as I am.
The "essay" by Oehmen was first published by a notorious nuclear lobbyist, Jason Morgan. Look at this: http://nuclearfissionary.com/about/
Nuclear Energy suffers from a poor public image. We’re here to change all that.
For decades the nuclear energy industry has been under attack
by antinuclear activists both organized and unorganized.
Fear and panic have been their call signs and with little
regard for science or the impact on civilization, they
have remained unchecked for years
Jason Morgan
A corporate finance and accounting professional
who has great personal interest in the future of
the world’s energy crisis. Jason is looking forward
to utilizing his financial and economic data
analysis skills to shed light on nuclear energy.