8 ms·

>generally a non event depends on what your priors are. Is a dropped rod a fukashima or chernoble international emergency? No. However, depending on the desig

>generally a non event depends on what your priors are. Is a dropped rod a fukashima or chernoble international emergency? No. However, depending on the design characteristics of the core, dropping rods lowers the heat distribution proximal to the dropped rod(s), but may result in higher peaks distal to the rods as physics characteristics attempt to maintain the average, which may exceed design limits. Furthermore, rods aren't supposed to drop. How that came to pass is a matter that requires honest investigation - manufacturing/quality control, maintenance practices, personnel error? Much to learn to ensure safety. Saying "we just had to rely on a critical reactor safety feature and scrammed, this is a nonevent" doesnt quite hit the mark.

iLoveOncall 1mo ago
[flagged]
- gambiting 1mo ago
  Except no bot would write "chernoble", unless it's manually edited after the fact
  - jdiff 1mo ago
    Or "fukashima", which I think also rules out an AI editing pass at the end. That said, the smell of Claude specifically is pervasive in that comment. Perhaps someone who's ingested a bit too much Anthropic output?
- js2 1mo ago
  "I was in the US nuclear navy, now I work in IT."
CoryOndrejka 1mo ago
Of course, but that's not what happened here. For a pressurized water reactor, there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped. People will likely get fired over this. But from a standpoint of reactor and radiological safety, this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment.
- CoryOndrejka 1mo ago
  and for the curious who didn't what Chernobyl on HBO, other types of reactors have brief criticality increases on rod insertion, which is somewhere between bad, BAD, and OMFGWTFBBQVERYBAD. In the Chernobyl's case, they entered a criticality region known as "prompt criticality" which is where power doubling can happen at prompt neutron rates (e.g. milliseconds or faster). Very very bad. In the case of pressurized water reactors, this isn't what happens. Every moment of control rod descent is reducing criticality.
- kryogen1c 1mo ago
  > Of course, but that's not what happened here They dropped rods and had to scram, unclear what part of that you think is not relying on a safety feature. Why do you think they scrammed? >this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment. Is that largely what is was, or entirely what it was? Im not sure what your point is. > there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped. I agree, that's why I said it. > People will likely get fired over this. I dont know why youre telling me this, you're the one that called this a nonevent
- roryirvine 1mo ago
  People will be fired because a safety feature triggered? Does the American nuclear power industry not do the equivalent of blameless postmortems? That seems... suboptimal.
consensus1 1mo ago
The entire point of critical safety features is to turn events into non events.

iLoveOncall 1mo ago

[flagged]

gambiting 1mo ago
Except no bot would write "chernoble", unless it's manually edited after the fact
- jdiff 1mo ago
  Or "fukashima", which I think also rules out an AI editing pass at the end. That said, the smell of Claude specifically is pervasive in that comment. Perhaps someone who's ingested a bit too much Anthropic output?
js2 1mo ago
"I was in the US nuclear navy, now I work in IT."

CoryOndrejka 1mo ago

Of course, but that's not what happened here. For a pressurized water reactor, there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped. People will likely get fired over this. But from a standpoint of reactor and radiological safety, this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment.

CoryOndrejka 1mo ago
and for the curious who didn't what Chernobyl on HBO, other types of reactors have brief criticality increases on rod insertion, which is somewhere between bad, BAD, and OMFGWTFBBQVERYBAD. In the Chernobyl's case, they entered a criticality region known as "prompt criticality" which is where power doubling can happen at prompt neutron rates (e.g. milliseconds or faster). Very very bad. In the case of pressurized water reactors, this isn't what happens. Every moment of control rod descent is reducing criticality.
kryogen1c 1mo ago
> Of course, but that's not what happened here They dropped rods and had to scram, unclear what part of that you think is not relying on a safety feature. Why do you think they scrammed? >this is largely the design operating correctly and prioritizing radiological containment. Is that largely what is was, or entirely what it was? Im not sure what your point is. > there are maintenance and procedural questions about why the rod was dropped. I agree, that's why I said it. > People will likely get fired over this. I dont know why youre telling me this, you're the one that called this a nonevent
roryirvine 1mo ago
People will be fired because a safety feature triggered? Does the American nuclear power industry not do the equivalent of blameless postmortems? That seems... suboptimal.

consensus1 1mo ago

The entire point of critical safety features is to turn events into non events.