News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Honestly thankful that most of these installations were hardened after 9/11.
these facilities were already hard-core protected, long before 9/11. i grew up next to one, the security described that stopped this guy existed, and was in use 40+ years ago
post 9/11 actions didnt do shit to help anyone, anywhere... it was full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
They did beef up the cabin doors to the flight crew, so they did one thing based on what actually happened on 9/11.
Yes, thicker cabin doors on planes with trillions spent on security theater and invading places that didn't cause 9/11, unlike the 15/19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia.
In the UK they took the bins away for a bit, but then it got annoying so they brought them back, and added an announcement to say basically that if you see a terrorist being a terrorist you should probably tell someone, thank you.
That'll stop them.
If they're a terrorist they have to tell you. It's the law.
Accurate, there's more security now but you would have to know what to look for to find it.
Yep security and structural integrity at a nuke plant was a thing decades before 9/11. I grew up about 30 miles away from Salem 1&2, and Hope Creek in Southern NJ. My dad was an electrician that worked there while they built them.
They were hardened as they were built in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. They all pretty much have 30 foot thick concrete walls in the containment building that houses the reactor(s). The Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn't want something like Chernobyl to happen, which had no containment building, just a normal structure. Even if a US reactor goes supercritical and melts down, there is about a <1% chance of any radiation leaking out. If the reactor exploded the building would withstand the explosion and vent the pressure into the atmosphere, which may contain small amounts of radioactive alpha and beta particles. The only nuclear accident we've ever had was Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and that was because the safety valve in the containment building got stuck open after venting the pressure after one of the reactors went critical.
Even three mile island wasn't as bad as most people seem to think. It was used as an Anti-nuclear propoganda piece, but it wasn't that bad. The other reactors there continued operating for several decades after, though I think they're now all shut down.
(This is true for Chernobyl too though, so I guess it really doesn't say a whole lot about severity.)
Very true, the windscale fire is probably a better comparison between incompetence and release.
Yes three mile shut down production completely in 2019 after running at a loss for years.
There was practically zero impact to the surrounding environment after the TMI leak, I think I read that radiation was practically undetectable after like 6 months.
This is not true for Chernobyl though. That place is fucked and they needed to encase the reactor building twice in order to stop it from leaking harmful radioactive particles (x-ray and gamma particles, alpha and beta particles are less worrisome but still harmful in large doses IIRC). Pripyat is still hot and will be for like a hundred years or more, tons of people died either immediately after the explosion or shortly thereafter. Those that didn't die within the first few months developed serious health issues and cancers years later. It's literally the worst nuclear disaster in history.
Three Mile Island isn't the only incident, just the only accident, we have had. The only true meltdown was intentionally caused by the Army Corps of Engineers in the late 50s to test if China Syndrome was real. Thankfully someone did the math wrong so there was no danger of the core melting to the center of the earth and detonating. This is why the TVA was the last time that the Army Corps of Engineers was allowed to administer the things. Congress was understandably a bit upset to find out that they basically flipped a coin on destroying civilization at the very least.
Yeah, I meant "something that we didn't cause intentionally".
That's just not true. We've had many many nuclear accidents just not many nation scale events.
I'll put it this way sl1 went prompt critical and skewered an operator to the ceiling with a control rod. And that's just one.
Maybe comparing to experimental reactors from 70 years ago is not exactly relevant.
It's relevant. Hyperbole about nuclear energy isn't helpful. Even counting every single low level nuclear accident throughout the history of the world it is still a better safety record than any other mass market means of power production.
It's not hyperbole, it's accurate and it doesn't try to lie by omission.
Ed: Peach bottom wasn't experimental and had a number of actual accidents and many near misses.
And that's ignoring the dumpster fire called Hanford that we've been cleaning up for 30 fucking years at the cost of ≈200 billion dollars so far.
My grandpa worked for the nrc and was called into both peach bottom and three mile, the amount of near misses that people will almost certainly never know about is quite a bit larger than you would assume.
These are mostly all people fucking up and not the structural integrity being breeched or the reactor running out of control.all things considered, they're very safe if operated and monitored properly. The problem is that there is practically zero funding for nuclear power since the oil and gas industry has been lobbying against it and demonizing it in the public eye for decades.
It's the same as saying "cars are dangerous because people drive drunk or fall asleep at the wheel and cause accidents". The tech isn't the problem, it's the people operating it.
I'm well aware of the causes and I know they're safe, I've both said that specifically and never implied otherwise. I know about lack of funding as well, in not sure your point in bringing it up either.
Well aware, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I I've says anything at all about their safety aside from lies by omission do not benefit the argument for nuclear power.
That's a "workplace accident" I'm talking about something affecting the surrounding community and the environment. Also, AFAIK humans shouldn't be in the reactor chamber when it's active regardless of the protection, especially when the reactor has a possibility to go critical at the drop of a hat. That's just flat out dumb and was probably the result of poor management and decision making. There's a reason that they're operated remotely, you know.
Of course bad shit happens on the job/internally, but that really has no adverse effects on anyone else, which is what most people care about.
Yeah a workplace accident that irradiated the chamber, irradiated and impaled a guy to the ceiling and released radiation. Yeah the reason people aren't intended to be inside anymore is because of sl1, every safety feature is written in blood, nuclear is no different.
You don't need to hedge, even including every accident in the history of earth three nuclear safety record is orders of magnitude better than any other means of power generation that's gained mass acceptance.
Random dudes who try to storm a nuclear power plant are morons, regardless of security.
This dude would have no idea what to do, and I really doubt he could cause any harm beyond maybe temporarily forcing a plant shutdown.