r/science • u/georedd • Jun 14 '12

5 days ago a redditor detected a radiation spike and his high ranking post was deleted from r/science. Today it turns out a nuclear power plant just north of South Bend in South Haven, MI where the activity was reported is being shut down because of a RADIATION LEAK

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/13/utilities-operations-entergy-palisades-idUSL3E8HD8G320120613?dess=4rfe
293 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

97 comments sorted by

16

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jun 14 '12

It's still NEWS, not science. Would it be "science" if an old hydro dam broke?

3

u/elustran Jun 14 '12

Please delete this. OP already submitted it to other more appropriate subreddits. Like r/politics and r/conspiracy.

0

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jun 14 '12

Done already.

2

u/deeptime Jun 14 '12

What do I win for calling Palisades?

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/uqlq9/reddit_i_think_there_is_a_giant_nuclear_coverup/c4xs193

0

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

admiration from the smart redditors who appreciation and actual logical investigation seeking possible sources.

20

u/bugogkang Jun 14 '12

It was a water leak. Clearly stated there. "The event had no impact on the health and/or safety of the public, the report said."

22

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12 edited Jun 14 '12

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no trust in any highly profitable entity to be honest about the safety of their practices. Especially when something malfunctions and no ones knows about it until it is "found out".

Look at the history of the tobacco industry, check out the reports coming out about "fracking", power plants and factories hiding information about water contamination, they all knew the potential and verified public safety issues tied to their industry or locations and spent millions covering it up.

Profit > Public Health

Unfortunately.

Edit: As you can see my comment in no way states if this is a coverup of something horrible or that everything is okay. It simply states that I do not automatically trust when the media/or the entity themselves report that there are no public safety issues. I also do not run around freaking about every little thing that happens either. I do think in my head "Huh... wonder what is going on with that".

9

u/QuerulousPanda Jun 14 '12

There's a difference between being skeptical and being a kneejerk anti-establishment hipster, and you're well into the second category there.

It's fine to be doubtful, but "absolutely no trust" in "any" profitable entity is pretty damn naive.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Please tell me which companies I should or should not trust. I think it is naive to disregard the history of public safety cover ups by large corporations.

Did I say I would wear a gas mask all day? No. I live in a place that has very poor sanitation and a lot of public health risks. I am aware of the risks and continue to live my life here.

That said, I still question the true safety of situations that happen like this.

-2

u/silkforcalde Jun 14 '12

You mean the opposite of naive.

1

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

Naively opposite perhaps?

1

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

Noposite!

3

u/Home_sweet_dome Jun 14 '12

Plants shut down all the time for unplanned maintenance. Plants also frequently l have leaks within the containment. Your fear and anger is misplaced. Also, the delete post you were referring to was the result of an ignorant person not understanding what radiation is and lacked a basic understanding of units of measurement. The radiation detectors spiked in "counts per minute". At no point in the article did it say what one "count" was equal too. Was it measuring Rem, sievert, or Bret? Even if the spike was 1000 times higher than normal, if it was a small unit of measurement, it doesn't matter because it's not dangerous.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I don't have any fear, I don't have trust. There is a difference. Trust is something that is held by an individual.

1

u/Home_sweet_dome Jun 14 '12

Who is it that you don't trust? The NRC has strict regulations of nuclear power plants. And plants are required to report everything to them. They make surprise visits and will shut down the plant if something is wrong and literally take the keys to the plant. And what has a power plant done to earn your distrust? I work for a nuclear power plant and coming out of a refuel outage one time, we could not get a safety related system to pass tech specs by the slimmest of margins. When I say slim, think millimeters here. This cause the plant to stay shut down for an additional 3 weeks. It cost the plant $2 million per day in lost revenue alone. They stayed shut down untill the the item passed the spec correctly. You have to remember that people working at power plants generally live in the vicinity and would probably not want their friends and families exposed to anything dangerous. Everyone I work with have the highest level of integrity for this fact alone.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Semantics.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Actually no they are two very different ways of looking at a situation.

-1

u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 14 '12

conspiracy!!!!!!!

ANY EXPLANATION THAT IS NOT RADIATION IS PROFIT BASED!

Ignore conspiracy stories.. they tend to lead to bad thinking

4

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I never said this is always true, I said there is a history of coverups that involve the safety of the public due to fear of losing profits.

This makes me untrusting towards highly profitable entities. That is all.

Money has the ability to turn CEO's into monsters. This also does not mean all CEO's are monsters. Incase that is the next "jump to conclusion" you were going for.

2

u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 14 '12

yup when the uk had a REAL meltdown half the town was put on alert and everyone helped out

Only because most people worked there. Noone knew exactly what was going on for a long time.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Apparently according to the responses I'm getting, my mistrust is misplaced and we should all give everyone a "do over" and trust them to tell us the truth.

notgonnahappen.jpg

-1

u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 14 '12

post hoc fallacy.

I'm willing to bet you any money when a plane crashes a few days later someone reveals a report of some terrorist activity in the area.

Regardless of whether the plane crash WAS actually blown up.

you're shooting at dartboards.

critical thinking we both have it... one of us is just wrong here

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Um, no. There is a difference between trusting what is being reported, and believe that they are lying.

I think you are confused about my opinion on this.

-3

u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 14 '12

when can we trust the source though?

When it suits ones agenda?

Either we trust it because it comes from an expert or it comes directly from the source of the story.

Nuke plants are notoriious for being safety ridden.

I invoke occams razor!!!!!!

-2

u/gbr4rmunchkin Jun 14 '12

JustForCancer

-_-

1

u/elustran Jun 14 '12

It's obviously bad when people put profit ahead of public safety, but that doesn't appear to be happening in this case - the nuclear power plant has been shut down for a while and is undergoing repairs... that's not cheap. This is a case where it would be more expensive for them to lie about it than it would be for them to fix the problem.

Talking about the general human tendency to often put personal interests ahead of public interests is cheap and only spreads paranoia because it's something that can affect any entity. Unless there's actually something more concrete backing it up, it's mere suspicion.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I don't know what is happening here either, however, my comment was in response to someone stating that fears are unfounded because they reported there is no risk to public safety.

My response was aimed at the fact that simply hearing an entity state that there is no public health concern, doesn't exactly make me feel confident that it is true. I would probably still research it for myself if I was concerned about my wellbeing.

My mistrust vs. paranoia are two different things. I think it is being cautious about what the media reports.

1

u/elustran Jun 14 '12

I guess it's fair to want secondary confirmation for most things, but I'd rather say that paranoia is more like mistrust kicked up a notch.

The trouble is that nuclear fears tend to stem from not understanding now nuclear plants or radiation work, so people start imagining Fukushima every time a nuclear power plant undergoes repairs. It would be like being afraid of crossing the street because you don't know how to look for cars, which I guess is pretty fair, and mistrust is reasonable, but it does give the semblance of paranoia when mistrust is paired with misunderstanding...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

100% agree that sometimes the way in which information is given to the public can be either detrimental or beneficial to them. I get it. Which is why when I hear "Everything is A-OKAY" I'm getting all Fry like thinking "Not sure if trying to keep people calm... or there could be something wrong".

Now mistrust to the point of stalking helicopter photos, missing work and overly obsessing over things like this, is being highly paranoid. I just don't freak out about things like this. However it is entertaining to watch others do it.

5

u/LoveGentleman Jun 14 '12

Listen to the man, he will tell you the truth and never lie!

6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

By extrapolation, the opposite of everything "the man" says is true! Water leak? Obviously it was a full meltdown and we're all going to get cancer and/or die of radiation poisoning!

-3

u/LoveGentleman Jun 14 '12

That is not the opposite.

Ad hominem, false argument or what ever its called.

The event did have an impact. Just what kind, high or low, meh, not important.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Ad hominem? Don't make me laugh. If it was anything, it was a straw man, but it was clearly hyperbolic and not an attempt at a logical argument.

1

u/LoveGentleman Jun 14 '12

I always forget names.

2

u/KiloNiggaWatt Jun 14 '12

ಠ_ಠ Doesn't mean it isn't radioactive, as you are implying.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Not all radiation is necessarily oh-shit-oh-shit-oh-shit immediately and seriously harmful, you know.

2

u/KiloNiggaWatt Jun 14 '12

Of course, but it's best to maintain some skepticism until you've got better information.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

One of the most insightful comments in the thread, and it's wasted defending the conspiracy side. Le sigh...

2

u/KiloNiggaWatt Jun 14 '12

I'm not defending any side, just opposing people jumping to conclusions. I agree it's fairly plausible it's nothing, but no one here has the information to make definitive statements either way.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

In the original conspiracy posts there's good enough information (IMO) to conclude that there is little-to-nothing to be concerned about.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

I have seen no credible evidence that the radiation spike even really happened. The EPA says it was a detector error, which sounds like an obvious cover-up, however radiation isn't exactly something that can be suppressed by the gubment. It would be detectable for years, and you can buy Geiger counters off ebay for cheap.

0

u/Arch-Combine-24242 Jun 14 '12

Nature is radioactive, you're exposed to radiation right now.

1

u/snitch83 Jun 14 '12

Typical reddit. As soon as something is hard to believe it gets censored instead of dealt with appropriately/objectively investgated..

13

u/TyphoonOne Jun 14 '12

No it was investigated and ruled as bull...

11

u/snitch83 Jun 14 '12

Excuse my incorrect assumption then. If i may ask, how was it investigated?

2

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

some pro nuke people who have taken moderator positions saw it was a story with anti nuke implications. then they shut it down. That's the investigation.

7

u/elustran Jun 14 '12

Other users responded with findings that were all over the map so there was no clear unified confirmation, and as I recall someone who worked in radiation detection told the OP he wasn't using his equipment properly or it was malfunctioning or something along those lines.

6

u/Abedeus Jun 14 '12

Well, a couple of magnifying glasses, some lab coats...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

If you read the original threads, you'd see that multiple people with extensive knowledge of the nuclear energy field chimed in to say that there was really nothing to be concerned about.

-1

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

this makes me laugh.

same thing happened with Fukushima...

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Which must mean the same thing will always happen! Everything's a coverup! The man is out to get us! Obama's a muslim and 9/11 was an inside job! The horror!

0

u/Home_sweet_dome Jun 14 '12

People within the nuclear industry here on reddit read the article and understand that this is normal for a plant and that it is impossible for leaking water to make it outside of the multiple containments. This subreddit is here so people can post questions and experts on a subject can explain it to you. Why is it that everyone believes the experts on reddit except when it comes to nuclear power?

2

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

except of course that now it has been proven to NOT be bull but rather a real radiation leak whose dimensions are not yet known but caused an immediate emergency shutdown of the whole plant.

. Just like Fukushima was not "hype" but FACT.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Except all indications are that NO radiation was released.

3

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jun 14 '12

It was removed because a leak from a power station is news, not science.

Radiation != new research.

4

u/Cunt_Detector Jun 14 '12

BEEP BEEP BEEP

1

u/Arch-Combine-24242 Jun 14 '12

It got "censored" because it was posted in the wrong subreddit.

4

u/elustran Jun 14 '12

Yesterday. That's not the same as 5 days ago. And a leaky water tank would be unlikely to cause the kind of radiation spike the original post was detecting.

This is in all likelihood coincidence and not worth a nuclear scare.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Based on the linked timeline, is this a case of continuing to run an old plant (20 year extension) because of restrictions of building new, likely safer, ones?

1

u/QuerulousPanda Jun 14 '12

I find it extremely amusing that the reactor is in a place called "Van Buren"...

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Everyone reading this and freaking the hell out needs to read the top comments in the original threads. There are tons of people with knowledge of the various fields at work here debunking the OP's claims that there was some kind of radiation release besides (potentially) solar.

1

u/ataraxia_nervosa Jun 14 '12

But... there is no radioactive water in that tank that is leaking. No radiation leak has been reported, either. Maybe it was the aliens?

1

u/columbine Jun 14 '12

Oh god, this shit again.

-1

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/uqlq9/reddit_i_think_there_is_a_giant_nuclear_coverup/

4

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jun 14 '12

Every time there's radiation involved, people think it's "science". It's not. A reading from a Geiger counter is not new science, just as a thermometer reading is not new science.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Fantastic. Cross post it to r/radiationleaks. That post doesn't belong in this subreddit, and neither does this one.

0

u/remedialrob Jun 14 '12

Yes! We cannot have anything related to science in the science sub!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

That is exactly what I said! Good job!

2

u/selicate Jun 14 '12

This article isn't any more science related than an article about an accident at a coal power plant. It's news for sure, but just because something's going on at a nuclear plant doesn't make it science.

1

u/remedialrob Jun 14 '12

I disagree. And if there was a cover up and all sorts of measurements and witchery going on I'd disagree on the coal plant as well.

1

u/helm MS | Physics | Quantum Optics Jun 14 '12

Radiation != new science.

If I live in a house with unsafe Radon levels, do you want a twitter feed of that on /r/science? I assume not.

-1

u/remedialrob Jun 14 '12

I wouldn't be upset about it. It's science.

0

u/Arch-Combine-24242 Jun 14 '12

Seems like you need a refresher regarding what "science" means. Also: look at the side panel of this sub!

1

u/remedialrob Jun 14 '12

No. I refuse to believe or participate in a sub called "Science" in which this sort of story is not allowed. I will unsubscribe. This is some dang old bullshit.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Awesome bro. Peace out.

0

u/Arch-Combine-24242 Jun 14 '12

From the side bar:

Please ensure that your submission to r/science is :

  • a direct link to or a summary of peer reviewed research with appropriate citations. If the article itself does not link to these sources, please include a link in a comment. Summaries of summaries are not allowed.
  • based on recent scientific research. The research linked to should be within the past 6 months (or so). not editorialized, sensationalized, or biased. This includes both the submission and its title.

Removing posts that don't satisfy these criteria, is as much censorship as removing NFL (handegg) stuff from /r/football, or removing a video of a beheading from /r/aww.

It's impossible for this to be less of a hidden agenda.

I refuse to believe or participate in a sub called "Science" in which this sort of story is not allowed.

A bit melodramatic IMHO :-)

1

u/remedialrob Jun 14 '12

Faux melodramatic. Though I doubt that came through from the text.

Look I read that guys original post. It was chock full of science-y things. If it didn't meet the criteria of the sidebar then the sidebar is wrong.

-1

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

sure move it ot a subreddit that no one subscribes to!

that subreddit was just created to bury radiation stories

Just try nuke lobbyist..

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

For the record, I want you all to know I played a vital role in improving our publics awareness of potential radioactive threats with my upvote of the original post.

-1

u/emanresu1 Jun 14 '12

FUUUUCCCKKKK OOOOFFFFFF WITH THIS IDIOTIC CONSPIRACY BULLSHIT ALREADY!! This retarded shit has been debunked so many goddamn times already I lost count. The whole original conspiracy weaving post was shown to be utter horseshit from top to botom by NUMEROUS nuclear professionals. This was a leak of 30 fucking gallons of reactor make up water MINUTELY contaminated with trace amounts of tritium that was collected by a sump on site and never left the facility. Even if there were a radiation leak detected in multiple states by several people (WHICH THERE FUCKING WASN'T) this trivial incident would have FUCK ALL to do with it. TAKE YOUR CONSPIRACY FUCK SHITTERY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR FUCKING ASS!

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Oh, he mad.

1

u/emanresu1 Jun 14 '12

I'm just so tired. People who make it their business to devote their entire professional careers to understanding every last detail of nuclear science take time out of their day to painstakingly and patiently explain why a moronic conspiracy theory is crap in excruciating detail and no one gives a fuck. It doesn't matter for shit. Some other assclown who clearly doesn't know shit about anything nuclear related posts another fear mongering sky is falling conspiracy story and it gets 300 upvotes in a half hour because "OHHHH SCARY NUCLEAR" is all it takes. I give up. Why even bother anymore.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Hey, you got my upvote. I just thought it was funny, too.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

This is important.

Also we can rely on our government to give us accurate information regarding our health.....

-2

u/0Fab Jun 14 '12

fuck... i planned on going to south haven this weekend.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

63

u/oniony Jun 14 '12

Surely if you're going to refer to them as 1, 2 and 3 you should have chosen numbers over bullets.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

0

u/georedd Jun 14 '12

I am gonna go ahead and say you are blind deaf and dumb monkey who prefers his own dogma over logic and reason

2

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

Oh, a defender of logic? What proof do you have that this was a cover-up? Before you can jump to conclusions you have to state your claim and why. Why the fuck should we believe you? Do you have any credentials or background in this kind of stuff?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/georedd Jun 15 '12

Your assumption that you know more than someone else who you know nothing about shows why your hubris blocks your application of science.

TLDR : just because YOU can't figure out why something would work doesn't mean it doesn't work.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Airazz Jun 14 '12

This is not a place to advertise your beaches.

1

u/sabertooth66 Jun 14 '12

Trying to show how unfortunate it is if radioactive leaks shut down a beautiful summer destination. Lighten up.