On Apr 25, 12:48*pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
2) "demonstrated threat". We can't predict them all. But we can avoid
making lousy plans when those plans are obviously lousy.
We're back to the same problem -- we _CAN_ and _DO_ design for the
consequences of losing primary cooling; the fundamental threat to
reactor integrity irrespective of how, specifically, it might be
initiated. *We have demonstrated empirical evidence those systems work.
We also have a long history of operational evidence the overall
technology is as safe as or safer than other technologies which we
routinely accept.

It comes back again to the points made by Chairman Klein of unproductive
participation. *Did you ever read the text of the full speech?

--

Yes, I read the speech.

And????

You used the term "fundamental threat". Before 9/11, what do you suppose
was considered the fundamental threat to the World Trade Center?

Well, it's fundamentally immaterial, but...

The WTC (and all other high rise buildings as well, of course) was
designed to a specific set of impact, wind, seismic, and fire loadings.

The towers both withstood the impacts as expected/designed; they fell
because the actual fire loading was greater than the design criteria.

The difference in the reactor is it isn't postulated "how", it is presumed
that a LOCA can occur and there are systems in place to mitigate the
results thereof. *The design basis is a complete guillotine break--"if the
pipe is broke it can't get any broker" and it isn't assumed that it is
repaired. *Consequently, there isn't the question of whether a different
initiating event caused the break--the break is assumed to have "just
happened".

So, the comparison is a red herring that distracts and obfuscates and
plays on fears but doesn't contribute--precisely Chairman Klein's point..

--

All discussions of nuke plant safety are based on WHAT'S EXPECTED.

And I'll repeat this, since you obviously missed it last time I said it (in
this thread): I am not opposed to all nuclear power plants.- Hide quoted text -


Of course not. You're only opposed to the nukes we already have and
any new ones being built. The pie in the sky theoretical ones,
they're OK. Just like the environmental extremists who rag on
about using wind and solar. Yet, when it comes time to actually put
up windmills or a solar farm, well guess who's there blocking that?
Same folks. It's happening here in NJ with windmills and just
happened in the Mojave desert too.