Hacker News Reader

Comment by icarus_drowning | Hacker News Reader

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).

View on HN

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".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com