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

541–545 of 545 posts

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#541

Post by ang_cire »

pembrook wrote: post #288
antonvs wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sea-drilling rigs (oil) have far more potential for environmental damage than modern nuclear plants Key word: "modern". A key aspect of a modern nuclear plant, that supports its high level of safety, is the required incident reporting and followup. The relevant issue is not really about a single worker being injured or dying. It's about detecting safety issues which could lead to a catastrophe far beyond what a sea…

> It's about detecting safety issues which could lead to a catastrophe far beyond what a sea oil drilling rig can A worker falling into a reactor pool (which is just room temp water with very little risk) is not a catastrophe, yet due to the absurd safetyism surrounding nuclear it requires a federal report. We don’t require this level of cost insanity for far more deadly worker events at oil, gas, solar or wind facil…

> We don’t require this level of cost insanity for far more deadly worker events at oil, gas, solar or wind facilities.

This is not saying what you think it's saying.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#542

Post by louthy »

dumbasrocks wrote: post #496
dlcarrier wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In American English, troubles doesn't mean anything different than trouble, so we not only miss the meaning of your protestations, but to us it seems like your downplaying it even more.

it doesn't mean anything different in American english, he said it himself - Brits consider events involving the murder of (Irish, Palestinian, etc.) civilians as ’ongoing concern(s)’

I never says that, you sanctimonious twat.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#544

Post by Centigonal »

mlindner wrote: post #71
Centigonal wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the reactor cavity in this case, not a nuclear waste storage pool.

How is that different from the accident point of view. They're both quite radioactive and both sit in deep pools of water.

The water in a nuclear waste storage pool should not be particularly radioactive unless something has gone wrong and contains mostly regular H2O.

The reactor vessel can contain heavy water or water with boric acid in it, neither of which are good for you. Additionally, neutron radiation from the reactor will cause the formation of radioactive tritium in the vessel water, so the liquid itself becomes radioactive.

Re: A worker fell into a nuclear reactor pool

#545

Post by tomcam »

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…

Agree completely. I should’ve used a different term.
Post reply on HN