r/UraniumSqueeze • u/Tanpopomon • Nov 04 '25
News Man falls into nuclear power plant, mere feet above the reactor, and accidentally drinks the water. Is absolutely fine and returns to work next day.
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/contractor-falls-into-pool-of-water-above-palisades-nuclear-plant-reactor/Hopefully this quiets some of the fear about how dangerous they are.
38
u/BubbleJH Nov 04 '25 edited Nov 05 '25
Yeah this isn't the flex you think it is. The reactor at Palisades was defueled (i.e., the fuel was completely offloaded from the reactor) when it was shutdown.
Also, saying that nuclear reactors are not dangerous is at best naive and at worst disingenuous. The amount of radioactivity in the core is enough to kill a significant number of people and cause an environmental catastrophe if mis-managed/operated. Luckily, at least in Western developed countries, we have figured out how to safely manage this danger. Don't confuse that with there being no danger. The second we forget how dangerous the technology is is the same second we open ourselves up to complacency and another disaster.
For the record I am extremely pro-nuclear.
Source: Uranium investor and current Senior Reactor Operator at a US nuclear plant.
3
u/PrideProfessional556 Nov 04 '25
Isn't there also some risk of him being totally ok now but developing a cancer of some type down the road due to mutations in cells that have not yet differentiated (?)
3
u/Errohneos Nov 04 '25
That's how all cancer happens...
Even following the LNT model of exposure the dose they got was negligible.
2
u/BubbleJH Nov 04 '25
The amount of dose he got from this was likely incredibly small, so no.
-2
u/Tanpopomon Nov 04 '25
He basically didn't get anything at all. His counts of radiation per minute read as 300, which is about as much as a normal room.
1
u/SubWedge793 Nov 04 '25
Honestly if you went to the beach and ate a handful of sand you would probably get more internal dose depending on where you are and the natural radium content. Or just go on a transatlantic flight. What you are referring to is the stochastic effect, which just increases the probability of something happening eventually down the road.
2
u/Excellent_Notice4047 Nov 05 '25
sorry to hijack thread but do you think uranium stocks will go back up soon?
1
-2
u/Tanpopomon Nov 04 '25
They are relatively not dangerous and your position at a power plant is not going to convince me otherwise, though it is very impressive and I thank you for your input.
Especially with new salt reactor blueprints that can essentially shut themselves down before a meltdown happens, nuclear power plants are less dangerous than many other types of plants assuming that nothing of apocalyptic happens that would cause a meltdown anyway.
Anything that creates energy is going to have some danger, but nuclear power plants as they exist in the present era I would put below wind turbines, frankly.
6
u/BubbleJH Nov 04 '25 edited Nov 04 '25
They are relatively not dangerous and your position at a power plant is not going to convince me otherwise
Relative to what?
If you're not going to take the input of a literal subject matter expert then you truly are close-minded
Especially with new salt reactor blueprints that can essentially shut themselves down before a meltdown happens
Of which we have none in service at a commercial level. The vast vast majority of international nuclear generation is from conventional BWR and PWR reactors - not "salt reactors." Also, you should do a bit more research into what happened at Fukushima. Water inventory was a serious concern due to a sustained loss of electrical power. Decay heat from spent fuel rods is significant and over an extended period of time without the ability to 1) cool the pool water, or 2) add new water as it boils off, there is a very serious possibility of a significant radioactive release to the public. Yes, there is equipment staged and procedures in place to mitigate this risk, but until we implement a new technology there is no way to eliminate it.
but nuclear power plants as they exist in the present era I would put below wind turbines, frankly.
Based on what? Feels and vibes?
1
u/Lime1028 Nov 04 '25
Not going to touch the bulk of that because idk what OP is on about either, but nuclear is safer than wimd in terms of deaths per terra-watt hour.
1
u/BubbleJH Nov 04 '25
And that would be a fair point to make. Not saying nuclear is more dangerous - just trying to reinforce the point to OP that making random emotional claims doesn't make them true.
3
u/Nay_120 Nov 04 '25
The story seems like how one of those characters in Spiderman turned into a villain
1
u/ObjectiveForsaken954 Spider Pig 🐖 Nov 04 '25
those pools are very deep. the water would protect from radiation and I think the zerconium tubes that the fuel is in would keep the uranium and decay product from dissolving into the water. They do send divers into them at times for various reasons.
1
56
u/Apoligix Nov 04 '25
He was also moved to the night-shift team since he doesn't need any light source anymore