9 ms·

Japan’s nuclear reactor overreaction

23 points by lt 16y ago

evo_9 16y ago
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.
- dazzawazza 16y ago
  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.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    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.
- sophacles 16y ago
  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.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    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
    - sophacles 16y ago
      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".
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
angdis 16y ago
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?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The German government, for one. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72E17620110315 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-id...
  - aw3c2 16y ago
    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.
    - mseebach 16y ago
      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".
      - dialtone 16y ago
        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 http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor
marshray 16y ago
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.
- rmc 16y ago
  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 http://yfrog.com/h3z17vzj
  - marshray 16y ago
    I can only see the main and sub-headlines and the picture. But I don't see anything factually incorrect about it.
    - glenjamin 16y ago
      Just because it's factually correct doesn't mean its not scaremongering.
      - marshray 16y ago
        ...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".
- Alex3917 16y ago
  "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-rock_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t515_conspiracy-theory-ro...
droz 16y ago
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.
chrisling 16y ago
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.
dhughes 16y ago
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.
ars 16y ago
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.
marze 16y ago
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.
jellicle 16y ago
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.
- lutorm 16y ago
  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.
  - KVFinn 16y ago
    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.
ChuckMcM 16y ago
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 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20043127-503543.html

23 points by lt 16y ago

evo_9 16y ago

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.

dazzawazza 16y ago
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.
- lutorm 16y ago
  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.
sophacles 16y ago
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.
- notahacker 16y ago
  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
  - sophacles 16y ago
    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".
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

angdis 16y ago

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?

yummyfajitas 16y ago
The German government, for one. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-idUSLDE72E17620110315 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/germany-nuclear-id...
- aw3c2 16y ago
  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.
  - mseebach 16y ago
    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".
    - dialtone 16y ago
      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 http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/npp_extension.html [2]:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

marshray 16y ago

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.

rmc 16y ago
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 http://yfrog.com/h3z17vzj
- marshray 16y ago
  I can only see the main and sub-headlines and the picture. But I don't see anything factually incorrect about it.
  - glenjamin 16y ago
    Just because it's factually correct doesn't mean its not scaremongering.
    - marshray 16y ago
      ...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".
Alex3917 16y ago
"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-rock_shortfilms http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6t515_conspiracy-theory-ro...

droz 16y ago

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.

chrisling 16y ago

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.

dhughes 16y ago

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.

ars 16y ago

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.

marze 16y ago

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.

jellicle 16y ago

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.

lutorm 16y ago
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.
- KVFinn 16y ago
  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.

ChuckMcM 16y ago

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