Slashdot Mirror


Legionnaires' Bacteria Reemerges In Previously Disinfected Cooling Towers

schwit1 writes with the New York Times' unsettling report that 15 water-cooling towers in the Bronx that this week tested positive for Legionnaires' disease had been disinfected less than two months ago. From the NYT: After an outbreak of the disease killed 12 people in July and August in the South Bronx, the city required every building with cooling towers, a common source of the Legionella bacteria that cause the disease, to be cleaned within two weeks. ... [The] city found this week that bacteria had regrown in at least 15 towers that had been cleaned recently in the Morris Park section of the Bronx. The testing occurred after a fresh outbreak in that area that has killed one person and sickened at least 12, and spurred an order from health officials for the towers to be disinfected again.

118 comments

  1. BLEACH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the only thing that will work every time!

    1. Re:BLEACH! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Nuke it from orbit...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:BLEACH! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Bleach doesn't work every time.
      Bleach, alcohol, etc. need to be applied at specific concentrations for a specific period of time to be effective.
      If you don't follow these procedures, all you do is breed stronger shit.

      Some retard is lining up right now to say "NOOOOOOOO THEY NEVER BECOME RESISTANT TO BLEACH OR ALCOHOL!!!!".
      Plenty of organism have on outer wrapper, or "skin", to protect them from hostile environments. Many micro organisms wall off and go dormant until the coast is clear and then come back. So fuck off with that theory, please.

      Bleach doesn't work every time. Not even fire does. However, I suspect what happened here was a simple case of places not being cleaned properly (or at all) because the building owners / maintenance people were cheap / lazy.

    3. Re:BLEACH! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Actually it does in the case. Chlorine in the water kills the stuff. The problem here is killing the stuff and walking away instead of putting chlorine in the cooling water and keeping up the chlorine levels. According to a microbiologist I spoke to about this some years ago the amount needed is less than is in drinking water in some places - enough to taste awful but not enough to make it unfit to drink.

    4. Re:BLEACH! by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Translation: more than enough to damage the equipment.

      (plus, it's an added cost, both in time and materials.)

  2. Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 2

    So any disinfection must be followed with a permanent antisepsis program, say a little copper in the water?

    1. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Perhaps coat the vulnerable surfaces with copper? If it's too expensive to provide electro-plated ducting, then spray some copper-rich paint onto the relevant parts.

      It works for sailing ships. Don't know if it'll work for this particular beastie.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    2. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 2

      Quite doable, but they must make the cure last the life of the tower, so as the copper erodes, new copper is needed.
      In any event, there are many smart ways to make sure there is no continuing infection.
      The laziness of people can undermine anything

    3. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite doable, but they must make the cure last the life of the tower, so as the copper erodes, new copper is needed. In any event, there are many smart ways to make sure there is no continuing infection. The laziness of people can undermine anything

      As long as those lazy people are teh only people at risk of getting legionnaire's disease then i have no problem with that. That's what you call a self-correcting situation. I hope any rank-and-file workers that are also exposed win a nice big fat lawsuit with punative damages far in excess of what good prevention would have cost.

    4. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

      In other words don't overlook the human element in any plan that requires 100% efficacy.

    5. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know for liquid cooling computers it isn't uncommon to add a piece of silver with a decent bit of surface area to the loop. Tho generally those loops are for the most part closed. Apparently it also has properties that are non-conducive to the propagation of living things in the system. I would think they would mandate either Copper or Silver be used in the system as a natural and semi permanent (neither would go anywhere for a while unless stolen) antimicrobial measure. It wouldn't eliminate the need to clean the systems but it would act as an additional layer of protection that should mitigate bacterial issues.

    6. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd be curious to know if the design of these cooling towers(unfortunately, results for 'cooling towers' tend to be heavy on the really big ones used by power plants, which aren't terribly relevant except sharing certain basic principles of operation) would allow for UV sterilization.

      The idea that you can actually 'disinfect' something in the real world, outside of a cleanroom or high end operating room, for more than a few minutes to hours is mostly a polite fiction. Any sort of real world plumbing arrangment is going to be hosting assorted biofilms and other incredibly durable bacterial reservoirs more or less inevitably. As the massive success of modern sanitation systems has proven, you can get water 'clean enough' for the more-or-less-healthy to stay that way; but if you actually need to exterminate almost all the bacteria, you are picking a whole different fight.

      If, though, you only need to ensure that the contents of the droplets emitted by the cooling system in operation are reasonably disinfected, intense UV in the outflow ducts might be able to do that, and UV isn't high energy enough to do too much violence to metal parts(plastics/rubber/etc. can be trouble; but you won't be commiserating with nuclear reactor operators over radiation embrittlement issues.)

    7. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think silver is better than copper.

    8. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lazy people are almost certainly not personally affected in this case. Ultimately the responsible parties here are landlords who don't properly maintain their buildings, and very few of the landlords who own buildings in the South Bronx actually live in the South Bronx themselves.

    9. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Get the dosage wrong, though, and you end up with a building full of Smurfs!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    10. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Hall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said the key word there: Biofilms

      Odds are that they never actually (or fully) disinfected the system. A lot of bacteria remained, sheltered by biofilm, and disinfectants are proven to be ineffective against biofilm. After they "cleaned" it and checked the bacteria levels, it was just a matter of time before the biofilm naturally continued releasing the bacteria...

    11. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Proper antibacterial design, with maintenance, never provides a growth medium for whatever bacteria the winds bring in = no films in the first place. Sadly, human nature and bad maintenance = eventual fail mode = biofilms and mats can form that constantly shed bacteria into the air flow.

    12. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by russotto · · Score: 1

      Proper antibacterial design, with maintenance, never provides a growth medium for whatever bacteria the winds bring in = no films in the first place.

      Potable water systems, made of copper, which have never had anything but potable water go through them STILL get biofilms on them.

    13. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooling towers are air washers. They collect large quantities of dust which becomes of "mud" in the cooling tower sump, and sometimes through out the system. This mud is good food for feeding a whole ecosystem of algae, bacteria, and fungus (in other words bio-film).

      A cooling tower maintenance program must periodically (or continuously) remove the mud, in addition to doing something to directly kill the active biology.

      If done correctly the treatment program will also reduce corrosion, and water consumption, which will result in a lower overall life cycle cost for the cooling tower and connected equipment, at the cost of the cleaning and treatment program (which likes a increased recurring cost, as the cost of shorter equipment does not show up on the books for 20 years or so.

    14. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Yes, it depends on the anti-corrosion additives that are in the water. The proper ones block copper oxidation. Back when I was a young engineer, we had a boiler system that was protected this way, and we took samples evry month and sent them off to the boiler chemical company, who then sent us a list of actions to rebuild the additive prifile.

      I expect external cooling towers are much the same, as this search reveals.
      Just text to schedule, add the chemicals and all is well.

      https://www.google.ca/search?q...

    15. Re: Bacteria spread via the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you have prospective tenants falling over themselves at your feet to "shut up and take money money rent a unit, why would anyone fucking care?!!! New York City has and will always remain a shithole! The people that live there are either predatory slumlords or clueless lemmings.

      Fuck urban! Live rural!

    16. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by MisterToad · · Score: 0

      As part of the contract to clean the towers, the workers must drink some of the water once a week for three months

      --
      Dick
    17. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      I spent a summer working for a place that had oh, 15-20 towers. TWICE a week we dosed the tower with biocides and rust preventatives, and once every 2 weeks samples from each of the towers went out for analysis. Then again, I know from my father, who worked in the field, the place I was at was 'odd' in that we did way more PM than any other place he knew of (he was in the repair end, I was doing operating). Sounds like the places with the problem aren't putting in the money. The problem with tower water is it tends to be warm, and it is recirculated with lots of air blown over it. Algae buildup is a HUGE problem and I'd bet that the places in question have that problem too, and don't think about the efficiency problem the algae cause...

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    18. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Yes, maintenance, bactericide, algaecide have to be a well oiled routine, especially in the summer time

    19. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      We were insane. Every machine room was swept daily, floors stripped and waxed 1x/week (in the machine room!!), readings and wipe down of the machines was done 4x/day, so you could see if there were any leaks etc. Spares were labels and neatly hung. Each machine room had a spare TOWER and spare compressor in line - just open valves, and turn on. Building also ran at 100% fresh air, all electrostatically precipitated. Yes, the building was a virtual clean room. Did I say we were a BIT crazy?

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    20. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by aurizon · · Score: 1

      Ever vigilant, must have been a union shop

    21. Re:Bacteria spread via the air by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "intense UV in the outflow ducts might be able to do that"

      And the easiest way to prevent UV embrittlement of plastics is to use stainless steel where the lights are. That's a solved problem.

      The issue is that a lot of these installations predate disinfection requirements and/or management cheap out by not replacing sterilising lamps or skimping on the sodium hydrochlorite purchases.

      There need to be criminal penalties and personal liability for lax processes when it comes ot public health issues. These have a tendency to focus management minds a bit. One of the best management memos I ever read started "I have no intention of going to jail for something that my staff have done, so failure to follow the rules is a sacking offence"

  3. Cooling towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What exactly do these cool? Do they cool water or act like an AC?

    1. Re:Cooling towers by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I believe these refer to cooling towers used for air conditioning, from context. These are more efficient versions (if I understand it correctly) of the compressor (the box that's usually outside as part of a normal two unit home air conditioning system), that use water evaporation to cool the system.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Cooling towers by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Air conditioning. You have a heat pump that removes heat from the occupied space and that removed heat is taken away by the water. The cooling tower then cool that water.

      The alternative is to remove the rejected heat directly using air. That's what "in-window" air conditioners use, as well as many smaller AC units. In large buildings, however, it's often very difficult to cool the machines directly with air.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Cooling towers by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Informative

      What exactly do these cool? Do they cool water or act like an AC?

      I've been managing facilities and staff to maintain cooling towers for years. I've personally cleaned them, I've personally maintained them, and I've personally been responsible for the water treatment/chemistry as part of their operational and preventive maintenance.

      The answer to your question is, they technically cool water, which is then piped back into a building(s) and used as a "heat sink" for any air conditioning/refrigeration equipment inside the building. In your home air conditioner, you have the box with the fan that sits outside. This box is called the"condenser". The condenser's job is to release any heat that is removed from inside the house. In that type of mechanical refrigeration, the refrigerant (R-22, colloquially called Freon) is compressed to allow for a controlled evaporation cycle inside the indoor unit (the evaporator). As the refrigerant absorbs heat from inside the home, it is pumped outside to the condenser where it releases the head into the air (in this case, the outside air is the "heat sink"). That is, the fan on the condenser pulls outside air across the coils where the hot refrigerant is being pumped, and the heat transfers to the outside air, cooling your house.

      In large commercial applications, it is often more efficient to use water based systems to achieve this. In this method, the refrigerant that has absorbed the heat from inside the facility is dumped into what's called "condenser water". The water absorbs the heat, and the cooled refrigerant goes back to the air conditioning systems in the building to absorb more heat. The condenser water is pumped up to the cooling towers where it is filtered through several screens while large fans pull outside air across them (similar to the home system). The combination of the water flow patterns, air velocity, and evaporation will cool this condenser water, allowing for it to be sent back to the indoor air conditioning systems so that it can absorb more heat and start the cycle again.

      I mention all of this to say this: the ONLY reason this type of contamination is happening is because of improper maintenance. Period. Water treatment systems are just about idiot proof. So, while we may not hear about it, I guarantee someone, somewhere took a short cut. Maybe it was the end of the fiscal quarter and someone was under pressure to save money, so they postponed the delivery of the aquastat chemicals for a couple of weeks to make budget. Maybe a maintenance engineer didn't really do his rounds inspection that day and so he didn't see that one of the chemical feeder pumps had tripped out on overload. Maybe the maintenance workers didn't want to spend a few hours inside one of these steamy boxes cleaning out additional algae buildup. It's not a glamorous job to say the least, but not terribly difficult in the grand scheme.

      People should not only lose their jobs and licenses for this, people absolutely deserve litigation for this. This is nothing short of negligence.

    4. Re: Cooling towers by rkcth · · Score: 2

      They still use a compressor, but instead of running normal outside air across dry coils, they run the air across wet coils. The evaporation makes the coils cool faster and more efficiently, at the cost of losing water. The non evaporated water is reused and pumped back to the top. Because the water is reused it can get kind of nasty and needs frequent cleaning. (Note I'm a licensed technician, but I don't work on cooling towers).

    5. Re:Cooling towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl;dr: It's pretty much a big swamp cooler :D

    6. Re:Cooling towers by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1

      Question: if it's providing a heat sink for the cooling system, how is it infecting people? Isn't the chilling process a closed loop? How is the cooling tower water making it into the facility air? Explaining that would be illuminating, and I appreciate what you already wrote.

      --#

    7. Re:Cooling towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not air-isolated, is the basic way to put it.

      Plenty of room for interaction.

    8. Re:Cooling towers by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, no problem. there are closed type systems, but when you have Cooling Towers, it's an open system. That is, there's a secondary chilled water loop that circulates inside, and it dumps its head into the primary loop through a plate and frame heat exchanger. The primary loop gets pumped out to the cooling towers, where it goes through the cooling tower "fill" which is a scheme of different diverter surfaces to separate the water into thin streams running along flat surfaces. Outside air is then drawn across the fill, and that removes the heat and aids in evaporation of the water. Any water that is evaporated away is replaced with fresh "makeup water".

      As the water is being drawn across the fill, it starts to evaporate and also atomize (meaning that the streams of water break up into tiny droplets that are technically still liquid, but are light enough to be carried away in the moving air stream). As these water droplets are pulled into the outside air, they can be carried anywhere. Often, cooling towers are located on the roof of buildings. The other thing that you'll often see on the roof is the building exhaust fans and the fresh air make up fans. If the fresh air makeup fan inlets are located anywhere near the cooling tower, it is very possible to have those same tiny water droplets get sucked into the intake, and pumped into the building along with the fresh air makeup.

      Mechanical Engineers usually design the location of these intakes to be far enough away form the Cooling Towers to prevent infiltration, but wind currents can be a little hard to predict. Also, if the Cooling Tower isn't being operated correctly, there can be more water atomization than there should be. For example, if the Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) that control the Cooling Tower Fan speed isn't set up right, it can run too fast and pull out more water droplets than it should be (this should ordinarily be kept to a minimum because makeup water isn't cheap, and it's not "green" to use too much water).

      Hope that helps. :-)

    9. Re:Cooling towers by jbengt · · Score: 1

      These cool water by evaporating a portion of it and circulating it through the refrigeration equipment, where the water picks up heat, and then recirculates back through the cooling tower. The cooling tower water is used as a heat sink for the refrigeration equipment, most often a Chiller, which chills a separate, closed circuit of water down to around 40 F to 45F, and that Chilled Water is circulated to the air handling units or other air conditioning systems to provide A/C to the building.
      The cooling tower can also be used as a heat rejection device for other, non-A/C systems, like generators, refrigerators, etc.

  4. Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I work in legionella management in the UK, cooling towers must be disinfected every 6 months, no shit the legionella came back, it's present everywhere in the environment. The US has very lax laws for public water safety, see also New York's hideous water towers/roof tanks

    1. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does UV work against legionella? Installing UV-leds citywide should be easier than the lost cause of trying to get irresponsible building owners to do their part for the society.

    2. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      I don't think he meant out on the streets. I think he meant in pipes where no-one will get a tan.

      Or are you worried about UV photons in your water supply?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re: Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've not seen uv used on cooling towers, usually high powered uv lamps are used on boreholes and surgical/pharma systems, closed stuff, but not something as crude as a cooling tower sump. Normally sumps are just chlorinated, but the sump water has to be changed every now and then as evaporation concentrates the chemicals which corrode the tower

    4. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would only be effective if the water-supply was the primary source of the infection, which is hardly likely to be the case, or they'd be talking to their municipal water supplier instead.

      It just makes no sense as a solution, no more than UV-light on the streets.

    5. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light pollutes?

    6. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You would put UV sterilizers into the cooling water systems, not just into the water supply in general. Cooling tower water is pumped in a circle. Add in a sterilizer. Problem solved, maybe? Or maybe not. So the question still stands. Does UV work on this stuff?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the OP meant a UV water purification system, where water supply is directed through a glass device that irradiates the water before it goes to the faucets. These are uncommon in residential use in the U.S., where the water supply is from a well or non public source.

    8. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by MyAlternateID · · Score: 1

      You would put UV sterilizers into the cooling water systems, not just into the water supply in general. Cooling tower water is pumped in a circle. Add in a sterilizer. Problem solved, maybe? Or maybe not. So the question still stands. Does UV work on this stuff?

      It's the most common way of being a douchebag - never considering "that must not be what he meant since it obviously wouldn't work". A douchebag prefers to think "hah he sure is a moron, even though there's multiple ways to interpret what he meant and at least one of those makes sense!"

    9. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, but LEDs don't go low enough on the spectrum. The lamps they use for ponds are gas discharge and don't last very long.

      If you really want to generate UV it would make more sense to use spark discharges in the water. Generates a lot of UV, destroys bacteria due to electroporation, removes charge from particulates and decreases the size of particulates through shockwaves (also your electrodes of course, but those are cheap to replace).

    10. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would put UV sterilizers into the cooling water systems, not just into the water supply in general.

      Yes, that would be a valid interpretation, except you'll notice above, it says citywide without involving the building owners. Or after that, into the pipes. (With a minor aside about polluting the spectrum).

      I don't think it's unfair to interpret those expressions as different from putting them into the cooling towers, which would be a possibility to examine, though the feasibility may vary. Even if it works against the particular pathogens, it may not be effective inside these designs for a variety of reasons.

      Still, that's not quite what was being brought up in this particular thread, which was towards the water-supply or the whole city, rather than the individual owners.

      Now that's a silly solution.

    11. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Just trying to move the conversation forwards, I'm already arguing on G+ with someone with poor reading comprehension who thought I was arguing against socialism.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cooling tower water is pumped in a circle. Add in a sterilizer. Problem solved, maybe?

      Not at all. The problem isn't in the cooling water, it's in the heat exchangers (the cooling coils) and air ducts. Moisture from the air condenses inside the ducts and grows the bacteria.

      Does UV work on this stuff?

      It would work if you could cover every inch of the inside of the air ducts, which you probably can't. I doubt it would have any effect at all on fast flowing air.

    13. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really didn't help to move anything further, since the crux of the discussion was occurring on a different level, and your interjection didn't acknowledge that, let alone address it.

      Now if you'd said something like "Leaving aside the city-wide question, how would these work in cooling towers" you might have gotten somewhere, but then there's the problem that the post above was trying to solve, namely with the individual building owners, for which you'd be going back to square one. I'm not sure there isn't a solution on that level, but I kinda doubt it'd be one you could implement without radical change.

      I believe that for the time being, we're stuck with fixing that problem on a bureaucratic level, through methods of ensuring that existing engineering options for sterilization are utilized.

      If you can do a lot better job with UV than has previously been done, it may be chosen, but it's really not been widely adopted as far as I know.

    14. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It would work if you could cover every inch of the inside of the air ducts, which you probably can't. I doubt it would have any effect at all on fast flowing air.

      Nope. You would have to use Ozone, if even that works. Then you get into the position to having to make sure you're not making too much, but that seems solvable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but LEDs don't go low enough on the spectrum.

      Incorrect, power LEDs are now manufactured down to 200nm wavelengths and lower. You only need light peaking around 254nm wavelengths to sterilize.

    16. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you'll pay attention to the thread, the remark that originated the discussion was:

      Installing UV-leds citywide should be easier than the lost cause of trying to get irresponsible building owners to do their part for the society.

      This means to me, not in the cooling towers, but some other solution for the whole city, even leaving aside the question of the method, it's clearly a very different sentiment than concerning ourselves about mechanisms used in the individual towers.

    17. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.

      Still, I really like the concept of just blasting it with a Marx generator.

    18. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dunno, bathing the entire city in a 1970's UV glow has a certain appeal. You could bring back bell-bottoms.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a student at one of the schools in the current outbreak. After the previous one in the South Bronx a month or two ago, the city required all cooling towers to be disinfected within two weeks. So these towers were disinfected, but Legionella came back nonetheless. Is that common?

    20. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not in the way depicted here, but yes indeed, light can be a form of pollution.
      http://darksky.org/light-pollu...

    21. Re:Uk legionella engineer here by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Yes. Legionella is everywhere. It's a common soil bacteria.

      Disinfection only lasts a short time and the bacteria is commonly brought in on the soles of shoes.

      Many of the rooftop sites I worked on (radio masts) had strict procedures about working near cooling towers, including a requirement to wear clean-room overshoe booties whilst outside and in plantrooms to try and avoid contamination from this vector and _no_ sites allowed public roof access - the roof doors were usually pretty solid assemblies.

  5. Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Aren't there numerous strategies for preventing this, including adding more chlorine to cooling water in-house?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by aurizon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, we forgot about lazy, cheap people.
      Yes, chlorine or hydrogen peroxidation would solve this, but require some method to maintain the antiseptic aspect.
      Copper sheeting might shed enough Cu ions for many years, but would ne replacing as it eroded away.

      Newly installed cooling towers deal with this, as this search shows.
      https://www.google.ca/search?q...

    2. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Newly installed cooling towers deal with this, as this search shows.

      That search clearly isn't showing me what it's showing you, because all I'm getting is a bunch of descriptions of the problem. Pathetically, even the CDC page only describes the problem, even though the CDC has renamed itself the centers for disease control and prevention. If you actually drill down a couple of links you get to their page on prevention... which only covers hot tubs! Your tax dollars at work! No, wait. They're on vacation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by aurizon · · Score: 2

      Dig down, I did cast a wide net.
      I found this on page 2.

      http://www.hse.gov.uk/legionna...

      and this, more directed search, gives more.

      https://www.google.ca/search?q...

      but the 2P is correct, this should be a solved problem

    4. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This particular bacterium can hitch a ride inside amoebas so it can become a little more resistant to chlorine because of that.

    5. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I've heard of O3 and UV water treatment. I hear they are very good at killing pretty much living thing.

    6. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by aurizon · · Score: 1

      yes, ozone and UV = general cellular toxicants.
      Hydrogen peroxide safer but more $$

    7. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that's actually the problem with most technology

      nuclear for example

      i haven't a single doubt that we have the technological means to maintain nuclear plants forever without a single accident

      but what we don't have is the social and political means to do that

      money is always being cut, indefinitely, and the people making that decision are not exactly technically proficient. the incentive to cut costs form the general public and bosses who want to trumpet cost cutting trumps all other concerns, because other concerns, no matter how vital, are simply not understood. combine that with a technical person that responds with anger and arrogance at the idea of vital safety mechanisms being underfunded, the manager will simply disregard him or her as a person with a personality problem, and then disasters happen

      people who champion nuclear, especially on a website like this, understand the technology well, and are correct when they announce we never have to have a nuclear accident ever again due to technological issues

      but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

      and then people who champion nuclear get angry at people like me, and accuse us of not understanding the technology. oh we understand the technology is wonderful. but it is you who doesn't understand humanity

      the imperative on cutting costs and doing as little effort as possible is always trumping all other concerns. always. and people like this wind up being the managers, not the underlings. they can't be fired, they do the firing

      incompetence is a force that destroys everything. sober up and accept that

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    8. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by aurizon · · Score: 0

      Well, the greatest power for getting rid of lazy incompetent people is the inability of management to keep its power to manage, = unions.

    9. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by russotto · · Score: 1

      Just having copper in the system won't kill legionella; it can live in copper-piped water systems just fine. Active copper-silver ionization will, but that requires active maintenance, as does every other effective method for treating legionella (UV, ozone, Cu-Ag ionization, chlorine).

    10. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by aurizon · · Score: 1

      yes, once a film forms, copper is not effective. new copper or silver ions must enter the water at a steady rate.

    11. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A useful concept here is "Social Tech Level". We have the tech for safe nuclear plants, but we may lack the social tech. Much as, say, Panama had the tech to maintain the canal for many years before it had the social tech. You need both the technical know-how, and enough resources left over after corruption to actually fund it.

      For all our competing systems of government, we don't seem to have made much progress in "social tech level" in the past 100 years. If anything, the basic systems of administration haven't improved in this regard, but the skill in corrupting them has gone way up (whether corporate corruption or good old fashioned Old Boys Network corruption).

      Whether Socialist, Communist, or Capitalist, each in it's own way we can't seem to get the job done, so I think it's something quite distinct from economic system. I think there's just a problem of administration, transparency, and reporting results to solve. E.g., I don't care if the road gets built by the mayor's nephew, I care whether it's build on-time and to-spec, and how much it cost - if it merely cost more than it should, that's the least-bad problem. Cost-cutting is a good thing, but it takes a back seat to getting the actual job done.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But management frequently doesn't use its power to manage.
      They use it to build up their own power and prestige. They hire their family and friends. They give out no-bid contracts to the guys they play golf with. They cut costs so that they get a better bonus, despite customer service/productivity going down.

      If you do away with unions, management will have you working 14-16 hours a day. If you say no, they fire you. They'll cut as many corners as they think they can get away with, usually to the detriment of people who aren't them.

      As the GP said, it's about people and their propensity to do as little as possible. There are lazy-ass bullshit managers too.

    13. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      that's actually the problem with most technology

      nuclear for example

      i haven't a single doubt that we have the technological means to maintain nuclear plants forever without a single accident

      but what we don't have is the social and political means to do that

      Actually, a lot of us are simply numerically literate and realize that *every* a) energy source suffers from the issues that you whine about and b) nuclear has a great history despite having accidents sometimes.

    14. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      but they don't consider the political and social aspects of our species that means vital funding of safety mechanisms and maintenance of absolutely crucial technology *will* be broken. it's simply a matter of when, not if

      Or perhaps we understand that quite well. And decide that it's not that big a problem.

      Civilian nuclear power deaths in the USA, to date: zero.

      Military nuclear power deaths in the USA, to date: four? Basically the people in the room with the test reactor (that fit in a bathtub) when someone pulled the control rod (yes, there was only one) out by hand.

      Hmm, 70 years of nuclear power in the USA, with so few casualties. I could wish the highways were that safe. Or Airline travel. Or trains. Or COAL MINING. Or Oil drilling. Or even hydropower dams.

      Hell, more people have died just this year installing solar cells than have died in nuclear power accidents in the USA in all of history.....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Solandri · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and then people who champion nuclear get angry at people like me, and accuse us of not understanding the technology. oh we understand the technology is wonderful. but it is you who doesn't understand humanity

      We understand humanity. You don't understand statistics. When there's a nuclear accident, it's big and scary and gets reported by all the press. When there's a coal, wind, or solar accident, it's small and doesn't get reported by the press. If you base your statistics on what's reported on the news, you get a skewed view of the dangers of these power sources. It's like planes vs cars. Every airliner crash gets reported on the national news. But car accident fatalities are rarely recorded. The erroneous reporting bias is large enough that some people are deathly afraid of flying, even though you're statistically more likely to die in a car accident on the way to/from the airport than on the flight itself.

      Likewise, nuclear is the safest power source man has invented. Despite the accidents, despite the human failures you cite (Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were caused by operator error). It has produced the fewest casualties per unit of power generated of all power sources. Did you know that the month of the Fukushima accident, when zero people were killed by nuclear power, one person was killed by wind power? A school in Ohio forgot to lock the gate to their wind turbine. A student climbed up it, and fell to his death. Human error affects all power sources, not just nuclear. If anything, nuclear is safer because of the increased scrutiny it gets.

    16. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      More simply, the lowest tender rarely produces good results. Just because they contracted the lowest tender to clean the towers does not mean it was actually done. So they tendered for a piece of paper saying it had been done and someone went up there and drained the system and immediately refilled it. Incompetence is not as destructive as corruption and corruption is what always gets incompetence in the door, greed driven stupidity.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    17. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The problem with civilian nuclear is that community outrage about safety resulted in the cheap option of hiding safety issues instead of dealing with them.

    18. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..And that all means the super rich owners get their wealth destroyed. Is there a downside? If you have so much money you can't even manage it all yourself and are too bad at running the companies so active management doesn't destroy your wealth you have too much to begin with. I don't see a problem here really. People won't take shit. If you have them working for 14 hours a day with shit compensation you won't profit from them in the long run. They'll spit inside the burgers, they will dump all the trash to some hidden place, they'll destroy the company from inside with guerrilla tactics. Everything will look good for a while, and then crash and burn.

    19. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count coal mining and installing solar cells you should also count uranium mining and building nuclear plants. Just sayin. I actually agree with you in that nuclear energy superior oe on par in safety aspects in comparison to almost any other energy we have in use. Oh, also count mining for the minerals needed for solar panels! And transportation (indirect costs also, such as maintaining roads, i bet coal trucks wear them down way more than uranium trucks).

    20. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      You mean like what is happening to Walmart?

    21. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you count coal mining and installing solar cells you should also count uranium mining and building nuclear plants. Just sayin. I actually agree with you in that nuclear energy superior oe on par in safety aspects in comparison to almost any other energy we have in use. Oh, also count mining for the minerals needed for solar panels! And transportation (indirect costs also, such as maintaining roads, i bet coal trucks wear them down way more than uranium trucks).

      Because coal plants are a naturally occurring formation in nature, requiring no construction?

      And what, the coal fairy fills the boilers with billions of pounds of fuel but there's no Uranium fairy to toss in a truckload a year in your magical universe?

      Here's how grown ups understand the following, also know as the "water is wet" approach. We know water is wet, so we don't point it out in situations where it doesn't matter. In the discussion below, you are B.

      A) Coal pollution is bad.
      B) But murder is bad too! Why do you blame coal pollution when murder is bad for people too!
      A) I didn't say murder wasn't bad. I was referring to the emissions in the context of an energy production discussion. Since construction death factors are presumably even across gigawatt sized plants we don't need to specifically call them out. That said, if you want to address construction safety and improving standards with OSHA, sure, let's study that and fund it.
      B) Stinking liberals!
      A) ...

    22. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl was unsafe. Aside from that, I don't know of unsafe reactors. Fukushima made some nice drama, but it was never particularly dangerous. Nuclear power appears to be the safest around.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Hmmm, they're all (in high enough concentrations) pretty effective biocides, and given their propensity to oxidise the living daylights out of anything, they'd probably be biocides against silicon-based life forms, if such a thing existed.

      But whether H2O2 is more expensive ... a bit thornier a question. Yes, it's a continuing cost for chemicals. But there is a continuing cost with UV for both the electricity to run the lamps, the plumbing and pumps to force the water past the lamps ; the lamps themselves have a finite lifetime and need monitoring (another on-going cost). Similarly ozone made using a silent electrical discharge draws the juice too, needs plumbing, there is likely to be wear/ corrosion eventually on the electrodes, you still need pumps to mix ozone and the water. And monitoring, including of ozone discharges in many jurisdictions, because it is a VERY potent gaseous poison.

      From first principles, I couldn't say which would be cheaper. I'd suspect that it would differ on a case to case basis.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:Yeah, I thought this problem was solved by Whillowhim · · Score: 1

      Minor nitpick: There were only 3 people in the room when they pulled the control rod out, and it wasn't the only control rod. Unfortunately, it was the center rod, and in the reduced power state they had the reactor running in, it was by far the most important control rod. It also didn't help that the rod was removed quickly, probably because it had become stuck and they had to yank on it to free it (though there was no way to confirm that).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. Since they knew it would come back.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the cleaning requirement was just corporate welfare to one of the few authorized cleaning companies in NYC. They're getting paid back for their political donations. In the end, the people are forced at gunpoint to give money to corporations for nothing in return. This is so typical of the Republicans.

    1. Re:Since they knew it would come back.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demmocrats do the same. Just sayin...

    2. Re:Since they knew it would come back.. by willworkforbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is so typical of the Republicans.

      This is the worst variation of the "Kevin Bacon Game." It's the Six Degrees of Political Connection, where any topic, no matter how neutral or broad in scope (like naturally occurring bacteria) can be linked to any political opinion.

      Wasn't it Jim Gaffigan who pointed out the way to stop a conversation was with, "I'd like to talk to you about Jesus"?
      Now it's, "I'd like to inject my my politics into whatever you just said."

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    3. Re:Since they knew it would come back.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Regularly cleaning something definitely/possibly infected with a life-threatening bacteria is purely about political kickbacks... 8\

  7. Steps of disinfection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. To execute an antivirus program.
    2. To disinfect the suspected viruses.
    3. To put them to the quarantine.
    4. To mail it to an agency of disinfection.
    5. To call a technician to empty the quarantine.
    6. To call a doctor for a threatment of health.
    7. To take medicines, by example, the antibiotics.
    8. ???
    9. To profit!!!

    1. Re:Steps of disinfection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what do we do if it's bacteria?

    2. Re:Steps of disinfection. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacteria is like a virus too.

      Higher quantity of chlorine in the water can exterminate the life of the bacterias.

      But the problem is: can you drink this water?

  8. Reassuring the public... by hyades1 · · Score: 2

    Speaking at a hastily-called press conference only a few hundred miles from the buildings in question, Tower-cleaning specialist and former Volkswagen Vice President Gesundheit Krappstadtz stated unequivocally that all cleaning and disinfection operations had been performed with full attention to the requirements of New Jersey's famously strict environmental regulations.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. This is greenwow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's obviously mentally ill. Just mod him down and ignore him and all his replies to his own posts.

  10. which contract water treatment companies? by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    ... do they use, if any ? Nalco, Betz, Evoqua are big national brands. What changed? cost cutting, the organics into the water, management/technical experience

  11. The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by mark_reh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    because it provides a good environment for them. It is not at all surprising that the bacteria would be found in a recently disinfected cooling tower. The only way to stop that from happening is to somehow make the cooling tower environment a less friendly one for the bugs.

    1. Re:The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      because it provides a good environment for them. It is not at all surprising that the bacteria would be found in a recently disinfected cooling tower. The only way to stop that from happening is to somehow make the cooling tower environment a less friendly one for the bugs.

      I know! I know! Put a politician, preferably fairly high level (they get more dangerous as they age) in the tower. That's a pretty unfriendly environment. If it's a bad infestation, you can temporarily install a committee. Monitor everything on C-Span.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "The only way to stop that from happening is to somehow make the cooling tower environment a less friendly one for the bugs."

      Like disinfecting them, as was recently done?

    3. Re:The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disinfecting them makes them more attractive because there is now less competition!

    4. Re:The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Disinfection, alone, is a bit like kicking some hobos out from under a bridge. Without further action, they'll just be replaced by more hobos.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    5. Re:The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more along the lines of chemical additives to alter the pH or shifting the temperature range at which the things work, etc. Bacteria need a source of food of some sort. It might be possible to identify it and eliminate it from the towers. Maybe they consume fungus. If you can stop the fungus you stop the things that feed on it.

    6. Re: The bacteria are found in the cooling towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home pool chemistry requires chlorine solutions and acid (to control the PH).

      An optional chemical additive is one that binds up phosphorus in the water. This is to starve the algae -- a good backup if the prior step of poisoning it drifts from the needed concentrations. These chemicals are much more expensive than chlorine and acid.

  12. NYC is a cesspool anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knows what pathogens are brewing, pretty much everywhere in that shithole.

  13. Biofilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The only effective sterilisation regimes include mechanical abrasion. Good old fashioned scrub brush and soap, plain and simple. I have personally observed bacterial colonies survive under a 95% ethanol solution for over a week under their own biofilm protection. It takes elbow grease, you have to scrub all surfaces to be sterilised with mechanical abrasion and soap, only then can sterilisation chemicals or antibiotic agents have any useful effect.

    1. Re:Biofilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about pressure cleaning?

    2. Re:Biofilm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure I would include pressure cleaning (as in a pressure washer) in "mechanical abrasion".

      (P.S. I love how the real discussion happens at score zero... oh Slashdot...)

    3. Re:Biofilm by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like a great idea given that legionella is mostly hazardous when it is carried by airborne water droplets that can be breathed in.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  14. An engineer's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct that cost cutting, incompetence, profit motive and laziness are all driving factors of the human condition. We actually understood this in the US for a long time, and we passed laws that punish fraud and other misbehavior that stem from this inherent human trait. The prime case in point, when steam boilers were the prime source of energy for trains/ships/factories etc. they started having problems with explosions due to design flaws that would kill tens to hundreds of people at a time (the USS Maine explosion off the coast of Cuba was one such example and resulted in great loss of life and a war). The root problem was non-engineers or incompetent engineers designing the boilers. The solution was two fold. A licensure process for engineers to ensure they knew what they were doing (this fixed the competency problem) and the requirement for an engineer to sign off on all boiler plans and oversee the fabrication process. Further, engineers of record (the one's who signed off on the design and fab) in the US were made inseparably liable for their designs. The boiler regulations were later extended to all aspects of engineering design. Even today, if a design is faulty and causes injury or death, the engineer can be criminally prosecuted and/or sued for damages in a civil court, though it is rare (they GM lock cylinder engineer may wind up facing criminal prosecution unless he has records that he was forced by management).

    What we need here is simple: a new law that charges jointly the building manager and owner (if a corp owns the building, then the executive officers and board collectively) with manslaughter if a resident dies of legionella and it is found in the cooling towers and a mandatory 4 years in prison. I guarantee that those towers would be updated/maintained properly and damn the cost or effort required.

    In your example, nuclear power plants, the same solution applies. We need a new law that extends from the engineers to the entire management of nuclear sites. If the entire management team from top to bottom face criminal prosecution and life in prison if they don't follow the recommendations of their engineers, they will listen to them.

    The issue is not that the engineers on this site don't understand human nature, its that we don't understand how the rest of society can be so clueless of a clear solution path to our energy needs. With an IQ of 144, I just have to remind myself that 100 is the average, with half the population below and half above...

    1. Re:An engineer's perspective by AJWM · · Score: 2

      It's said that the Roman engineers responsible for the construction of a support arch for a bridge or aqueduct were required to stand under it when the support scaffolding (used in construction) was removed. They had a very personal incentive for making sure everything was done properly.

      Likewise, the reactor engineers on a nuclear submarine have a very personal incentive for making sure everything is done properly, over and above military discipline.

      Do we even know that, in this case, the cooling towers were even properly disinfected in the first place? Maybe the building managers and whoever else is responsible should be required to spend the day after disinfection exposed to a nice mist of cooling water...

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:An engineer's perspective by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      You said

      The issue is not that the engineers on this site don't understand human nature,

      and then went on to completely contradict yourself

      its that we don't understand how the rest of society can be so clueless of a clear solution path to our energy needs.

      In the case of nuclear power, circletimessquare was mostly right, however he doesn't explicitly state that in the case of nuclear power the problems are greatly exacerbated by the time scales involved.
      The length of the fuel-cycle is not just longer than a human lifetime, not just longer than the expected lifetime of a even the longest lived corporate entity, but longer than the likely length of our our civilisation.
      Given a presumed understanding of human nature it is obvious to anyone who takes the time to really think about it, current nuclear power technologies are not viable.
      With that said it is obvious that something needs to be done about our reliance on fossil fuels, and although many alternative energy sources are starting to look promising they are not quite there yet.
      Alternate nuclear processes aught to be considered, thorium reactors seem to be the favourite on this site, the technology might be the greatest thing since sliced bread but the significant cohort of posters on this site that preach the virtues of thorium (or fusion for that matter) without any sign that they have considered that there might also be negative imapacts is ironically the reason that whilst I desipse the narrow minded, unelnightened, and ignorant management class that runs our businesses and our societies I still prefer that they run things than a bunch of (fellow) engineers.

      With an IQ of 144, I just have to remind myself that 100 is the average, with half the population below and half above

      This doesn't help you argument either; it never ceases to amaze that people who are clearly intelligent and work with numbers can place faith in an obviously flawed pseudo-scientific "measurement"

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    3. Re:An engineer's perspective by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      Bad form to reply to myself but I should point out that I mostly agree with the AC I replied to above but his/her post typifies what I believe is the biggest problem we have as a society/civilisation; we are experts in ever increasingly narrow domains of knowledge and are not just profoundly igonorant outside of that domain but as a result we are incapable of understanding our collective shortcomings or syntheisising sustainable solutions to address them.

      You said

      The issue is not that the engineers on this site don't understand human nature,

      and then went on to completely contradict yourself

      its that we don't understand how the rest of society can be so clueless of a clear solution path to our energy needs.

      In the case of nuclear power, circletimessquare was mostly right, however he doesn't explicitly state that in the case of nuclear power the problems are greatly exacerbated by the time scales involved.
      The length of the fuel-cycle is not just longer than a human lifetime, not just longer than the expected lifetime of a even the longest lived corporate entity, but longer than the likely length of our our civilisation.
      Given a presumed understanding of human nature it is obvious to anyone who takes the time to really think about it, current nuclear power technologies are not viable.
      With that said it is obvious that something needs to be done about our reliance on fossil fuels, and although many alternative energy sources are starting to look promising they are not quite there yet.
      Alternate nuclear processes aught to be considered, thorium reactors seem to be the favourite on this site, the technology might be the greatest thing since sliced bread but the significant cohort of posters on this site that preach the virtues of thorium (or fusion for that matter) without any sign that they have considered that there might also be negative imapacts is ironically the reason that whilst I desipse the narrow minded, unelnightened, and ignorant management class that runs our businesses and our societies I still prefer that they run things than a bunch of (fellow) engineers.

      With an IQ of 144, I just have to remind myself that 100 is the average, with half the population below and half above

      This doesn't help you argument either; it never ceases to amaze that people who are clearly intelligent and work with numbers can place faith in an obviously flawed pseudo-scientific "measurement"

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    4. Re:An engineer's perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said

      The issue is not that the engineers on this site don't understand human nature,

      and then went on to completely contradict yourself

      its that we don't understand how the rest of society can be so clueless of a clear solution path to our energy needs.

      In the case of nuclear power, circletimessquare was mostly right, however he doesn't explicitly state that in the case of nuclear power the problems are greatly exacerbated by the time scales involved.
      The length of the fuel-cycle is not just longer than a human lifetime, not just longer than the expected lifetime of a even the longest lived corporate entity, but longer than the likely length of our our civilisation.
      Given a presumed understanding of human nature it is obvious to anyone who takes the time to really think about it, current nuclear power technologies are not viable.

      This doesn't help you argument either; it never ceases to amaze that people who are clearly intelligent and work with numbers can place faith in an obviously flawed pseudo-scientific "measurement"

      Are you terrified of bananas too? They contain radioactive potassium! Oooh! Radioactive!

      The irony. The flaw is in your understanding of nuclear power and thermodynamics in general, not science.

      Anything radioactive enough to be dangerous in a thousand years is radioactive enough to be used as fuel. Ditto for 100 years and even 50. Dangerous stuff can be used as fuel. Stuff that can't be used as fuel is not particularly dangerous. Aside of course, from people who grind things into fine powders and inhale them, those are always dangerous - even if not radioactive - so those aren't a valid objection.

  15. This time by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Maybe they should try disinfectant this time

  16. Above poster seems to be on acid instead of bleach by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Translation: more than enough to damage the equipment.

    WTF do you get something as utterly ridiculous as that from? If you made it up - why? The difference is several orders of magnitude. The drinking water in my city has a concentration of chlorine several times higher than this bacteria can stand, and domestic bleach is far more concentrated again yet still unlikely to "damage the equipment".

    plus, it's an added cost, both in time and materials

    True, but that's life when you are squirting a deadly bacteria laden aerosol into areas where people are breathing. Some expense to avoid doing that is considered tolerable.

  17. Re:Above poster seems to be on acid instead of ble by Cramer · · Score: 1

    Because chlorine is corrosive. In the concentrations one should be maintaining, it's not so bad. But prolonged exposure, even at the "correct" levels will cause corrosion. If you doubt this, take your finest stainless steel butter knife and drop it in the bottle of chlorine bleach; over time, it will rust. Just like a swimsuit will slowly fade (and degenerate) over a summer of being dunked in pool water every day.

  18. We are talking drops in the ocean not seawater by dbIII · · Score: 1

    With respect, I was teaching engineering students about corrosion before this site even started so unlike you I am not making shit up. The tiny amounts of chlorine required (wikipedia says 0.5 ppm to 2 ppm you utterly lazy creature), as there is in the drinking water in some places, fail to do measurable damage to stainless steel fittings that they come in contact with when used as drinking water. It's nothing remotely close to the amount of chlorine that is in seawater which attacks many different types of stainless steel. It's nothing remotely close to the concentration in a swimming pool. Look it up instead of making it up - that's what I did but I looked it up first in 1990 and have read a bit since. Now it only takes seconds to look it up - wikipedia has it FFS.
    So why do you wish to spread such misinformation? Does it give you some sense of power over the kiddies to make them believe something you just made up? They should look for themselves instead of falling for shit from you or taking my word for granted.