4 ms·

Kyshtym was actually the worst nuclear disaster in history, not the second or third. Kyshtym was not actually caused by nuclear waste. In reality, the Russians

Kyshtym was actually the worst nuclear disaster in history, not the second or third. Kyshtym was not actually caused by nuclear waste. In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water, a bizarre and wildly inappropriate design. A pump failed, and one of the water circuits stayed for more than a year. Eventually there was a steam blast. It had nothing to do with nuclear waste. It was a cooling system failure. The blast was 100% non-nuclear. As the worst disaster in nuclear history, the UN estimated death count is still below 80, and the actual known death count is 31. Trying to hold this up as some kind of serious risk, and playing the "technically correct, the best kind of correct" card, and using extremely heated language like "blatantly false," is just flat out destructive. Not only is your story incorrect, but even if it was correct, this kind of "disaster" is so small as to be irrelevant. Any major city on Earth has ten death counts like that a year and you can't name a single one in your city. This is how we stop climate change. Stop playing technicality fodder. You aren't as correct as you think you are, and even if you were correct, you'd be making the wrong call in the long run. If the worst disaster the industry has had in history doesn't add up to a bus accident, and it's already 20% of the way done stopping climate change? Then it's time to stop getting your rocks off to being able to say "but this one time it killed a couple dozen people 75 years ago." Especially because it absolute did not, and your claim of "blatant falsehood" is just you mis-learning history from HBO. Be clear: the maple syrup industry has two disasters with a higher death count in the same time frame. If you aren't calling for a global moratorium on delicious breakfast syrup, which cannot stop climate change, ask yourself why you need to drag out your knowledge of a trivial event 75 years ago, here. By the numbers, nuclear power is the safest technology of any kind in history. If you have to go back 75 years to find 50 dead folks, and you don't understand what a magically high quality safety record that is, please let other people handle this discussion.

shkkmo 5y ago
> Kyshtym was not actually caused by nuclear waste. In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water, While I am no means an expert in this incident, your explanation contradicts every source I can find on it. Every single one I've found lists it as a "waste storage tank" that exploded. This paper cites three official reports from three different countries that all attribute the incident to stored nuclear waste. [0] It's possible you are simply confused here as used fuel rods are a type of nuclear waste and are hot. (Though encyclopedia Britannica specifies that it was liquid nuclear waste, not spent fuel rods, though I am not sure what their source for that claim is.) If you are going to contradict widely accepted information, you should start by providing sources instead of getting upset at being justifiably called out. > is just you mis-learning history from HBO I don't watch HBO (or much TV at all). I am a bit of a nuclear history nerd (though no expert) ever since I was got licensed as a reactor operator decades ago. > It had nothing to do with nuclear waste. It was a cooling system failure. The blast was 100% non-nuclear. All the energy that caused the explosion came from nuclear decay. The pressure that that causes nuclear explosions is almost always from the heating of non-nuclear material due to the decay of isotopes, the only different was that there was (presumably) no runaway chain reaction so the energy mostly came from the decay of longer lived isotopes. Either way, it's irrelevant because the explosion itself caused no direct casualties, it was the radioactive contamination spread by the explosion. > ask yourself why you need to drag out your knowledge of a trivial event 75 years ago, here. I care about accuracy, which is apparently a vanishing trait these days. > you have to go back 75 years to find 50 dead folks, and you don't understand what a magically high quality safety record that is, please let other people handle this discussion. I also agree that nuclear power has a pretty great safety record. I don't believe allowing more misinformation about nuclear power to spread (positive or negative) does anything to help the discussion. If you are going to change people's minds, I suggest try citing good sources instead of trying to browbeat people like you did in this comment. [0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chang2/g http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chang2/g
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  Sometimes people argue by habit, because they think they're doing something good in the name of Sweet Lady Evidence, when they're actually just googling things like a flat Earther would then trying to stand on that . > While I am no means an expert in this incident And yet here you are, all the same, arguing, based on things you found in a search engine, and tricked yourself into thinking were knowledge. . > > In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water, > > Every single one I've found lists it as a "waste storage tank" that exploded. Yes. They were keeping hot fuel in storage tanks underground, and cooling them with water, then the water engaged in a steam explosion. This is the same as what I said. The reason you're confused is that the Russians just use the word "fuel rod" for active fuel or spent fuel, and you're acting on a fifth-hand regurgitated translated piece of material by someone with no training or knowledge in the field, much like yourself. Science says that the only effective way to discourage this sort of blind argument is to clearly and repeatedly call it out as inappropriate, and why . > It's possible you are simply confused here No, I'm not confused here. You just googled translated materials and assumed, incorrectly, that nothing was lost in translation. In reality, we both told a story about a steam explosion in an underground tank. You haven't found an objection; you found a rephrasing that was missing details. . > If you are going to contradict widely accepted information I'm not. You're confusing things you Googled up on the spot for "widely accepted information," in exactly the same way that anti-vaxxers and flat earthers do. Unlike you, I have college training in these matters, and I don't fake my way through knowledge arguments with search engines. . > you should start by providing sources I did. . > instead of getting upset I'm not in any way upset at your belligerence. . > being justifiably called out. You are not in any way justified. . > I am a bit of a nuclear history nerd The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers also describe themselves as "a bit of a nerd" when arguing incorrectly against a credentialled expert, and trying to sound important. . > ever since I was got licensed as a reactor operator decades ago. So far, about 40 people have told me that they were licensed as a reactor operator on HN. Given that there are only 3900 of them in the country, I just don't believe that any of them were actually telling the truth. . > All the energy that caused the explosion came from nuclear decay. This comment makes it extremely difficult for me to believe that you are, in fact, a licensed operator. Along with the previous statistical observation. Look, this is like building a huge dam, letting it burst, then saying water caused the deaths, instead of bad dam engineering. If you can't even get the proximate cause of the disaster right, there is absolutely no way you were licensed. This is a critical component of that test. I do not believe you. . > I care about accuracy, which is apparently a vanishing trait these days. Cool story. Anyway, if you're asking me to choose between your recounting based on bad translations you found on Google, or the official UN position, please forgive me if I believe the UN over you. . > I don't believe allowing more misinformation about nuclear power to spread (positive or negative) does anything to help the discussion. Cool story. Since you haven't actually found any using documented evidence, provided evidence that says that I'm correct, and loudly demanded that I do something I already did while failing to do it yourself and believing you succeeded, then allow me to be the first to loudly shrug at you. I have no interest in whether you feel that I am helping the discussion. Your emotional attempt to manufacture an error where none exists, then to elect yourself to the fact ministry to control me, while announcing that you've also somehow made me upset, actually has essentially no effect. I will continue drinking my coffee, and believing my college professors and the United Nations over some rando on HN who is offering evidence that doesn't agree with him, and doesn't appear to understand that . > If you are going to change people's minds, I suggest try citing good sources That's nice. Your sources don't agree with you and I have no interest in your suggestions.

shkkmo 5y ago

> Kyshtym was not actually caused by nuclear waste. In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water, While I am no means an expert in this incident, your explanation contradicts every source I can find on it. Every single one I've found lists it as a "waste storage tank" that exploded. This paper cites three official reports from three different countries that all attribute the incident to stored nuclear waste. [0] It's possible you are simply confused here as used fuel rods are a type of nuclear waste and are hot. (Though encyclopedia Britannica specifies that it was liquid nuclear waste, not spent fuel rods, though I am not sure what their source for that claim is.) If you are going to contradict widely accepted information, you should start by providing sources instead of getting upset at being justifiably called out. > is just you mis-learning history from HBO I don't watch HBO (or much TV at all). I am a bit of a nuclear history nerd (though no expert) ever since I was got licensed as a reactor operator decades ago. > It had nothing to do with nuclear waste. It was a cooling system failure. The blast was 100% non-nuclear. All the energy that caused the explosion came from nuclear decay. The pressure that that causes nuclear explosions is almost always from the heating of non-nuclear material due to the decay of isotopes, the only different was that there was (presumably) no runaway chain reaction so the energy mostly came from the decay of longer lived isotopes. Either way, it's irrelevant because the explosion itself caused no direct casualties, it was the radioactive contamination spread by the explosion. > ask yourself why you need to drag out your knowledge of a trivial event 75 years ago, here. I care about accuracy, which is apparently a vanishing trait these days. > you have to go back 75 years to find 50 dead folks, and you don't understand what a magically high quality safety record that is, please let other people handle this discussion. I also agree that nuclear power has a pretty great safety record. I don't believe allowing more misinformation about nuclear power to spread (positive or negative) does anything to help the discussion. If you are going to change people's minds, I suggest try citing good sources instead of trying to browbeat people like you did in this comment. [0] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chang2/g http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/chang2/g

JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Sometimes people argue by habit, because they think they're doing something good in the name of Sweet Lady Evidence, when they're actually just googling things like a flat Earther would then trying to stand on that . > While I am no means an expert in this incident And yet here you are, all the same, arguing, based on things you found in a search engine, and tricked yourself into thinking were knowledge. . > > In reality, the Russians were keeping hot fuel underground, and cooling it with water, > > Every single one I've found lists it as a "waste storage tank" that exploded. Yes. They were keeping hot fuel in storage tanks underground, and cooling them with water, then the water engaged in a steam explosion. This is the same as what I said. The reason you're confused is that the Russians just use the word "fuel rod" for active fuel or spent fuel, and you're acting on a fifth-hand regurgitated translated piece of material by someone with no training or knowledge in the field, much like yourself. Science says that the only effective way to discourage this sort of blind argument is to clearly and repeatedly call it out as inappropriate, and why . > It's possible you are simply confused here No, I'm not confused here. You just googled translated materials and assumed, incorrectly, that nothing was lost in translation. In reality, we both told a story about a steam explosion in an underground tank. You haven't found an objection; you found a rephrasing that was missing details. . > If you are going to contradict widely accepted information I'm not. You're confusing things you Googled up on the spot for "widely accepted information," in exactly the same way that anti-vaxxers and flat earthers do. Unlike you, I have college training in these matters, and I don't fake my way through knowledge arguments with search engines. . > you should start by providing sources I did. . > instead of getting upset I'm not in any way upset at your belligerence. . > being justifiably called out. You are not in any way justified. . > I am a bit of a nuclear history nerd The flat earthers and anti-vaxxers also describe themselves as "a bit of a nerd" when arguing incorrectly against a credentialled expert, and trying to sound important. . > ever since I was got licensed as a reactor operator decades ago. So far, about 40 people have told me that they were licensed as a reactor operator on HN. Given that there are only 3900 of them in the country, I just don't believe that any of them were actually telling the truth. . > All the energy that caused the explosion came from nuclear decay. This comment makes it extremely difficult for me to believe that you are, in fact, a licensed operator. Along with the previous statistical observation. Look, this is like building a huge dam, letting it burst, then saying water caused the deaths, instead of bad dam engineering. If you can't even get the proximate cause of the disaster right, there is absolutely no way you were licensed. This is a critical component of that test. I do not believe you. . > I care about accuracy, which is apparently a vanishing trait these days. Cool story. Anyway, if you're asking me to choose between your recounting based on bad translations you found on Google, or the official UN position, please forgive me if I believe the UN over you. . > I don't believe allowing more misinformation about nuclear power to spread (positive or negative) does anything to help the discussion. Cool story. Since you haven't actually found any using documented evidence, provided evidence that says that I'm correct, and loudly demanded that I do something I already did while failing to do it yourself and believing you succeeded, then allow me to be the first to loudly shrug at you. I have no interest in whether you feel that I am helping the discussion. Your emotional attempt to manufacture an error where none exists, then to elect yourself to the fact ministry to control me, while announcing that you've also somehow made me upset, actually has essentially no effect. I will continue drinking my coffee, and believing my college professors and the United Nations over some rando on HN who is offering evidence that doesn't agree with him, and doesn't appear to understand that . > If you are going to change people's minds, I suggest try citing good sources That's nice. Your sources don't agree with you and I have no interest in your suggestions.