Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Peter Scott wrote:


None of this has anything to do with commercial nuclear power as
understood in the West, however. The Chernobyl type stations are being
phased out as unsafe and quite right too - they have no containment
building and are graphite moderated.

Further, which kit broke down? There was a Horizon (IIRC) a few years
ago showing extensive footage taken by robot TV cameras inside and
underneath the sarcophagus at Chernobyl.

Damn. I didn't see that.

Did kit break down? I thought it was the result of experimenting with
the reactor.

I was referring to Mr Hansen's remarks about western kit breaking down
at Chernobyl - I assume he was talking about kit sent there to help with
the aftermath.

I bow to your obvious superior knowledge of the risks inherent in
western reactors. They do have accidents of course, but commendably
few. Some are questioning our safety limits on radiation as well,
saying they are too low. This was discussed in an earlier thread. In
that one I mentioned the 'black box' mini reactors that are now
available where reliable but limited energy is needed.

Re the reactors at Chernobyl, I should have said that they are graphite
moderated *and* water cooled. This is apparently the dangerous combination.

Its not that dengerous if operated within design limits.

It wasn't. Also, there was no secondary containment vessel (mandatory in
the West).