3 ms·

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 wat

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

> 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