3 ms·

There are lots of work related safety issues in nuclear power plants that are addressed as a matter of course, but heavy machinery isn't necessarily specific t

There are lots of work related safety issues in nuclear power plants that are addressed as a matter of course, but heavy machinery isn't necessarily specific to nuclear power. And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you?

littlestymaar 3y ago
> And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. No, it doesn't glow at all. Water under irradiation do glow (Cherenkov effect), but the rods themselves don't glow. > But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you? They aren't. They would be very deadly if they were out of water with people around, but it doesn't happen under any circumstances, so the risk you're talking about doesn't exist. It is as nonsensical as saying wind turbines are deadly because “if you got hit by a rotating wing you'd be cut in half”.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. Even when transported after storage in water they do emit copious quantities of radiation, hence the rather cumbersome transport "cases". You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. Btw., people die from wind turbine blades in accidents (when they break, for example). Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the dangers and the many things done to contain radiation related risks (instead of just shouting how it is all a non-issue).
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    > Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. True, but it's a thousand time less luminous, and actually it's still not the rod that glows. > You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. In fact, I studied nuclear engineering before deciding to do computer science. There I met a bunch of good friend who works a several place of the nuclear supply chain, and also my wife who's now working at the plant 8km away from were we now live. So I'm very, very familiar with nuclear stuff. > Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the danger Fortunately, nobody works “in a reactor”, as it would be indeed by dangerous (300°C and 155bar isn't compatible with human life, without even talking about the radiation levels ;).
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with (but I was expecting you to go for some sort of sophism there and on the rods glowing. It is also not the water that glows as such btw.). But I take your point that you never worked in the field.
      - littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with Granted, the pressure and temperature are technology dependent, but it's never human suitable conditions in any case. And that's no sophism, the problem with your reasoning is that you call something “deadly” where it is in fact never in contact of a human in the first place, and could never be. > It is also not the water that glows as such What do you think glows? It's literally water molecules that glows from de-exitation. > take your point that you never worked in the field. Sure, but neither did you, and your vision of nuclear is much less based on reality than it should to have a discussion on the topic.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Ever seen a research reactor? And, unlike you, I have worked there. You might want to look up how Cherenkov radiation works, btw. - it's depolarization. Anyway, it is good that you are kept away from nuclear technology given your lax and aggressive attitude towards risks there (anyone thinking accidentsare impossible has no place there). Good choice.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Ever seen a research reactor? Yes, from afar, at CEA but I don't think anyone was working inside it. > You might want to look up how Cherenkov radiation works, btw. - it's depolarization. Would you mind expanding? Because Wikipedia seem to agrees with what I remembered: The charged particle excites the molecules in the polarizable medium and on returning to their ground state, the molecules re-emit the energy given to them to achieve excitation as photons. Also, what's emitting the radiation, if not water molecules, in your model? > Anyway, it is good that you are kept away from nuclear technology given your lax and aggressive attitude towards risks there (anyone thinking accidentsare impossible has no place there). Good choice. Well, I see you're angry, but that's kind of a funny thing to say to someone who's started this very thread by defending safety regulation in the first place[1]. FYI There's a big difference between having a “lax attitude towards risks ” or “thinking accidents are impossible” and noting that you're completely making up risks that simply don't exist like “spent fuel rods provide deadly amounts of radiation in basically no time to people around them”. If you have people “around” spent fuel rods in the open air, you have a serious organizational problem: what are you trying to do in the first place?! (researchers in many fields are known to be completely oblivious to any kind safety measures, so maybe that's the kind of thing you did in your lab, but in an industrial setting I doubt anyone would have be doing that after at least the 70s). The special risks with nuclear have nothing to do with the deadliness of things like hot fuel rods, and much more about broad environmental impact with moderate increase in cancer rate spread over a big populations (be them workers in contaminated areas or general population in the wide place around an accident). This is a big topic. But when it comes to immediate death risks on a nuclear plant, the radiations coming from radionuclide simply isn't one of them. [1]: see also this comment in a sibling thread for another even more explicit example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37935638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37935638

littlestymaar 3y ago

> And, yes, it tends to glow blue, not green. No, it doesn't glow at all. Water under irradiation do glow (Cherenkov effect), but the rods themselves don't glow. > But you are not seriously alleging that radiation from spent fuel rods isn't deadly, do you? They aren't. They would be very deadly if they were out of water with people around, but it doesn't happen under any circumstances, so the risk you're talking about doesn't exist. It is as nonsensical as saying wind turbines are deadly because “if you got hit by a rotating wing you'd be cut in half”.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. Even when transported after storage in water they do emit copious quantities of radiation, hence the rather cumbersome transport "cases". You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. Btw., people die from wind turbine blades in accidents (when they break, for example). Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the dangers and the many things done to contain radiation related risks (instead of just shouting how it is all a non-issue).
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > Actually, you get Cherenkov radiation and ionization in air, too. True, but it's a thousand time less luminous, and actually it's still not the rod that glows. > You might want to familiarize yourself with the dangers during the lifeycle. In fact, I studied nuclear engineering before deciding to do computer science. There I met a bunch of good friend who works a several place of the nuclear supply chain, and also my wife who's now working at the plant 8km away from were we now live. So I'm very, very familiar with nuclear stuff. > Perhaps you might want to work in a reactor for a bit to get more of a feel for the danger Fortunately, nobody works “in a reactor”, as it would be indeed by dangerous (300°C and 155bar isn't compatible with human life, without even talking about the radiation levels ;).
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with (but I was expecting you to go for some sort of sophism there and on the rods glowing. It is also not the water that glows as such btw.). But I take your point that you never worked in the field.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      > Well, depends on the type of reactor to start with Granted, the pressure and temperature are technology dependent, but it's never human suitable conditions in any case. And that's no sophism, the problem with your reasoning is that you call something “deadly” where it is in fact never in contact of a human in the first place, and could never be. > It is also not the water that glows as such What do you think glows? It's literally water molecules that glows from de-exitation. > take your point that you never worked in the field. Sure, but neither did you, and your vision of nuclear is much less based on reality than it should to have a discussion on the topic.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Ever seen a research reactor? And, unlike you, I have worked there. You might want to look up how Cherenkov radiation works, btw. - it's depolarization. Anyway, it is good that you are kept away from nuclear technology given your lax and aggressive attitude towards risks there (anyone thinking accidentsare impossible has no place there). Good choice.
        littlestymaar 3y ago
        > Ever seen a research reactor? Yes, from afar, at CEA but I don't think anyone was working inside it. > You might want to look up how Cherenkov radiation works, btw. - it's depolarization. Would you mind expanding? Because Wikipedia seem to agrees with what I remembered: The charged particle excites the molecules in the polarizable medium and on returning to their ground state, the molecules re-emit the energy given to them to achieve excitation as photons. Also, what's emitting the radiation, if not water molecules, in your model? > Anyway, it is good that you are kept away from nuclear technology given your lax and aggressive attitude towards risks there (anyone thinking accidentsare impossible has no place there). Good choice. Well, I see you're angry, but that's kind of a funny thing to say to someone who's started this very thread by defending safety regulation in the first place[1]. FYI There's a big difference between having a “lax attitude towards risks ” or “thinking accidents are impossible” and noting that you're completely making up risks that simply don't exist like “spent fuel rods provide deadly amounts of radiation in basically no time to people around them”. If you have people “around” spent fuel rods in the open air, you have a serious organizational problem: what are you trying to do in the first place?! (researchers in many fields are known to be completely oblivious to any kind safety measures, so maybe that's the kind of thing you did in your lab, but in an industrial setting I doubt anyone would have be doing that after at least the 70s). The special risks with nuclear have nothing to do with the deadliness of things like hot fuel rods, and much more about broad environmental impact with moderate increase in cancer rate spread over a big populations (be them workers in contaminated areas or general population in the wide place around an accident). This is a big topic. But when it comes to immediate death risks on a nuclear plant, the radiations coming from radionuclide simply isn't one of them. [1]: see also this comment in a sibling thread for another even more explicit example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37935638 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37935638