Japan’s nuclear reactor overreaction | Hacker News Reader

Japan’s nuclear reactor overreaction

blogs.discovermagazine.com

23 pointslt40 comments

Yeah there was the fraudulent fallout map. Yeah somebody who hadn't slept in a week may have misspoken and used the term "nuclear explosion" when they really meant "conventional explosion involving nuclear material".

I haven't seen a lot of overreaction. People are still in Tokyo even while detectable radiation levels rise to many times background levels.

What I have seen is a huge number of media outlets and bloggers falling over themselves to assure everyone that everyone is safe and everything is under control. And they look more and more wrong with every new explosion and every new fire at the plant.

The real heroes are the 50 plant workers who are there putting water on the melting fuel rods.

> What I have seen is a huge number of media outlets and bloggers falling over themselves to assure everyone that everyone is safe and everything is under control.

Perhaps in response to a huge number of media outlets and bloggers falling over themselves to link Fukushima to Chernobyl and gloating over being right that nuclear power is going to kill us all.

my previous 2c : http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2324723

Read more about Chernobyl and nuclear technology and you'd be able to see yourself where similarity is and where isn't.

At Fukushima, the core reaction is shut down, all activity since seconds after the quake are secondary. This is bad enough, but it's fundamentally different from Chernobyl, where the core melted down with the control rods only 1/3 inserted.

It's fundamentally different to a nuclear engineer, but we still face an uncertain potential of fire, explosion, and radioactive contamination.

To any of the thousands who are evacuating, especially farmers, it probably seems like a distinction without a difference at this point.

And striving for accuracy and consulting domain experts is a bad thing since when?

And if significant technological differences doesn't interest you, here's a political one: People have actually been evacuated, even though the Japanese government claimed no risk at the time of doing so. Even if these people lose their homes and farms, and no-one can return to the region for 50 years, they still have their lives and health.

Don't be ridiculous, I never said either accuracy or experts were a bad thing.

I've been watching the translated coverage on NHK World from their site and ustream since the beginning. This coverage seems be 30 minutes or more ahead of other English media.

The Japanese government has warned since the early hours of the possibility of the release of "radioactive gases" from the pressure release.

The elements in that gas were said to have very short half-lives and not pose a risk to population. On the other hand, it blew up the reactor building. (According to Wikipedia they tried to hold it in the building to let it decay before releasing it to the atmosphere.)

Since then the officials have been warning about possibility of release of "radioactive substances".

There has been some fear mongering in the press. E.g. The London Evening Standard: "Nuclear Fallout hits U.S. Rescurers" http://yfrog.com/h3z17vzj

I can only see the main and sub-headlines and the picture. But I don't see anything factually incorrect about it.

Just because it's factually correct doesn't mean its not scaremongering.

...and just because it's scary doesn't mean it is.

Tens of thousands of people have been evacuated in a 20 km radius and many more are sheltering indoors due to a nuclear emergency. No exaggeration is needed to say this is a scary big deal, and calling it like it is isn't "mongering".

"What I have seen is a huge number of media outlets [...] falling over themselves to assure everyone that everyone is safe and everything is under control."

Not surprising, considering most of those media outlets are owned or funded by the nuclear power industry.

edit: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t515_conspiracy-theory-ro...

There are reports of runs on iodine on the US west coast [1], which are not based on any scientific assessment of risk.

[1] http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/asia/japans-nuclear-emergenc...

>What I have seen is a huge number of media outlets and bloggers falling over themselves to assure everyone that everyone is safe and everything is under control.

the posture of calmness and thoughtfulness are now in fashion. Anyway, nobody can predict the outcome - too many variables, including human intervention which in itself is highly unpredictable and looks more like a "knee jerk reaction" than a planned for such a case strategy.

>... putting water on the melting fuel rods.

That puzzles me a bit - whenever they tell about the water on the melting rods they also mention that it causes the water to split into hydrogen and oxygen which mix causes these explosions. Water is also neutron moderator, so may be it thus lesser of evil...

The dissociation of water only happens when you put water on something that's very hot. But the fuel rods need to be cooled somehow, so it's probably the least bad scenario is to take some hydrogen production to get the fuel rods down to a safe temperature where this doesn't happen. The alternative is to not cool them at all, which will lead to a meltdown.

I don't think the moderation aspect is important currently. The reactor is shut down, and the neutron flux is already very low.

In the case of the reactors, they have control rods in place to inhibit the fission. For the spent fuel pools, hopefully the rods are spaced much farther apart. Conceivably they could boil away all their water and melt their steel fixture and recombine in the bottom of the pool drain.

I doubt the Japanese would let that happen, but if things go much farther downhill it could turn into a suicide mission to do anything at that plant site. And that would be very sad.

Yeah because it's best to under-react to nuclear danger.

I know the trend is to reassure everyone everything is a-ok, but as others on HN have pointed out, things are not a-ok, and we won't know for some time.

We should continue to overreact for the good of everyone.

I would like to propose this crazy concept to you: appropriate reaction.

Over-reaction is as damaging as under-reaction. Much like the cries of "standing idly by" that are thrust on under-reactors, over-reactors become "wolf criers", and when the situation actually warrants extreme action, people won't take it because they assume it is mere over-reaction.

I don't know why you would champion a crappy course of action, but I guess I know where not to get advice in the future.

Whilst I agree with the general point, I don't think the rapidly-backpedalling author of the linked blog post or many of us here are qualified to determine what the appropriate reaction is. Most of the reaction is simply a case of people with limited understanding of the relevant facts (either the current condition of the reactor or the underlying science) attempting to communicate to people with no understanding of the facts.

I also suspect that well-orchestrated overprecaution and explanations of worst case scenarios are better for public safety than feeding them constant reassurances they don't believe and leaving them to get their sensationalism from demagogues

Strategically, I think it is also easier to recover from "a bit too far" in terms of over-reaction, since it can be written off as "better safe than sorry", however there is still a line and balancing act between "crying wolf" and "being extra careful".

It does seem sensible to over react but it can be very harmful. If a government overreacts it can cause populations to panic and more people get hurt taking needless risks to avoid whatever is being overreacted to (for example driving too fast, travelling through forests to escape during bitter winter nights etc).

In the long term overreaction can drive fear of what is, statistically, a very safe way to generate energy. This can cause populations to opt for less safe, more harmful ways to generate power resulting in a greater death toll in the long run.

So while you have every right to overreact in the long run you may be part of a larger overreaction harming more people and I'm sure no one wants that.

Nuclear power may statistically be safe, but that's not much comfort for those who are taking what appears to be quite significant radiation levels right now.

Other energy production methods may be less safe, but that's very difficult to determine as the worst case nuclear scenario is so much worse than what can happen with other methods. It makes it a "black swan", in that it's very difficult to determine the actual risk of a severe accident but if it happens it would dominate the statistical signal of "nuclear danger". Textbook black swan case.

I feel like those that are saying that nuclear power is safe are kind of in the same situation as those that said that new methods in mathematical finance had made the financial system more safe. They may be right, but that's more a hope than a quantitative statement, as it's pretty much impossible to quantify these extreme events.

The picture is very misleading too a big black column of smoke rising up and the headline about nuclear reactors yet no clarification the picture isn't a reactor on fire, it's probably an oil refinery.

I dislike the medidiots who conflated a hydrogen explosion with a nuclear explosion. There is however one risk here that neither folks in the media, nor have I seen yet on HN, and that is the danger of old fuel meltdowns.

There are reports now [1] that the pond where expended fuel rods are stored is boiling. While fuel is removed from a reactor because it is 'spent' that doesn't mean that it cannot still reach criticality, that is why it is stored in a pond where the water provides the moderation. Normally this wouldn't even be considered but given the challenge of getting water into the reactors, the use of sea water and venting the steam (which makes the room around the reactor temporarily dangerous), it seems the ponds are warming up and not getting the attention they need. It would be unfortunate to have the pond evaporate. Note that in some cases this pond is the holding area for new fuel as well (during a refueling operation) but there is no information available on the quantity, and current composition, of fuel rods in these ponds.

So I remain confident they will be able to get the reactors cooled off without causing them to be 'abandoned in place'. I'm cautiously watching reports about the ponds.

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20043127-503543.html

It's pretty clear that reactors are designed quite well, and it seems the design is working.

What people forgot were those storage pools. It looks like the radiation is coming from those, and not the reactor itself. It's clear those needs some serious design attention as well.

A passive cooling system to start with.

much kudos and respect for the brave workers working to safely retire the reactors.while all the various news reports state some version of what they have heard or read, we won't know the entire truth of what is happening, since the updates and articles change by the hour. the sheer volatility in the markets (japanese market fall, solar companies rising, etc.) shows the entire picture isn't clear yet.

I fail to see _any_ evidence of "overreaction" except for the usual chatter on the blogosphere.

Is the author of the article saying that the area around the reactor should not have been evacuated? Who is he accusing of "overreaction" except for some anonymous (and inconsequential) internet map-maker?

The German government, for one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-id...

Many of the german reactors were meant to have been shut down a long time ago. The "conservatives" prolonged the uptime. The germany chancellor will be talking with the lobby about measures, how backwards is that.

It's called a lifetime extension. When you build something expensive, you make a conservative estimation for how long it will be operational at minimum, so you can write off your investment in a responsible fashion. Then, at the end of that period, you see if your plant can keep working in a safe and profitable manner, and if it can (gasp) you let it. Of course the "greens" (scare-quotes, since, after all, we're both adults) are against this kind of, hmm, we could call it "re-cycling".

They are because the vast majority of "but"s related to this event are about how this reactor is 50 year old technology and how it's been running for 40 years so it's somewhat excusable that it melts. Since 40 years is a standard reactor life[1] and many countries pursue life extensions on their reactors it is _not_ exceptional that of the roughly 450 active reactors in the world the majority of them is not up to the latest greatest tech standard or safety measure because it's expensive to keep up with all the upgrades and it's even more expensive when you just spent 10 years and $7B building a modern nuclear reactor[2]. So if it's ok to extend the life of a plant to 50 or 60 years as some would want then they need to upgrade them to latest standards.

[1]:http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html

[2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

I don't care is it melts, I care if it's going to leak significant amounts of nasty stuff to the environment(1) - which WOULD be inexcusable, and which would prompt me to seriously reconsider my support of nuclear power.

I'm not opposed to everyone running old reactors taking a step back saying "uh uh, could this happen to us?" - I'm opposed to the hand waving assertion that when the initial lifetime runs out, you're supposed to just scrap the thing.

1: (Those events may or may not be the same. Apparently the third containment is designed to hold a melted core indefinitely, but there are reports of containment breach - however it's unclear which level of containments we're talking about)

In my view, there has been a lot of fretting from US-based HN folks and others about jet stream fallout, etc. There are reports of runs on iodine on the west coast, e.g. [1]. All of that is woefully premature given the information at hand. The danger in Japan is real; in the US, not yet.

Assessing risk from radiation is tricky: people are exposed every day and don't realize it. Bananas are radioactive; so are granite countertops. It's highly likely that you'll get more exposure on your next cross-country flight than from any fallout from this disaster.

[1] http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/asia/japans-nuclear-emergenc...

I believe the problem here is a bit tricky and fundamentally a lack of trust in the government. The reason why Japanese are not panicking yet is because they trust their government and themselves to cooperate and help each other.

In US this is a bit different and trust in Japanese government, with an history for downplaying problems or just keeping them secret, is lacking.

The reasoning would be that the Japanese government, in order to prevent general panic, will downplay the problems, until it's too late, just to reassure its citizen that they are dealing with it. In the US many believe that things are already worse than what they're being told and would rather be ready to react immediately after something changes rather than be caught in the middle of the rage if something should go wrong later. A similar pattern is what happened for Chernobyl, although the political situation there was very very different.

The most disappointing aspect is the amount of ambiguous information floating around, which leads to speculation and consequently misinformation. Couple that with ignorance that most people have on the subject and you get a lot of people under/over-reacting.

Overreaction? History will view this as "underreacted".

It has been days now since the earthquake, and at the reactors they are having trouble pumping water. Japan and the world is full of equipment that can pump water, but for some reason not enough is on hand.

This link is simply wrong. Japan is indeed facing the release of a large cloud of highly radioactive steam carrying radioactive particles that were once part of the core. Right now both the cores of several reactors and the spent fuel rods that are stored on site face the possibility of turning entirely molten and ending up in the atmosphere. The reactors are fail-unsafe. If everybody walked away now, a disaster worse than Chernobyl would result. And as the situation at some of the reactors deteriorates, it becomes increasingly likely that workers are going to have to depart the area. Remember, Chernobyl was actually better off than Fukushima in many ways - while one reactor was screwed, the others at the same plant were undamaged and could continue operating normally - cooling systems could continue to run, and so on. The other 3 reactors were never in any danger at Chernobyl. That is not true at Fukushima.

It is entirely possible - even likely at this point - that the fuel rods in at least 3 of Fukushima's reactors going to end up significantly spread over the Japanese countryside. Overreaction is not really possible at this point.

While I don't want to discount the risk of real badness happening, what you are saying is not possible. At Chernobyl, there was a fire in the reactor moderator and fuel itself. Loss of cooling in the present case will not cause that kind of massive dispersal of radioactive material. Even if the fuel melts, it does not vaporise. There will be lots of radioactive release, to be sure, but the fuel will stay in a molten clump.

Few points:

There are multiple reactors, each larger than Chernobyl, including the fuel rods in unit 4 which was down at the time of the accident so the fuel isn't spent.

The real worst worst case is that loss of cooling causes a containment breach, the fuel melts through the bottom and contacts ground water, causes a steam explosion which is able to spread material over a decent distance. This would be comparable to Chernobyl.

As the whole world is pulling for the workers doing their best to prevent such a scenario it's not too likely but it is not out of the question. We've already experienced failures at these reactors that were previously considered enough to be impossible.

In Chernobyl, there was a nuclear event and ensuing fires. There probably won't be a nuclear event at Fukushima (although it is theoretically possible, I think - the melted fuel rods will no longer be damped, and can run together in a clump that might achieve criticality) but there will be ensuing fires, and hot particles and steam will be distributed over a wide area. Ever seen a volcano? Did you notice that heavier-than-air particles (ash, rocks, dust) were widely dispersed from that volcano?

Indeed, the most recent news articles are pointing out that the spent fuel ponds are running dry as well, and might melt and go critical as well. There is five times as much fuel in the spent fuel ponds as in the reactor cores themselves...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com