5 ms·

> We need to tell the story so that hopefully it won’t happen again. And I'll need to bookmark this just for the lack of points and the deafening silence, for

> We need to tell the story so that hopefully it won’t happen again. And I'll need to bookmark this just for the lack of points and the deafening silence, for the next time I see some grandstanding on HN about luddites being paranoid about nuclear waste and dumb one-off accidents. > LANL generated nearly 700 drums with a similar waste mixture that includes the organic cat litter. Drums with similar mixtures were isolated and are monitored, DOE says. > “Why didn’t more than one drum react as that drum did?” Hobbs asks. “Never to my knowledge did we firmly establish that there is something completely unique about 68660.” It's an interesting puzzle, but not one for you and me to worry about. Vote Vault Tec.

wbl 9y ago
Suppose the drum broke. How many people would die?
- wordupmaking 9y ago
  Supposed people who otherwise seem very interested in nuclear energy discussed this as the interesting puzzle it is. How many would die? Apparently, all of them. Hence my comment, though its point seems to have escaped you. My concern isn't primarily nuclear radiation, my concern is the weakness of people who weren't even exposed to a lot of it.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  It depends on what's in the drum, now doesn't it. Now, what was the actual problem encountered at the site? And howw would you go about determining that a benign vs. concerning situation had transpired?
- Retric 9y ago
  99.9% of the time, none. They are stored in a bunker far from people. A large part of why nuclear power is so expensive is because safety is considered so important. It's hard to get good numbers, but chances are more people have died constructing reactors and mining / refining ore etc. than from nuclear accidents. The difference is simply what people are less concerned when a heavy object falls on someone else.
  - Teknoman117 9y ago
    And how many people have died inhaling fumes from coal fired plants and mining coal?
    - vilhelm_s 9y ago
      In 2010 it was around 13,200 deaths/year from particulate emissions[1]. This is actually a big improvement, stricter regulations brought it down from 30,000 deaths/year in 2000 [2]. I should say that these numbers are surely not exact, there are big uncertainties both in the atmospheric modelling (how far the particles propagate) and in how dangerous the exposure is. But it's probably the right order of magnitude, there is a different report from the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 which arrived at a similar (but slightly lower) number [3]. The deaths from particulate emissions are not even necessarily the biggest problem with coal: if you price out the externalities, the cost of climate change (from CO₂ emissions) is the biggest item [4]. [1] http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 [2] http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/8 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/8 [3] http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hidden.pdf http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hi... [4] http://xhxhxhx.tumblr.com/post/157192261427/alright-two-important-corrections-first-the http://xhxhxhx.tumblr.com/post/157192261427/alright-two-impo...
- vilhelm_s 9y ago
  A drum did break, that's what the article is about.
  - wbl 9y ago
    And 0 people died.
Nomentatus 9y ago
The expense is already ungodly - "at least half a billion dollars" - one dirty bomb went off, and a whole lot more waiting. What we should worry about is how critical systems go wrong in human hands - even in the stupidest of all possible ways - since there are more critical systems by the day. Genghis John's limit on maintenance and attention nears... yell it from the mountain tops!
jessaustin 9y ago
Cornered rats fight hardest. Nuclear is already dead. No one can afford to build a plant, and voters are no longer ignorant enough to chip in. [0] The problem of course is that this particular industrial corpse will hang around stinking up the place for the rest of human existence. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355072 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management
- Teknoman117 9y ago
  Well, this 'dead industry' still supplies 20% of the United States' electricity and 75% of France's electricity. Hell, France is even a net exporter of electricity...
  - onli 9y ago
    Not a good example. France has an elite system making all political decisions, and that elite is formed partly by the nuclear industry. Also, its energy industry is on the brinks of collapse - turns out nuclear energy is expensive and the subventions already too high, at least for a country that sees itself as being in crisis. And there are a constant stream of accidents and safety issues in those nuclear plants. Might be not dead over here, but it certainly isn't healthy.
thaumaturgy 9y ago
I am overall a strong proponent of nuclear power -- but I gave you a point and bookmarked the article and this discussion under the "nuclear" tag for future reference. I am a larger proponent of renewables in almost all forms, but they all share one really critical problem: they can't promise to scale to meet short-term spikes and drops in demand. For that, you need a fuel-based form of energy, and of those, nuclear is still the best we have. (But demand for fuel energy can be reduced by rushing as quickly as possible to large-scale renewables and new energy storage technologies, and I hope that happens.)
- philipkglass 9y ago
  Nuclear is not suited for balancing short-term spikes and drops in demand either. Fast balancing comes from spinning reserve, batteries (early stages still), reservoir-backed hydro power, and open cycle turbines. Take a look here at how little nuclear output ramps up or down over the course of a week, compared to every other source: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ But nuclear generation could improve its economics and reduce the use of inefficient fossil fueled open-cycle turbines/spinning reserve if battery storage becomes more common and nuclear electricity recharges the batteries for meeting daily peaks.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
What bothers me about this argument is that there's plenty of evidence that the overall public health damage from nuclear disasters is substantially less than from coal plants working as intended, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out, renewables will not be able to cover 100% of power production for many years. Absolutely we should use as much renewable energy as possible, but there has to be something to pick up the slack until the tech catches up, and between combustion and nuclear, nuclear is much safer even with regular disasters. It seems like a statistical-awareness failure, like the people who won't fly because they're afraid of terrorists even though driving is far, far deadlier.
- wordupmaking 9y ago
  What argument did I make though? I just found it interesting that this genuinely curious story -- why did one of those 700 barrels react that way -- had literally zero comments after 5 hours on the front page, and was being snarky. I mean, let's grant all that, let's say nuclear energy is 100000x more clean and safe and cheap than all the alternatives. Then why not discuss this curious thing about this most lovable of energy forms? Seriously, I thought the best stuff in science happens when someone goes "hey, this is interesting..." If you love or even just like a thing, kick its tires!

wbl 9y ago

Suppose the drum broke. How many people would die?

wordupmaking 9y ago
Supposed people who otherwise seem very interested in nuclear energy discussed this as the interesting puzzle it is. How many would die? Apparently, all of them. Hence my comment, though its point seems to have escaped you. My concern isn't primarily nuclear radiation, my concern is the weakness of people who weren't even exposed to a lot of it.
dredmorbius 9y ago
It depends on what's in the drum, now doesn't it. Now, what was the actual problem encountered at the site? And howw would you go about determining that a benign vs. concerning situation had transpired?
Retric 9y ago
99.9% of the time, none. They are stored in a bunker far from people. A large part of why nuclear power is so expensive is because safety is considered so important. It's hard to get good numbers, but chances are more people have died constructing reactors and mining / refining ore etc. than from nuclear accidents. The difference is simply what people are less concerned when a heavy object falls on someone else.
- Teknoman117 9y ago
  And how many people have died inhaling fumes from coal fired plants and mining coal?
  - vilhelm_s 9y ago
    In 2010 it was around 13,200 deaths/year from particulate emissions[1]. This is actually a big improvement, stricter regulations brought it down from 30,000 deaths/year in 2000 [2]. I should say that these numbers are surely not exact, there are big uncertainties both in the atmospheric modelling (how far the particles propagate) and in how dangerous the exposure is. But it's probably the right order of magnitude, there is a different report from the National Academy of Sciences in 2010 which arrived at a similar (but slightly lower) number [3]. The deaths from particulate emissions are not even necessarily the biggest problem with coal: if you price out the externalities, the cost of climate change (from CO₂ emissions) is the biggest item [4]. [1] http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/138 [2] http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/8 http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/8 [3] http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hidden.pdf http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hi... [4] http://xhxhxhx.tumblr.com/post/157192261427/alright-two-important-corrections-first-the http://xhxhxhx.tumblr.com/post/157192261427/alright-two-impo...
vilhelm_s 9y ago
A drum did break, that's what the article is about.
- wbl 9y ago
  And 0 people died.

Nomentatus 9y ago

The expense is already ungodly - "at least half a billion dollars" - one dirty bomb went off, and a whole lot more waiting. What we should worry about is how critical systems go wrong in human hands - even in the stupidest of all possible ways - since there are more critical systems by the day. Genghis John's limit on maintenance and attention nears... yell it from the mountain tops!

jessaustin 9y ago

Cornered rats fight hardest. Nuclear is already dead. No one can afford to build a plant, and voters are no longer ignorant enough to chip in. [0] The problem of course is that this particular industrial corpse will hang around stinking up the place for the rest of human existence. [1] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14355072 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Management

Teknoman117 9y ago
Well, this 'dead industry' still supplies 20% of the United States' electricity and 75% of France's electricity. Hell, France is even a net exporter of electricity...
- onli 9y ago
  Not a good example. France has an elite system making all political decisions, and that elite is formed partly by the nuclear industry. Also, its energy industry is on the brinks of collapse - turns out nuclear energy is expensive and the subventions already too high, at least for a country that sees itself as being in crisis. And there are a constant stream of accidents and safety issues in those nuclear plants. Might be not dead over here, but it certainly isn't healthy.

thaumaturgy 9y ago

I am overall a strong proponent of nuclear power -- but I gave you a point and bookmarked the article and this discussion under the "nuclear" tag for future reference. I am a larger proponent of renewables in almost all forms, but they all share one really critical problem: they can't promise to scale to meet short-term spikes and drops in demand. For that, you need a fuel-based form of energy, and of those, nuclear is still the best we have. (But demand for fuel energy can be reduced by rushing as quickly as possible to large-scale renewables and new energy storage technologies, and I hope that happens.)

philipkglass 9y ago
Nuclear is not suited for balancing short-term spikes and drops in demand either. Fast balancing comes from spinning reserve, batteries (early stages still), reservoir-backed hydro power, and open cycle turbines. Take a look here at how little nuclear output ramps up or down over the course of a week, compared to every other source: http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ But nuclear generation could improve its economics and reduce the use of inefficient fossil fueled open-cycle turbines/spinning reserve if battery storage becomes more common and nuclear electricity recharges the batteries for meeting daily peaks.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

What bothers me about this argument is that there's plenty of evidence that the overall public health damage from nuclear disasters is substantially less than from coal plants working as intended, and as Thaumaturgy pointed out, renewables will not be able to cover 100% of power production for many years. Absolutely we should use as much renewable energy as possible, but there has to be something to pick up the slack until the tech catches up, and between combustion and nuclear, nuclear is much safer even with regular disasters. It seems like a statistical-awareness failure, like the people who won't fly because they're afraid of terrorists even though driving is far, far deadlier.

wordupmaking 9y ago
What argument did I make though? I just found it interesting that this genuinely curious story -- why did one of those 700 barrels react that way -- had literally zero comments after 5 hours on the front page, and was being snarky. I mean, let's grant all that, let's say nuclear energy is 100000x more clean and safe and cheap than all the alternatives. Then why not discuss this curious thing about this most lovable of energy forms? Seriously, I thought the best stuff in science happens when someone goes "hey, this is interesting..." If you love or even just like a thing, kick its tires!