5 ms·

The title is technically correct; however, it seems like link bait once you get to page two of the article and see: "Bridenbaugh told ABC News that he believes

by tres 16y ago

The title is technically correct; however, it seems like link bait once you get to page two of the article and see: "Bridenbaugh told ABC News that he believes the design flaws that prompted his resignation from GE were eventually addressed at the Fukushima Daiichi plant."

Paulomus 16y ago
Yes, but he hesitated to say this was sufficient and said the reactors were still "a little more susceptible to an accident that would result in a loss of containment".
- tres 16y ago
  The qualitative assessment of the plant's design is outside the scope of what I'm commenting on. I'm referring to the journalistic bait-and-switch which hides a very relevant piece of information (that contradicts the implied assertion of the title) on page two of a banner-encrusted site. In the context of current events, the title of the link suggests some kind of spectacular negligence. At the point where the scientist says the design flaws were addressed, [his resignation due to design flaws] is no longer a story that adds anything relevant or noteworthy to the discussion. It's merely a historical fact disconnected from current events. If the title of the article had followed the content and been focused on the expert sharing their knowledge and discussing possible problems with the design I would have appreciated it much more. [edit: clarify what is no longer newsworthy]
rbanffy 16y ago
> he believes the design flaws that prompted his resignation from GE were eventually addressed Anyway, a design that blows up when power is cut because it cannot cool itself down to safe levels is... weird.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Dear downvoter, would you buy a car that falls apart (or blows up killing the passengers) when it runs out of gas? If something can go wrong, it will, given time, go wrong. Even if there is one chance in a million for the whole chain of countermeasures to fail in tandem, give it a million chances to happen and you end up with a good chance of it happening.
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    There are part/system failures in cars that result in death, just as with nuclear reactors.
    - eli 16y ago
      They typically don't take out nearby villages as well, but point taken.
      - ceejayoz 16y ago
        Cars kill a lot more people than nuclear plants do, though.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        They are also a lot cheaper.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      Indeed there are, but one could suppose nuclear reactors would only fail catastrophically when something catastrophic happened, not when being shut down.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > one could suppose nuclear reactors would only fail catastrophically when something catastrophic happened, not when being shut down. Shutting down after a tsunami took out much of the support equipment seems somewhat catastrophic.
      - sorbus 16y ago
        I would call an earthquake (which was larger than it was designed to withstand) followed by a tsunami (which knocked out the emergency generators) pretty catastrophic.
        16y ago
- bhousel 16y ago
  I agree with you -- actually go a step further and replace "weird" with "irresponsible" and that's how I feel about the whole situation. There are newer generations of nuclear reactors that don't suffer from this design flaw, but convincing the public that nuclear power can be done safely is going to get a lot more difficult. This incident is going to be a huge step backwards for public acceptance of nuclear power.
- dexen 16y ago
  It's laid out pretty clearly in http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/?mit http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japa... which was posted to HN today as well. In short, even after reactor shutdown, substantial heat is still produced, so some cooling is needed. Substantial as in, up to some 7% of normal output, early after the shutdown. That's mostly due to residue fissible elements -- byproduct of normal operation. The explosion was not inside reactor pressure vessel, but in the housing. Top parts of fuel rods got exposed out of coolant water at some point and heated up considerably. When water level was raised back again, heat caused release hydrogen. Upon subsequent steam venting (necessary in case of overheating), the hydrogen combusted in the air in reactor housing (i.e., building, not the pressure vessel itself). The pressure vessel itself contains no air to avoid explosion. Compare a very early mishap with a nuclear pile (not reactor): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire -- where the Brits tried to extinguish smoldering graphite & very hot fuel with water, and there was risk of hydrogen explosion (fortunately avoided).
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    It just seems odd that the core still generates heat enough to damage itself (50 MW is a lot) but that the heat cannot be used to operate the pumps that should cool it down.
- koenigdavidmj 16y ago
  Whose idea was it to put the thing on the fucking coast? In Japan?

by tres 16y ago

Paulomus 16y ago

Yes, but he hesitated to say this was sufficient and said the reactors were still "a little more susceptible to an accident that would result in a loss of containment".

tres 16y ago
The qualitative assessment of the plant's design is outside the scope of what I'm commenting on. I'm referring to the journalistic bait-and-switch which hides a very relevant piece of information (that contradicts the implied assertion of the title) on page two of a banner-encrusted site. In the context of current events, the title of the link suggests some kind of spectacular negligence. At the point where the scientist says the design flaws were addressed, [his resignation due to design flaws] is no longer a story that adds anything relevant or noteworthy to the discussion. It's merely a historical fact disconnected from current events. If the title of the article had followed the content and been focused on the expert sharing their knowledge and discussing possible problems with the design I would have appreciated it much more. [edit: clarify what is no longer newsworthy]

rbanffy 16y ago

> he believes the design flaws that prompted his resignation from GE were eventually addressed Anyway, a design that blows up when power is cut because it cannot cool itself down to safe levels is... weird.

rbanffy 16y ago
Dear downvoter, would you buy a car that falls apart (or blows up killing the passengers) when it runs out of gas? If something can go wrong, it will, given time, go wrong. Even if there is one chance in a million for the whole chain of countermeasures to fail in tandem, give it a million chances to happen and you end up with a good chance of it happening.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  There are part/system failures in cars that result in death, just as with nuclear reactors.
  - eli 16y ago
    They typically don't take out nearby villages as well, but point taken.
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      Cars kill a lot more people than nuclear plants do, though.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        They are also a lot cheaper.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    Indeed there are, but one could suppose nuclear reactors would only fail catastrophically when something catastrophic happened, not when being shut down.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > one could suppose nuclear reactors would only fail catastrophically when something catastrophic happened, not when being shut down. Shutting down after a tsunami took out much of the support equipment seems somewhat catastrophic.
    - sorbus 16y ago
      I would call an earthquake (which was larger than it was designed to withstand) followed by a tsunami (which knocked out the emergency generators) pretty catastrophic.
      - 16y ago
bhousel 16y ago
I agree with you -- actually go a step further and replace "weird" with "irresponsible" and that's how I feel about the whole situation. There are newer generations of nuclear reactors that don't suffer from this design flaw, but convincing the public that nuclear power can be done safely is going to get a lot more difficult. This incident is going to be a huge step backwards for public acceptance of nuclear power.
dexen 16y ago
It's laid out pretty clearly in http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/?mit http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japa... which was posted to HN today as well. In short, even after reactor shutdown, substantial heat is still produced, so some cooling is needed. Substantial as in, up to some 7% of normal output, early after the shutdown. That's mostly due to residue fissible elements -- byproduct of normal operation. The explosion was not inside reactor pressure vessel, but in the housing. Top parts of fuel rods got exposed out of coolant water at some point and heated up considerably. When water level was raised back again, heat caused release hydrogen. Upon subsequent steam venting (necessary in case of overheating), the hydrogen combusted in the air in reactor housing (i.e., building, not the pressure vessel itself). The pressure vessel itself contains no air to avoid explosion. Compare a very early mishap with a nuclear pile (not reactor): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire -- where the Brits tried to extinguish smoldering graphite & very hot fuel with water, and there was risk of hydrogen explosion (fortunately avoided).
- rbanffy 16y ago
  It just seems odd that the core still generates heat enough to damage itself (50 MW is a lot) but that the heat cannot be used to operate the pumps that should cool it down.
koenigdavidmj 16y ago
Whose idea was it to put the thing on the fucking coast? In Japan?