8 ms·

The snark may provoke some downvotes, but that is exactly what's happening here: hiding the inconvenient truth by focusing on the convenient, but not particular

The snark may provoke some downvotes, but that is exactly what's happening here: hiding the inconvenient truth by focusing on the convenient, but not particularly relevant truths. Which is pretty much the standard operating procedure when it comes to defending nuclear power, which makes it near impossible to have a constructive debate on the matter.

api 13y ago
HN seems to harbor an elite naiveté crowd who thinks there is no such thing as official misconduct in the world. (Elite naivete is a term I coined from hanging around in the orbit of elite schools and noting that people from prep school / elite backgrounds are often shockingly naive about how boots-on-the-ground reality works beyond their enclaves.)
- tptacek 13y ago
  We must be on different HNs.
  - jamesaguilar 13y ago
    Likewise. The HN I read is full of anti-epistemological conspiracy theorists these days.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      We're just suffering from 'just world' syndrome.
      - api 13y ago
        Thanks for the reference... this is precisely what I mean by elite naiveté... a bias toward thinking that the mechanisms of the world are more just and fair than they actually are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
        anigbrowl 13y ago
        I know, but I also think it has become a political nostrum that's used to shut down debate as often as open it up. It's easy to fall into a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome mindset as well; this used to be considered a mass media pehnomenon, but relatively small internet communities fulfil the same function. In short, not all good news is propaganda.
cjslep 13y ago
As a person formally trained in Nuclear Engineering, I am curious as to what relevant truths you are seeking to know that the "standard operating procedure" tells me we should be hiding. I'm all for constructive debates on nuclear power generation, but I do want to point out that the snark is making it difficult for me to want to even try to engage you in a dialogue.
- userulluipeste 13y ago
  Well, what was then the "standard operating procedure" in dealing with all that radioactive waste? No, I'm not asking for quoted texts by the book for how things should go when everything's OK, I'm interested more in how a large scale contamination should be (or should have been) dealt with? That, if there ever was such an assumed scenario after Chernobyl, of course...
pekk 13y ago
That's really not true; there has been scare-mongering about radiation in Tokyo since the accident happened.
m_myers 13y ago
I downvoted because the GP doesn't even bother to make a coherent point, let alone back it up. This isn't Facebook.
Bluestrike2 13y ago
One could say the same about much of the unscientific hysteria that surrounds those attacking nuclear power. Not all mind you, but damn well enough. If you want to debate the subject, great - but don't make the same error you're accusing others of.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Well, my gripes with nuclear power are twofold: First, the topic of generating tons of waste that must be stored safely (as in must not spill and must not end up in the hand of hostile adversaries) and second the difference between a technology that is in theory safe, but human practice making it unsafe. There's two pieces of news that should serve to illustrate my problems: First, the salt mine that germany used to store its low and medium radioactive waste in suffers from a water leak and may be about to collapse. It's currently unclear how fast the problem is spreading and they're trying to retrieve the waste but the current timeline spreads out into 2030 and beyond - if it's at all possible. If the mine collapses, we have a major spill right under germany. Now, there's other waste that's dangerous but there are only few substances that are as difficult to handle as radioactive substances. You can shields against most things with appropriate hazmat suits, but hard radiation is a serious problem, even for robots. The technological implementation of power plants sacrifices safety on a lot of points due to budget constraints and human error: The pressure vessels of the most common (and most powerful) type of nuclear power plants are welded at critical points. The safety of these welds is being questioned [1] - the point that's interesting is that welds in those spots would not be allowed in "regular" pressure vessels for like coal power plants in Austria, for example. This is one of the reasons the only Austrian nuclear plant never went into service. Now, since the pressure vessel is obviously the most irradiated part of the plant it's really to expensive to check those welds from inside and outside - nobody wants to go for a dive in the plant. It's certainly up for debate whether the welds will hold or not. There's no real protection against airplanes crashing into a nuclear plant - it certainly could be done, but well - too expensive. There's a lot of risk that in theory don't matter, but humans and nature as a team have so far proven a strong tendency to overcome theory and make those risk matter - as seen in Fukushima. All in all I think that fission power is theoretically safe, but to make it safe in practice is economically unfeasible. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/laengere-akw-laufzeiten-forscher-warnen-vor-poroesen-altmeilern-a-718739.html http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/laengere-akw-lauf... (sorry, german)

api 13y ago

HN seems to harbor an elite naiveté crowd who thinks there is no such thing as official misconduct in the world. (Elite naivete is a term I coined from hanging around in the orbit of elite schools and noting that people from prep school / elite backgrounds are often shockingly naive about how boots-on-the-ground reality works beyond their enclaves.)

tptacek 13y ago
We must be on different HNs.
- jamesaguilar 13y ago
  Likewise. The HN I read is full of anti-epistemological conspiracy theorists these days.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    We're just suffering from 'just world' syndrome.
    - api 13y ago
      Thanks for the reference... this is precisely what I mean by elite naiveté... a bias toward thinking that the mechanisms of the world are more just and fair than they actually are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        I know, but I also think it has become a political nostrum that's used to shut down debate as often as open it up. It's easy to fall into a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_world_syndrome mindset as well; this used to be considered a mass media pehnomenon, but relatively small internet communities fulfil the same function. In short, not all good news is propaganda.

cjslep 13y ago

As a person formally trained in Nuclear Engineering, I am curious as to what relevant truths you are seeking to know that the "standard operating procedure" tells me we should be hiding. I'm all for constructive debates on nuclear power generation, but I do want to point out that the snark is making it difficult for me to want to even try to engage you in a dialogue.

userulluipeste 13y ago
Well, what was then the "standard operating procedure" in dealing with all that radioactive waste? No, I'm not asking for quoted texts by the book for how things should go when everything's OK, I'm interested more in how a large scale contamination should be (or should have been) dealt with? That, if there ever was such an assumed scenario after Chernobyl, of course...

pekk 13y ago

That's really not true; there has been scare-mongering about radiation in Tokyo since the accident happened.

m_myers 13y ago

I downvoted because the GP doesn't even bother to make a coherent point, let alone back it up. This isn't Facebook.

Bluestrike2 13y ago

One could say the same about much of the unscientific hysteria that surrounds those attacking nuclear power. Not all mind you, but damn well enough. If you want to debate the subject, great - but don't make the same error you're accusing others of.

Xylakant 13y ago
Well, my gripes with nuclear power are twofold: First, the topic of generating tons of waste that must be stored safely (as in must not spill and must not end up in the hand of hostile adversaries) and second the difference between a technology that is in theory safe, but human practice making it unsafe. There's two pieces of news that should serve to illustrate my problems: First, the salt mine that germany used to store its low and medium radioactive waste in suffers from a water leak and may be about to collapse. It's currently unclear how fast the problem is spreading and they're trying to retrieve the waste but the current timeline spreads out into 2030 and beyond - if it's at all possible. If the mine collapses, we have a major spill right under germany. Now, there's other waste that's dangerous but there are only few substances that are as difficult to handle as radioactive substances. You can shields against most things with appropriate hazmat suits, but hard radiation is a serious problem, even for robots. The technological implementation of power plants sacrifices safety on a lot of points due to budget constraints and human error: The pressure vessels of the most common (and most powerful) type of nuclear power plants are welded at critical points. The safety of these welds is being questioned [1] - the point that's interesting is that welds in those spots would not be allowed in "regular" pressure vessels for like coal power plants in Austria, for example. This is one of the reasons the only Austrian nuclear plant never went into service. Now, since the pressure vessel is obviously the most irradiated part of the plant it's really to expensive to check those welds from inside and outside - nobody wants to go for a dive in the plant. It's certainly up for debate whether the welds will hold or not. There's no real protection against airplanes crashing into a nuclear plant - it certainly could be done, but well - too expensive. There's a lot of risk that in theory don't matter, but humans and nature as a team have so far proven a strong tendency to overcome theory and make those risk matter - as seen in Fukushima. All in all I think that fission power is theoretically safe, but to make it safe in practice is economically unfeasible. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/laengere-akw-laufzeiten-forscher-warnen-vor-poroesen-altmeilern-a-718739.html http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/laengere-akw-lauf... (sorry, german)