Hacker News Reader

Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

>This is typical MIT hubris.

I am getting tired of asking this, but which facts are wrong in the revised article?

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.

I notice that they removed the implication that this reactor design incorporated a core catcher.

Well, Fukushima daiichi unit 3 uses MOX fuel, a mix of uranium and plutonium, which TEPCO has been experimenting with for a few months now. But neither MOX nor plutonium get any mention in this article. This is not a trivial oversight.

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/challenge/csr/nuclear/cycle-e.html

I don't know what is wrong with the article since I am not an expert in this.

I do know some of the claim have been contradicted by other experts, however.

One that I haven't seen agreement with is the claim that if the fuel achieves a full melt down, the chances of that melted fuel escaping are low. Most reports I've read aren't so optimistic to say the least.

Another point that is not wrong but simply unmentioned is the danger of high-level nuclear material stored around the plant. When spent nuclear fuel loses it's cooling water, it seems capable of going into meltdown also. There currently seems to be considerable worry about this happening.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fuku... (updated )

"Concern is growing over the status of fuel cooling ponds at units 4, 5 and 6."

One of the primary reasons the spent fuel problem is not mentioned in the article is because it became an issue fairly recently with the fire in the #4 building. Note that the date on the article is 3/12, whereas the fire and concerns in #4 are fairly recent, occurring on 3/15 and 3/16.

++Also, the spent fuel and the reactors themselves are separate problems, so I fail to see why an article about the reactors in under obligation to mention them.++

UPDATE: I concede that the article should be updated to include the #4 fire, as that is very pertinent (see below).

Indeed, I wouldn't expect to know about this wrinkle and I wouldn't expect an average person to know about it.

But I would expect a (supposed) expert in nuclear power who writes an article titled "why I am not worried" to know about this.

And while I am not an expert, I do know enough to know spent fuel has to be considered part of the system of a nuclear power plant and thus keeping it safe is part of keeping the entire plant safe.

If your accusation is that the article should have been updated to include this, I think that's fair. But my original question was about the facts of the article as is.

Well, it is all in the original title. The author's conclusion of "Why I am not worried" was based on the facts listed in his article. However, given the gravity of the current situation at the power plant we can assume that even though the facts listed in the article were all correct the author has misinterpreted them and reached a conclusion that that is wrong.

Edit: Think of it as a physic text homework problem. You have various facts listed throughout the problem, but your job is to use a correct formulas applied in the right sequences in order to derive a correct answer (aka interpret data "facts"). Simply re-stating the facts won't give you credit for the problem - the correct answer will (aka "conclusion").

Again, I'd posit that given the facts available 3/12, it was the right conclusion.

It was never the right conclusion to believe this kind of energy can be indefinitely managed.

Nuclear reactors are not velociraptors.

Well, my conclusion was totally different - right after the first explosion. Edit: I think you should really stop arguing this by now :) Unfortunately, I can not give you a credit for that problem - there is no partial credit, the answer is wrong so it is an "F".

which facts are true? How would you know? What is your source of info? PR by government, or the PR by the plant operator?

I completely support the nuclear energy and i consider Chernobyls is just a cost of doing business. Yet all this hysteria - everything is ok! everything is doomed! Com'n, we lost 30km area in Chernobyl, we'll lose a few kilometers diameter zone in this case - again it is the low price for the progress - we lost much more land for the roads for cars, we've been killing a lot more of animals and people for other reasons. Relax, we're making progress.

chuckle I'm getting tired of reiterating this, but NOBODY KNOWS which facts are right and which facts are wrong. They are epistemically bankrupt in the sense that their state of knowledge cannot rationally support the conclusions they are drawing. As I said, typical MIT hubris.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com