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

431–440 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#431

Post by quantumcotton »

haskellshill wrote: post #427
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apparently they do have concerns. Well yeah. If someone falls in water at work, you get them checked out at the hospital. The paltry amount of radiation is kind of the least of your worries if there's even the smallest risk you got some water in your lungs. People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs.

> People can drown on dry land from about a tablespoon of water getting into their lungs. Well, I don't think there's such a big risk of that. Falling into a pool is something most of us have probably done. Being pushed by a friend as a kid for example. The risk of drowning is probably pretty comparable to the risk from the radiation (negligible).

I didn't expect this level of ignorance here. Maybe reddit but this is crazy.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#432

Post by lazide »

weinzierl wrote: post #429
lazide wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, it also provided no useful information quantifying the statements. Maybe there is a problem elsewhere, maybe the pool is contaminated, maybe the sensor used is very sensitive and 300 cpm is not as concerning as it would seem. It sure would be nice to have actual data, wouldn’t it?

The reactor cavity water is usually moderately radioactive from activation and small leaks. Not life-threatening but certainly a long term health risk, especially when ingested. That is why the person was advised to seek medical attention. Regulatory bodies have adopted the LNT (linear no threshold) model and for good reasons. Every exposure increases your likelihood to get cancer eventually. Many things do, such is…

It was deactivated and being refueled, so likely something leaked somewhere. But that should be a lot more than a ‘we dunno’ if so - it’s not like it’s not going to be clear from isotopic analysis eh? Or hopefully they at least have some decent spectrum on it.

And it should show up in realtime monitoring of the water, unless they just turned that off.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#433

Post by cj »

dredmorbius wrote: post #319
mulnz wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

Medication frequently (though not always) provides benefits that may be achieved at least in part by non-medical means: lifestyle (adequate sleep, low stress, reduced exposure to contaminants and pollutants), diet (preferring healthier to unhealthier foods, generally), and exercise (itself comprised of multiple modalities, including cardio, strength training, fine motor control, and others). The best results are achi…

> This isn't "don't take your meds", it's "use all the available tools".

Agreed - low dose daily cialis/tadalafil (e.g. 5mg/day) is very common among elite athletes, bodybuilders, etc. As are GLP-1's despite elite athletes rarely being overweight.

Tadalafil is taken for its endothelial benefits (erections are a convenient side effect), and GLP's for its nutrient partitioning and insulin sensitization effects.

Medications are very often most effective when paired with good lifestyle habits, rather than one of the other.

It also depends on what your goals are, obviously.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#434

Post by aidenn0 »

K0balt wrote: post #309
pseudalopex wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 critica…

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#435

Post by kmbfjr »

almosthere wrote: post #102
jasongill wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, yes; he will die no matter what.

As you get older this pedantry gets really tiring.

(Tired quip “you must be new here”)

Yes, it is tiring. In this case, not really because it is at least for me, humorous in a Doc Martin sort of way. But elsewhere and on places like Reddit where the pedantry is often at best unjustified and at worst, wrong, it has made me spend less time on the sites.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#436

Post by kelnos »

refulgentis wrote: post #366
layer8 wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA says: “The individual was decontaminated by radiation protection personnel but had 300 counts per minute detected in their hair. At 1632 EDT they were sent off site to seek medical attention.” Apparently they do have concerns.

[flagged]

I think both "sides" aren't looking great here. On one side you have someone quoting the article with a fact that doesn't mean what they think it means (the level of radiation reported is safe; the person in question is being sent for medical attention more for process's sake and an overabundance of caution), and the other side is being incredibly uncharitable and rude when it comes to calling people out for being ignorant of how this stuff works.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#437

Post by easterncalculus »

haskellshill wrote: post #324
wiz21c wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

Wow, people are really clueless about how nuclear power plants really work. It's really not that dangerous to fall into the water.

Most likely including OP

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#438

Post by kbar13 »

arthurcolle wrote: post #120
malfist wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?

I learned a few things from my father along the way. I can share my notes if you'd like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coll%C3%A9?wprov=sfti1

LMFAOOOOOO insufferable

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#439

Post by g0db1t »

sroussey wrote: post #422
throwaway894345 wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe people just don’t that water mitigates radiation really well? You can be very pro-nuclear and still be concerned about radioactive contamination if you don’t know that radioactivity is dramatically reduced by just a few feet of water.

If you’re in the water, you may get a few feet less of that protection. Particularly if you swim down.

[dead]

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#440

Post by dredmorbius »

cj wrote: post #433
dredmorbius wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medication frequently (though not always) provides benefits that may be achieved at least in part by non-medical means: lifestyle (adequate sleep, low stress, reduced exposure to contaminants and pollutants), diet (preferring healthier to unhealthier foods, generally), and exercise (itself comprised of multiple modalities, including cardio, strength training, fine motor control, and others). The best results are achi…

> This isn't "don't take your meds", it's "use all the available tools". Agreed - low dose daily cialis/tadalafil (e.g. 5mg/day) is very common among elite athletes, bodybuilders, etc. As are GLP-1's despite elite athletes rarely being overweight. Tadalafil is taken for its endothelial benefits (erections are a convenient side effect), and GLP's for its nutrient partitioning and insulin sensitization effects. Medicat…

At a baseline, healthy vitals (blood pressure, blood sugar, heart function, preservation of bone mass/density, and lean/muscle mass, avoiding accumulation of excess fat, particularly visceral / mid-section fat).

Beyond that, if goals are for specific performance targets, in some athletic or competitive activity, you'll want to tune your training toward that. Again, the baseline is remarkably consistent, it's the high-performer tuning which varies.

Going off-label on prescriptions, especially without a doctor's supervision, carries its own set of risks. If you're lucky, it's only wasted money. If you're not, it's markedly worse.

Post reply on HN