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

531–540 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#531

Post by IAmBroom »

goopypoop wrote: post #526
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.

hell, I inhaled at least a tablespoon of banana daquiri just reading this. almost ruined my breakfast

Got room at the breakfast table for a guest?

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#532

Post by IAmBroom »

quantumcotton wrote: post #431
haskellshill wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Maybe the common factor isn't "everybody else".

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#533

Post by IAmBroom »

haskellshill wrote: post #508
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not talking about pneumonia. If there's a bit of water in your lungs, a surprisingly small amount, it causes massive inflammation and your lungs start to fill with fluid. It's called "secondary drowning", and it happens a couple of hours after. My water rescue course is up to date. When's yours due for renewal?

As the saying goes, "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing". Your "water rescue course" taught you something that's clearly wrong, as we see with the sibling comment, while my common sense and just everyday life experience led me to the correct conclusion.

> while my common sense and just everyday life experience led me to the correct conclusion.

Anytime someone claims knowledge based on common sense, it's a red flag. Or, as we used to say, "Common sense tells us they're a witch! Burn them!".

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#534

Post by refulgentis »

kortilla wrote: post #525
refulgentis wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love when people confidently state what is in someone else's head in service of explaining why that someone else is "wrong". Talk about telling on yourself. (tl;dr: we do know this, but thanks!)

Not sure what you’re going on about. I’m telling you why I downvoted it.

You're stealing my bit, Kortilla.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#535

Post by Brian_K_White »

qjh wrote: post #505
Brian_K_White wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I was thinking, but it does look like 300 cpm for a few hours is essentially nothing, or it looks real bad, I can't tell. I found this: Days to receive chronic dose for increase cancer risk of 1 in a 1,000 432 (at 100 CPM) 86 (at 500 CPM) Ok so 300 for an hour (we'll assume the hair is cut off and the exposure either stops or 90% reduces) means no problem. Don't do that every day that's all. But it's from…

Obligatory not a nuclear safety or health physics person, but I am a particle physicist and I deal with radiation. CPM is a rather annoying unit because it doesn't convert to dose very well. If you have external 300 cpm (eg. hair), but all of that is in the form of alpha radiation, your actual dose is essentially zero. It's worth noting that humans are typically radioactive to the level of 3 kBq, or 3000 disintegrati…

Much more useful comment. Thanks buddy.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#536

Post by tomcam »

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.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify. You're right, of course. I was using it in the spirit of the phrase "violent disagreement" which is meant figuratively.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#537

Post by not_kurt_godel »

lukan wrote: post #524
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also incentive for people to inflate their sense of importance by weighing in on topics they're not qualified on, especially if it's motivated by a sense of familial pride. You can see elsewhere on this thread that arthurcolle self-admits a lack of familiarity with basic interpretation of CPM. Misinformation, whether ill-intentioned or not, does real and tangible harm to our society. Misinformation about the…

"Misinformation about the supposed dangers of nuclear power, as arthurcolle is spreading " I maybe did not read all of it, but which missinformation is he spreading exactly? (Follow up, why are you in a position to judge that? ) As for missinformation in general, I happened to be born after chernobyl. Where the authorities in eastern germany said, all is fine. But since the people got western television, where they s…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-da...

> Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels

> The NBER study found that “the switch from nuclear power to fossil fuel-fired production resulted in substantial increases in global and local air pollution emissions.” A key reason for the increased air pollution was that “lost nuclear production was replaced by electricity production from coal- and gas-fired sources in Germany as well as electricity imports from surrounding countries.”

> The study concluded that “the phase-out resulted in more than 1,100 additional deaths per year” due to excess mortality from the consequences of increased air pollution. Since 2011 that totals more than 10,000 deaths, far more than all deaths attributable to nuclear power in history.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#538

Post by lukan »

not_kurt_godel wrote: post #537
lukan wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Misinformation about the supposed dangers of nuclear power, as arthurcolle is spreading " I maybe did not read all of it, but which missinformation is he spreading exactly? (Follow up, why are you in a position to judge that? ) As for missinformation in general, I happened to be born after chernobyl. Where the authorities in eastern germany said, all is fine. But since the people got western television, where they s…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-da... > Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels > The NBER study found that “the switch from nuclear power to fossil fuel-fired production resulted in substantial increases in global and local air pollution emissions.” A key reason for the increased air pollution was that “lost nuclear production was replaced by electricity productio…

Are you arguing about nuclear safety compared to fossil fuels with me? I was aware of those numbers, thank you.

But I asked for cases where arthurcolle was spreading missinformation, which is what you claimed and which is what I perceived as an unecessary attack.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#539

Post by not_kurt_godel »

lukan wrote: post #538
not_kurt_godel wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-da... > Every Day 10,000 People Die Due To Air Pollution From Fossil Fuels > The NBER study found that “the switch from nuclear power to fossil fuel-fired production resulted in substantial increases in global and local air pollution emissions.” A key reason for the increased air pollution was that “lost nuclear production was replaced by electricity productio…

Are you arguing about nuclear safety compared to fossil fuels with me? I was aware of those numbers, thank you. But I asked for cases where arthurcolle was spreading missinformation, which is what you claimed and which is what I perceived as an unecessary attack.

Perhaps you should finish reading the threads to discover his numerous self-admissions of limited knowledge and incorrect statements when confronted with people who cite sources

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#540

Post by jkhdigital »

perihelions wrote: post #316
jkhdigital wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right, you don’t know! When I worked on a nuclear aircraft carrier, I learned that the people working down in the reactor spaces got significantly less radiation exposure than the people working on the flight deck. My ship was ported in Japan when the Fukushima disaster happened, and we had to abruptly go out to sea because we couldn’t let the (minimal) fallout contaminate the reactor spaces and make it imposs…

> "...we had to abruptly go out to sea because we couldn’t let the (minimal) fallout contaminate the reactor spaces and make it impossible to monitor the reactor itself properly." There are numerous anecdotes from the USS Reagan that contradict that prosaic interpretation (of the reason it was abruptly moved), https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/seven-years-on-sai... ( "7 Years on, Sailors Exposed to Fukushima…

I believe sailors from the USS Ronald Reagan were deployed to the disaster area to help, but that was not my ship.
Post reply on HN