5 ms·

Official: 'We see the possibility of a meltdown'

46 points by stretchwithme 16y ago

ccarpenterg 16y ago
Nuclear meltdown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
pyre 16y ago
It's unfortunate, but not surprising that the headline is 'meltdown a possibility,' ignoring things like: > "What we have seen is only the slight indication from a monitoring post of > cesium and iodine," he said. > "We have some confidence, to some extent, to make the situation to be > stable status," he said. "We actually have very good confidence that we > will resolve this."
- scott_s 16y ago
  People who may be held responsible for Very Bad Things tend to downplay the probability that the bad thing will occur and express confidence that they have it under control. That an official admits a meltdown is possible is the most noteworthy thing. When I run what he said through my public-official-Bayesian-filter, what comes out is "There is a non-trivial chance a meltdown will occur."
  - foobarbazban 16y ago
    This particular official (or his office, honestly) doesn't have much to gain from downplaying the possibility of a meltdown. He is part of the regulatory agency, not the plant management. They are already going to have to revamp all of their regulations with regard to coolant water pumps (whoever screwed up there, be it someone writing regulations or an inspector, is already in trouble).
    - Klinky 16y ago
      Your second paragraph contradicts itself.
    - earl 16y ago
      This particular official (or his office, honestly) doesn't have much to gain from downplaying the possibility of a meltdown This is the same Japan, you'll remember, that actually doctored video footage to downplay a previous accident at a nuclear reactor -- see Monju[1] -- with the direct involvement of the government. Or when they had to take the extraordinary step of forcing the shutdown of 17 reactors because a major (the major?) utility falsified safety records [2]. A cursory googling of japan nuclear safety would have immediately informed you that officials often downplay and conceal information. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm
  - Someone 16y ago
    I think the only fact in that article is "we saw radiation levels of X but we do not know what caused them". The rest could be interpretation. The press will want to hear more than that 'we do not know', so it presses on, and asks, "do you have a meltdown?", A good PR Guy would probably say 'we do not want to speculate at this time', and nothing else, but holding that line is hard. It is way too easy to (especially for an engineer) to follow that by 'it very, very probably is 100% safe, but of course, since we do not _know_, it could be a meltdown'. Guess what part of such a statement would make the news? So, to draw any conclusions from this, I would want to know who were present at that phone call, and what exactly was said.
- codex 16y ago
  I believe a meltdown, if contained, may not necessarily release radiation into the environment. That would qualify as "stable status" in my book.
Getahobby 16y ago
This may be a gross understatement but this is going to end very badly and probably have negative repercussions long term for nuclear energy in this country.
- jpeterson 16y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is a valid concern, and it could make a very serious impact on our energy strategy for a long time.
  - icarus_drowning 16y ago
    Because it isn't certain that it is going to end badly. And because it is axiomatic that if it does there will be major repercussions on the power industry. If it ends well, it might have positive repercussions-- "even in the worst case, these are still safe" will probably be the line.
- jarek 16y ago
  Which is "this country"? I'm confused. Also, why are you certain this will end "very badly"?
JEggers2 16y ago
Very Contradictory of itself. Title is very attention-seeking.
chasingsparks 16y ago
I think catastrophes demonstrate interesting properties of human communications. All of these reports on imminent meltdown are plausible to people ignorant of the plant's design and even those who are experts on nuclear energy . The levels of distrust and recognition that there is probably noisy communications increase simultaneously. From a sensationalist viewpoint, the plausibility and terrifying nature of the consequences are seductive, so these stories are widely read; from the expert standpoint, seeing a system with so many redundancies in such a wounded state calls into question just how many things might be going wrong. At this point, unless your dealing directly with the reactors, your really in the dark and if your one of these people, you're focused on preventing further degredation, not managing the message. Even for organisations that do manage the message based on a team of experts (e.g. nuclear regulatory agencies) things move at such a frantic pace, things are wrong by the time you say them. Regardless, it really does show that people like watching car crashes.
Tycho 16y ago
Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give credit where credit's due?
- Jach 16y ago
  What do you think? Thorium has been suggested for quite some time yet it's not going anywhere really fast.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear? I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated, challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent will insist that with knowledge gained from this failure, we now have enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.
  - Tycho 16y ago
    Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept within normal operating limits). If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you put forward.
    - OpieCunningham 16y ago
      I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the debate will rage on)? Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite crowd?
mrleinad 16y ago
We need the Japanese Miracle, right now.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Jap...
dreamux 16y ago
English is almost certainly not this official's native language. Miscommunication of technical matters/terms is common in these situations.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

46 points by stretchwithme 16y ago

ccarpenterg 16y ago

Nuclear meltdown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

pyre 16y ago

It's unfortunate, but not surprising that the headline is 'meltdown a possibility,' ignoring things like: > "What we have seen is only the slight indication from a monitoring post of > cesium and iodine," he said. > "We have some confidence, to some extent, to make the situation to be > stable status," he said. "We actually have very good confidence that we > will resolve this."

scott_s 16y ago
People who may be held responsible for Very Bad Things tend to downplay the probability that the bad thing will occur and express confidence that they have it under control. That an official admits a meltdown is possible is the most noteworthy thing. When I run what he said through my public-official-Bayesian-filter, what comes out is "There is a non-trivial chance a meltdown will occur."
- foobarbazban 16y ago
  This particular official (or his office, honestly) doesn't have much to gain from downplaying the possibility of a meltdown. He is part of the regulatory agency, not the plant management. They are already going to have to revamp all of their regulations with regard to coolant water pumps (whoever screwed up there, be it someone writing regulations or an inspector, is already in trouble).
  - Klinky 16y ago
    Your second paragraph contradicts itself.
  - earl 16y ago
    This particular official (or his office, honestly) doesn't have much to gain from downplaying the possibility of a meltdown This is the same Japan, you'll remember, that actually doctored video footage to downplay a previous accident at a nuclear reactor -- see Monju[1] -- with the direct involvement of the government. Or when they had to take the extraordinary step of forcing the shutdown of 17 reactors because a major (the major?) utility falsified safety records [2]. A cursory googling of japan nuclear safety would have immediately informed you that officials often downplay and conceal information. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monju_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3548192.stm
- Someone 16y ago
  I think the only fact in that article is "we saw radiation levels of X but we do not know what caused them". The rest could be interpretation. The press will want to hear more than that 'we do not know', so it presses on, and asks, "do you have a meltdown?", A good PR Guy would probably say 'we do not want to speculate at this time', and nothing else, but holding that line is hard. It is way too easy to (especially for an engineer) to follow that by 'it very, very probably is 100% safe, but of course, since we do not _know_, it could be a meltdown'. Guess what part of such a statement would make the news? So, to draw any conclusions from this, I would want to know who were present at that phone call, and what exactly was said.
codex 16y ago
I believe a meltdown, if contained, may not necessarily release radiation into the environment. That would qualify as "stable status" in my book.

Getahobby 16y ago

This may be a gross understatement but this is going to end very badly and probably have negative repercussions long term for nuclear energy in this country.

jpeterson 16y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted. This is a valid concern, and it could make a very serious impact on our energy strategy for a long time.
- icarus_drowning 16y ago
  Because it isn't certain that it is going to end badly. And because it is axiomatic that if it does there will be major repercussions on the power industry. If it ends well, it might have positive repercussions-- "even in the worst case, these are still safe" will probably be the line.
jarek 16y ago
Which is "this country"? I'm confused. Also, why are you certain this will end "very badly"?

JEggers2 16y ago

Very Contradictory of itself. Title is very attention-seeking.

chasingsparks 16y ago

I think catastrophes demonstrate interesting properties of human communications. All of these reports on imminent meltdown are plausible to people ignorant of the plant's design and even those who are experts on nuclear energy . The levels of distrust and recognition that there is probably noisy communications increase simultaneously. From a sensationalist viewpoint, the plausibility and terrifying nature of the consequences are seductive, so these stories are widely read; from the expert standpoint, seeing a system with so many redundancies in such a wounded state calls into question just how many things might be going wrong. At this point, unless your dealing directly with the reactors, your really in the dark and if your one of these people, you're focused on preventing further degredation, not managing the message. Even for organisations that do manage the message based on a team of experts (e.g. nuclear regulatory agencies) things move at such a frantic pace, things are wrong by the time you say them. Regardless, it really does show that people like watching car crashes.

Tycho 16y ago

Is this the 'ultimate test' for nuclear power? And if so, and if the Japanese escape unscathed from radiation, will the global anti-nuclear contingent give credit where credit's due?

Jach 16y ago
What do you think? Thorium has been suggested for quite some time yet it's not going anywhere really fast.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
And the inverse, if the Japanese don't escape unscathed from radiation, will the global pro-nuclear contingent become anti-nuclear? I suspect the answer to both questions is no. Firstly because unscathed is vague: 0% radiological impact? 3% impact? How much damage is allowed in the definition of unscathed? Secondly because the true impact will be debated, challenged and studied for decades. And thirdly because the pro contingent will insist that with knowledge gained from this failure, we now have enough knowledge to safely implement nuclear power.
- Tycho 16y ago
  Well I was thinking in terms of 'completely unscathed' as in the failsafes etc. ultimately did their job and the radiactivity was contained (or kept within normal operating limits). If there is 'some' fallout, then of course the debate will rage on indefinitely. Which is why I did not suggest the converse position that you put forward.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Are you suggesting that if there is no fallout, the anti-nuclear contingent should accept they are basically wrong, but if there is fallout, the pro-nuclear contingent should continue to fight (i.e. the debate will rage on)? Why should one outcome produce a change in behavior from one crowd, but the opposite outcome should not produce a change in behavior from the opposite crowd?

mrleinad 16y ago

We need the Japanese Miracle, right now.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Ghost_in_the_Shell#Jap...

dreamux 16y ago

English is almost certainly not this official's native language. Miscommunication of technical matters/terms is common in these situations.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]