3 ms·

They normally use a couple million gallons of water a day. That they didn't notice <1% of it leaking out improperly instead of going through whatever their norm

They normally use a couple million gallons of water a day. That they didn't notice <1% of it leaking out improperly instead of going through whatever their normal treatment/disposal processes are, seems plausible. This has some more details: https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/samsung-facility-austin-spilled-763000-gallons-acidic-waste-tributary-memo/269-8e9e9720-442a-4159-b25e-7d26a30a314d https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/samsung-facility-aus... Willful ignorance is certainly always a possibility, but I don't find it to be implausible that it was unknown.

yboris 5y ago
While 1% doesn't seem like a large percentage, when dealing with toxic materials, it feels like there ought to be a lot more safety-checks and aggressive monitoring in place.
- cxr 5y ago
  Feynman's description of the circumstances at the national labs processing nuclear material for the bomb: The people in Oak Ridge didn't know anything about what it was to be used for; they just knew what they were trying to do. I mean the higher people knew they were separating uranium, but they didn't know how powerful the bomb was, or exactly how it worked or anything. The people underneath didn't know at all what they were doing. Things at SAS are a lot like that. So ought there to have been procedures in place before Feynman came along and directed them to make the changes that averted what would have almost certainly otherwise been a disaster? Sure, there ought to have been. But there's a world of observed difference between is and ought. The person I responded was making a claim about whether or not this was intentional. That's what we're talking about, not whether it ought not to have happened. (They stated a zero percent chance that it wasn't intentional. I happen to think that's wrong, based on my experience with how boneheaded things are actually run at SAS and other places like the way Feynman describes Oak Ridge, etc.)
  - syspec 5y ago
    That was like what, 60 years ago? We should have higher standards now
    - cxr 5y ago
      This is either one of the dumbest oneliner responses I've ever read on HN or the smartest troll.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Because it was really closer to 80 years ago? Or because in the present case there are no military secrets of any kind involved, so no excuses like Oak Ridge would have merited? It is almost as bad that they are using up a million gallons of precious fresh water every day. Then, where are they flushing the other 1.8m barrels of water?

yboris 5y ago

While 1% doesn't seem like a large percentage, when dealing with toxic materials, it feels like there ought to be a lot more safety-checks and aggressive monitoring in place.

cxr 5y ago
Feynman's description of the circumstances at the national labs processing nuclear material for the bomb: The people in Oak Ridge didn't know anything about what it was to be used for; they just knew what they were trying to do. I mean the higher people knew they were separating uranium, but they didn't know how powerful the bomb was, or exactly how it worked or anything. The people underneath didn't know at all what they were doing. Things at SAS are a lot like that. So ought there to have been procedures in place before Feynman came along and directed them to make the changes that averted what would have almost certainly otherwise been a disaster? Sure, there ought to have been. But there's a world of observed difference between is and ought. The person I responded was making a claim about whether or not this was intentional. That's what we're talking about, not whether it ought not to have happened. (They stated a zero percent chance that it wasn't intentional. I happen to think that's wrong, based on my experience with how boneheaded things are actually run at SAS and other places like the way Feynman describes Oak Ridge, etc.)
- syspec 5y ago
  That was like what, 60 years ago? We should have higher standards now
  - cxr 5y ago
    This is either one of the dumbest oneliner responses I've ever read on HN or the smartest troll.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Because it was really closer to 80 years ago? Or because in the present case there are no military secrets of any kind involved, so no excuses like Oak Ridge would have merited? It is almost as bad that they are using up a million gallons of precious fresh water every day. Then, where are they flushing the other 1.8m barrels of water?