On Feb 28, 10:26�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb
onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building.
the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods,
in a explosion will be a bad day.

No, a bomb would tend scatter stuff around, not put it in closer
proximity to the small number of "hot" assemblies which would be
required to heat up all the rest.

the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in
place to handle spent fuel safely.

They have been funding it since the beginning of commercial nuclear
power in the 60s...

those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested
interest in reassuring the public its safe......

And we've been extremely successful despite the irrational fears of
folks like you who rant about stuff they have no idea of how it actually
works...

Just like the Chernobyl/LWR comparison -- can you explain the difference
between the two reactor designs or even the mechanism by which the
Chernobyl accident caused the dispersion? �If you understood anything
about the reactor design and the accident scenario itself, you would
have an understanding of why that type of accident can't physically
occur at a LWR.

--

you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more
common today.

but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl
here in our country is folly.

your statement that things are safe there except for one city shows
how little you know of the after effects.......