NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/13949

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU!CARL
From: [e-mail] (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Why do they hate us?
Date: 28 Dec 1992 23:14:12 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Lines: 67
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Clark) writes:
=
=In article <[e-mail]> you write:
=>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Clark) writes:
=>
=>You seem to have ignored my request that you account for differences in the
=>design of commercial nuclear reactors in the United States and the design of
=>the Chernobyl plant.  That leads me to suppose that you really don't know the
=>difference.
=>
=>>    Nuclear power safe? Only as long as its governing bodies are stable.
=>>The collapse that happened in the (former) USSR will eventually and inevitably
=>>happen here... Oooooo the ugliness... I think I'll stick my head back in the
=>>sand, butt in the air, and just give up and wait...
=>
=>Fine.  So what if it does?  Please try to include in your next feeble attempt
=>at a plausible scenario at least a *LITTE* knowledge of current nuclear reactor
=>designs.
=>Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
=>
=
=    Nice try, but the *design* is irrelevant. NOTHING is idiot-proof.
=Give an idiot a rubber ball, and they'll find some way to hurt themselves.

Give somebody a reactor with a positive thermal coefficient and NO containment,
and he can easily blow up the plant and spew radionuclides all over the
landscape.

Give someone a reactor with a negative thermal coefficient and several levels
of containment, and even let him do everything in his power to screw things up
(a more or less valid description of the operators at TMI) and he'll still find
it quite difficult to do more than damage the reactor.

You want perfectly, 100% safe?  Then die.  That's the only way you're ever
going to be 100% safe.

=Provide all the safeguards you'd ever want on a nuclear reactor, but they'll
=eventually wear out, rust, be disconnected, wired wrong, and become generally
=disfunctional. Hell, bury it 5 miles underground if you like... but following
=good ole Murphy's Law, the meltdown gases will find their way up through the
=elevator shaft.  Hey, make it even *impossible* to have a meltdown...

Haven't heard about the more recent designs that are PASSIVELY safe, have you?
You can't make one of them melt down even if you try (they did, as a test of
the design).

=such that
=even if the cooling system and backups stop, and the rods get stuck, it still
=can't melt.

Yup, that's exactly what the test entailed.

=But then add a bit of pressure for more power, and a couple of
=waivers for the removal of a few safeguards so it can cough up a bit more
=output... and presto!

'Fraid not.  You see, there were *NO* active systems involved in the automatic
shutdown.  You can perhaps petition Congress or a regulatory agency for an
exemption to a law, but you can't get the laws of physics repealed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: [e-mail] | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.