News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by nathanhammond on Saturday March 12, 2011 @03:42AM (#2316395)
One of the interesting things about disaster recovery planning for nuclear power plants is that you count on (X) number of things to go wrong and figure out how the plant recovers gracefully. In Japan they've effectively had three things go wrong: earthquake, tsunami, and general infrastructure damage. Most disaster scenarios only cover a single event and TEPCO has a lot to deal with.

In a disaster scenario the first reactions are generally passive (dropping of control rods, changing where water flows) and then "all" that remains is to cool the decay heat. Aye, here's the rub: the cooling system is not a passive system. It requires power to drive the water pumps for the cooling system that siphons the heat away from the reactor vessel. After initiating reactor shutdown the most critical time period is the first little while as that is when there is the most heat. Too much heat and it'll damage the fuel, vessel, and/or the cooling system and can effectively damage the reactor enough so to prevent it from ever recovering (thus, meltdown).

The questions left to ask are to what degree the cooling systems (primary and backup) are working, and whether they've been powered consistently. With that bit of information alone we'd be able to make a pretty accurate estimate as to the state of the reactors in question. What is scary is that it would be really simple to say that all of those systems are working as expected and that there is nothing to worry about. Since that hasn't been said I'm of the opinion that there is definitely something to worry about.

Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by gmac on Saturday March 12, 2011 @05:20AM (#2316530)
These "three things" boil down to one thing (the earthquake) and its foreseeable impacts. I certainly hope the disaster planners wouldn't see these things as independent failures (and assess probabilities accordingly), but that kind of hubristic "we can calculate the probabilities of all failure modes" thinking is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of nuclear.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by abeld on Saturday March 12, 2011 @11:57AM (#2317016)
but that kind of hubristic "we can calculate the probabilities of all failure modes" thinking is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of nuclear.

Would you be more comfortable with "we can't estimate the probabilities of all failure modes"? I am sure that all engineers involved in planning the failure-handling systems know that those "calculations of probabilities" are only estimates based on some assumptions.

I think nuclear often gets bad press because you can measure and calculate a lot of risks to a much higher precision than in other industries. Like "x amount of radiation released" where x is actually a very small number but the fact that you can measure it and make an estimate as to how many cancer cases will be caused by it makes it scary, while people don't care much about the risks of, say, coal-mining because thats harder to measure/estimate.

Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by JoeAltmaier on Saturday March 12, 2011 @12:22PM (#2317052)
Doesn't seem to extend beyond energy production. For instance, tell people all about the dangers in chicken mcnuggets, or smoking, or a sedentery lifestyle, and they don't get very excited at all. Even if you quote statistics.

Certainly they never go as far as voting against chicken farms.

Its got to be the theoretical nature of nuclear power generation that has something to do with it. Its invisible, unfathomable and secretive, so folks distrust it?

Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by blahblahblah on Saturday March 12, 2011 @03:20PM (#2317398)
Chicken mcnuggets, tobacco smoke, and sedentery lifestyles are not members of the set of "things that can cause arable land to become permanently uninhabitable". Nuclear accidents are in that set and that is why the public is (rightly) concerned about them.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by pjscott on Saturday March 12, 2011 @04:58PM (#2317600)
Nuclear accidents are not members of the set of "things that are at all likely to actually hurt you or anybody you know". Sedentary lifestyles and tobacco smoke are in that set, but they lack the novelty and sensationalism that gives nuclear accidents their cachet.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by Ratfish on Saturday March 12, 2011 @05:30PM (#2317648)
I think that people (self included) are generally more accepting of risk if it's control is within their own hands. Dying of tobacco related illnesses or obesity is mostly within my own control. Dying because a a nuclear reactor leak is pretty much 100% out of my control.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by pjscott on Saturday March 12, 2011 @11:06PM (#2318277)
Even then, people's estimates of danger are crazy. A nuclear accident is far less likely to kill you than any number of other things that are outside your control. A drunk driver running into you, for example, or a natural gas explosion.
Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by JoeAltmaier on Saturday March 12, 2011 @10:31PM (#2318223)
Arable land gets people excited? Really? I can't say I don't know anybody that gets excited over arable land, I know one guy, but he's a soil and water commissioner.

That's still too intellectual to make most folks even notice. California farmland is getting poisoned by selenium from groundwater wells, but not a lot of folks picketing about that.

Re:Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its... by blahblahblah on Sunday March 13, 2011 @12:22AM (#2318425)
They might not care all that much about the "arable" part, but I don't think the "permanently uninhabitable" part is too intellectual for the average person to grok.