4 ms·
Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?
by malfist 1y ago
Can you quantify why you're better qualified to assess risk from this brief report than the nuclear experts on site that know the full picture?
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoQuantify? What kind of number would satisfy your request?
- arthurcolle 1y agoI learned a few things from my father along the way. I can share my notes if you'd like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coll%C3%A9?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coll%C3%A9?wprov=sfti1
- malfist 1y agoI'm sure your father is a very accomplished gentleman. But I was asking why your armchair analysis is better than the experts who actually know what happened here?
- arthurcolle 1y agoI maintain the complete archive of every publication my father did from 1969 to 2019 and continue to update the archive based on new publications. I use the data to train Nuclear Radiochemistry AI Agents and while I do not have my father's credentials, I actively use this dataset to learn about his field, and from my limited knowledge here I felt the need to comment. After all, what is skepticism if we can't share and teach each other what we know, right? https://github.com/arthurcolle/Ronald-Colle-Papers https://github.com/arthurcolle/Ronald-Colle-Papers I love how punchy you are! And the astronomy photos. Take care :)
- fekxpurrrt 1y ago[flagged]
- arthurcolle 1y agoI'm sorry you feel that way, but I actually feel like I shared fairly demure commentary and then presented my background with full transparency. I care mostly about the health of this worker, and less about the opinions of a 1 minute old account.
- pinkmuffinere 1y agoMy account is a couple years old, and I’ll agree with what fekxpurrrt said — you expressed doubt without evidence, people challenged your doubt, and you’ve never really satisfied their objections. The experts do know more than you. A brief Wikipedia investigation corroborates what the experts have said. They seem trustworthy, it’s unclear why your doubt should be taken seriously. Everyone is wrong sometimes. When you realize you’re wrong, do you update your beliefs to be correct, or do you double down?
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- arthurcolle 1y agoWhat claims specifically have I made that you have evidence to the contrary indicating that I am wrong
- lazyasciiart 1y agoEDIT: (after 1 hr) - Litvinenko dose was 4GBq - I was wrong by 3 orders of magnitude. My bad
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago> I use the data to train Nuclear Radiochemistry AI Agents and [...] As someone who is not involved in this ongoing discussion, I have to just say that invoking LLM agents when asked for credentials is not going to go in your favor.
- arthurcolle 1y agoMy use case for data that exists that is pre-AI scientifically vetted work is completely divorced from the specifics of this conversation actually. If I want to do paper-maché sculptures with printouts of these papers, and I still commented on this post, would that be better or worse for you, here? I was just sharing background. I want to make good models that can help scientists do work. Your personal feelings about LLMs and their capabilities feels quite distinct from the focus on this post, and the chain of comments that have led us here.
- not_kurt_godel 1y agoSo you don't have the necessary credentials, and you still wouldn't be qualified to comment even if you did have them unless you had access to the internal data. But no worries, I'm sure you'd be OK getting surgery from a surgeon's son who never went to medical school nor read your chart.
- arthurcolle 1y agoBut I am not doing surgery. I am expressing skepticism at the "oh no it's all fine" from literally everyone reporting on this story
- not_kurt_godel 1y agoYep you know better than the people who have the credentials you don't and the access to internal data you don't. I don't see what's holding you back from doing surgery, qualifications and context are no barrier to the application of your self-imagined expertise.
- arthurcolle 1y agoI don't claim to know better. But restarting a $1.5B plant after 2 years of inactivity and having a worker fall into a vat of radioactive water and still being at 300 CPM after a decontamination procedure is not normal.
- not_kurt_godel 1y agoThat'd be a very interesting statement if you were qualified to make it
- arthurcolle 1y ago[flagged]
- 1y ago
- aunty_helen 1y ago> Collé and his collaborators have maintained, expanded and improved radioactivity measurement standards... Story checks out. I think this would pass.
- kbar13 1y agoLMFAOOOOOO insufferable
- tgtweak 1y ago300CPM above background is considered very low - likely why they classified this as non-emergency - the only reason it was reported was per NRC cfr that states any time there is transportation of a radioactively contained person offsite, it must be notified. For reference, in Canada, that is considered trace contamination and not dose. You would experience 300-800 CPM on a commercial airliner during the entirety of your flight, for comparison. edit: adding to this that the site in question, Palisades, is shut-down and is under decommissioning and was not operating at the time - so while the water would have had some radioactivity due to exposure to the formerly active core, it was not like falling into an operating reactor or into moderating heavy water... also something that cannot happen with a pressurized reactor such as this one.
- arthurcolle 1y agoI thought 50-130 CPM above background was considered trace exposure. But yeah I didn't realize it was a decommissioned core... idk there are so many red flags in this story. EDIT: 300-600 CPM above background radiation levels is for EXTERNAL environmental monitoring, not for POST-DECONTAMINATION readings on a contaminated person.