Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.
oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
for millions of years.........
we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
troubles that will cause?

About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
ZILCH

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.

while the reactor cores and compartively well protected in the
containment building, the large concrete domeed building ........

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.

you have a major disaster.

I support more nuke plants once the nuclear waste issue is addressed.

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada

On Feb 27, 8:26�am, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Three Mile ISland...

On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Three Mile ISland...

On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.

NO!!!

There was an a outage, the cause of which is still undetermined.


"Two nuclear reactors at Florida Power & Light's Turkey Point station in
South Florida shut down Tuesday afternoon, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission said.

It is unclear if the loss of power caused the outage or if the outage
caused the reactors to trip. "Turkey Point temporarily lost off-site
power, and both reactors tripped," said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah.

The cause of the outages remains unclear, Tampa Electric spokeswoman
Laura Duda told the newspaper.

She described a "significant disturbance" on the state's electric grid.
It could have been a transmission problem, or a large electricity
generating unit unexpectedly going off line, or another problem
altogether. "We are working with other utilities to figure out what the
problem was," she said."


Whatever it was, it was purely operational, not safety-related.

--

wrote:
....

people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either.......

And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.

That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
light-water reactors.

--

wrote:
....

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.

Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.

....

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.

No, they're pools...

you have a major disaster.

Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada

Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
monitored retrievable storage for a reason.

--

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Three Mile ISland...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
NO!!!


YES!!!!!!!!!

What would that have been and how do you know?

The root cause of the event is still undetermined.

--

On Feb 27, 10:16�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either.......

And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.

That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
light-water reactors.

--

the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....

plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
rivers for cooling water.

http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm

now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?

"dpb" wrote in message ...
wrote:
...

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.

Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.

...

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.

No, they're pools...

you have a major disaster.

Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada

Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named monitored
retrievable storage for a reason.

I can see that thread drift is alive and well in this group!

One of the funnest things in Usenet.

About the freezer: the job is going on hold until I can do without the
services of the freezer for a while. I had a chance to score a USDA Choice
whole been sirlion for $1.99 a pound, nine pounds of beef, couldn't pass it
up.

Thanks for all advice.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:16�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

people who lived around chernobyl werent concerned either.......
And Chernobyl was a _completely_ different reactor design than any in
the US (or elsewhere, for that matter) without any containment.

That Chernobyl was a disaster is true but it has no relevance to
light-water reactors.

--

the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....

No, it is not possible to do a Chernobyl w/ a LWR. Do you understand
the difference in reactor designs?

plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, ...

Again, no -- after the spent fuel assemblies are removed and been in
storage for a while they do not have enough self-generated heat to
require forced cooling. A very large percentage of the fuel in storage
at various facilities in the US has been out of the reactor for so long
it could be in open air and still not be a thermal problem. Some
biological shielding is, of course, still required and that is actually
as much of the purpose of the pool water as is cooling.

--

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Three Mile ISland...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
NO!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!
What would that have been and how do you know?

The root cause of the event is still undetermined.


Incorrect.

A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn
caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid
being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for
"safety reasons".

That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip.
There's a difference between the two.

--


--

Folks:

Oh fer gosh sakes, this thing is an artifact. I'm not going to tell
people to scrap
their classic pink '58 Cadillac, or to avoid restoring a steam
locomotive because
it's got 3% thermal efficiency. If someone wants to pay a few extra
dollars to
keep this going as a working museum piece, that's okay with me, and I
think
it ought to be okay with anybody.

Ice cream every meal is not a good practice, but ice cream never?
Why?
Efficient, inefficient, this machine is an antique. Probably more
than 99% of
its brothers have gone for scrap. If those few that remain in good
order are
kept running, they're not going to materially effect power
consumption, no
more than those '58 Caddies are raising oil prices. Do people have
any
concept of just how *many* fridges are in use?

A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.

A P

On Feb 27, 4:15�pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I wonder how practical that is, versus the incredible expense?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
�www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.

all public buildings nationwide should be required to have a minimal
back up power capability.

to run emergency lights, get elevators to ground level, and stuff like
that.

people stuck in elevators is really dumb in this day and age

you wouldnt need a power plant to run the entire building, just enough
to get one or two elevator cars to a floor and open doors.

way safer and easier than depending on over worked firemen in shafts

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Three Mile ISland...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
NO!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!
What would that have been and how do you know?

The root cause of the event is still undetermined.

Incorrect.

A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn
caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid
being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for
"safety reasons".
That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip.
There's a difference between the two.

--

Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to
wake you from your dream.

No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility
operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety
system--I designed them.

--

wrote:

the US nearly had its chernobyl, 3 mile island. some roids melted, it
was a close thing....

plus a meltdown like situation can occur at any time, with the spent
fuel rods in unhardened buildings, a easy terrorist target. and
reactors with waste storage tend to be near population centers and
rivers for cooling water.

http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm

now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?

Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established.

If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated
than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a
hands-down winner.

Well, it can.

Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of
tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams
don't fail very often, but when they do...

And so on.

The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor."

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Three Mile ISland...

I still consider that a near miss:
Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the
time of the accident,[5] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred,
and a government report concluded that "There will either be no case of
cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be
possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible
health effects."





--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Dr. Hardcrab" wrote in message
news:j4Jwj.6143$Dz4.1985@trnddc01...

Dunno, my area is a mix of hydropower and nuclear facilities.

oh nuclear at least that doesnt pollute spent fuel killer hazardous
for millions of years.........

we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder what
troubles that will cause?

About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused in this country:
ZILCH

Dr. Hardcrab wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Three Mile ISland...

I still consider that a near miss:
....

Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the
adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error
induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless).

--

wrote
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.


Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

we are about to see a resurgence of nuke plants, i wonder
what troubles that will cause?

About the same amount of trouble they have EVER caused
in this country: ZILCH

Three Mile ISland...

TMI-2 was virtually a non-accident: A small volume of irradiated steam was
released to the atmosphere. There was no injury to any thing or any one.

It's all about timing, folks...

March 16, 1979 - The China Syndrome starring Hanoi Jane
and Jack Lemmon opens in theaters.

March 28, 1979 - Three Mile Island Unit 2 incident

April 26, 1986 - Chernobyl #4 disaster

"Slightly" different containment philosophy, too. U.S. reactors are housed in
containment structures consisting of 3-4-foot-thick, steel reinforced concrete
able to withstand the direct impact of a Boeing 727.

The Soviet Union's idea of containment at Chernobyl (and others to this day)
is the equivalent of a metal-sided pole shed.

TMI-2 "belched" some bad steam.

Chernobyl-4 exploded, melted-down and killed virtually everyone that worked on
the subsequent job of encasing the core in concrete. The direct fallout
"nuked" a nearby, evacuated city. It is still abandoned but barely "hot".
*Normal* wildlife and flora flourish there and have for years.

Kudos to George W. Bush to be the first President since the 1970s to have the
guts to actually call for more nukes. We can (and should) build more nuke
plants.
--

JR

"cybercat" wrote
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.

Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.

Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for free
from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef
easily with a bit spare around the edges grin.

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTown...icknavmenu.htm

heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some
areas are so hot even after all these years you can die.

so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it?

what if this happened in our country?

wrote:
TMI-2 was virtually a non-accident: �A small volume of irradiated steam was
released to the atmosphere. �There was no injury to any thing or any one.

Nothing external to the plant, yes--they did melt the core to about
2/3rds but it was all contained in the vessel...

could of been much worse if cooling hadnt been restored..... there was
concern of a explosion in the containment too

All it took to restore cooling was to turn the RCP (reactor coolant
pumps) back on. They had been shut off (manually) owing to operator
error and misinterpretation of instrumentation data. Once forced
circulation was reestablished, the situation was stabilized.

There was far more concern in the media over the "H-bubble" than there
was in reality.


The Soviet Union's idea of containment at Chernobyl (and others to this day)
is the equivalent of a metal-sided pole shed.

There was no containment at Chernobyl--there was no idea that it was
anything other than weather protection. Not a good design, but then
again, in their regime they could do as they saw fit.

OTOH, at their LWRs (Westinghouse design copies) they have containments
same as any other.

I haven't checked for certain, but I believe all the Chernobyl-style
reactors have been retired.

--

wrote in message
http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm

now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?

You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more
streets.

Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US.
We can't burn oil and coal forever either.

On Feb 27, 10:48�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.

Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.

...

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.

No, they're pools...

you have a major disaster.

Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada

Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
monitored retrievable storage for a reason.

--

well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
the mountain at some point in a thousand years.

just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.

now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard

ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
reinforced containment.

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.

very bad..............

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

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

On Feb 27, 10:18�pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message

http://www.nuclearflower.com/highres.htm

now take a look at some of these photos and explain how the risk is
worth it?

You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more
streets.

Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US.
We can't burn oil and coal forever either.

we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........

isnt that enough for you?

arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....

plus the river sends contaminated water down river indefinetely.

no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is
no guarantee

"cshenk" wrote in message
...
"cybercat" wrote
A purely utilitarian philosophy is a purely dismal one.

Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.

Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for
free from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of
beef easily with a bit spare around the edges grin.


Neat!

wrote in message

we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........

But we still need better wqays to mine and burn it




arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this
proves the dead area is very large....


No, that was not me

" wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa-
:

ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
reinforced containment.

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.

unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the
rods in the belowground pool.

very bad..............

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

Once the rods cool enough[in short a time frame for terrorist
planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.

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




All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems.
The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Feb 28, 8:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa-
:

ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
reinforced containment.

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.

unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the
rods in the belowground pool.



very bad..............

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

Once the rods cool enough[in �short a time frame for terrorist
planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.



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

All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems.
The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

so how long has work been done on yucca mountain? how much old fuel
has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and
moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is
paying for all this?

what about shipping danger?

On Feb 28, 9:06Â*am, " wrote:
On Feb 28, 8:18�am, Jim Yanik wrote:





" wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa-
:

ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
reinforced containment.

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.

unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the
rods in the belowground pool.

very bad..............

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

Once the rods cool enough[in �short a time frame for terrorist
planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.

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

All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems..
The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

so how long has work been done on yucca mountain?

Yucca would have been done a long time ago and all the fuel being
temporarily stored at power plants around the country if fear
mongering environmentalists hadn't done everything they could to block
it. Obsructionist tactics that continue to this day. And then the
same bunch are the ones bitching about how unsafe it is for the waste
to be stored temporarily at the power plants. Actually, the
envionmental extremists are quite happy with the arrangement, because
they use the spent fool storage at power plants to fear monger and try
to get them shut down. Tha't what they want and the only thing they
will accept.



how much old fuel
has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and
moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is
paying for all this?

There is a fund that all nuclear power plants have been paying into
for years to pay for yucca. But, in the end, like most things, it's
consumers, that is most of us, that are going to pay for it, one way
or another.




what about shipping danger?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


More fear mongering nonsense. The canisters have been designed and
tested to withstand external explosions and intense fires that rage
for hours.

Nothing is perfect. Imagine someone just came up with the idea of an
airplane today and proposed putting people into them and flying them
around. And they proposed putting 3 airports, within a few miles of
NYC. How much fear can you conjur up with that? Yet, we do it
everyday and it's the safest form of transportation we have.

wrote:
On Feb 27, 10:48�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

ahh sadly one mistake creates another chernobyl like event.
Not physically possible w/ a LWR reactor design.

...

the spent fuel rods are stored in roughly insecure normal building. if
a terrorist sent a small plane loaded with explosives into one of
these facilities, cooling water can be interrupted.
No, they're pools...

you have a major disaster.
Nothing whatsoever like what you're imagining...

currently they are thinking of burying it in yucca mountain nevada
Again, no, they're not "thinking of burying it" -- it is named
monitored retrievable storage for a reason.

--

well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting
the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening
the mountain at some point in a thousand years.

just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently
breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.

now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident
doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard

The logical solution is to recycle as does the rest of the world. The
only reason we're not is because during the Carter administration the
NRC was commanded to not consider the licensing application for the
GE-proposed recycling facility, effectively creating the problem of the
open-end fuel cycle we're still having to deal with.

The only reason for that was Carter's inability to separate commercial
nuclear fuel and reprocessing/recycling from weapons proliferation.

As in the comparison you keep trying to make between Chernobyl and other
LWR reactor designs, the only real similarity is that they both use some
of the same words.

--

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:22:51 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:52:54 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:50:49 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0600, dpb wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:14:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Three Mile ISland...
On Turesday there was a huge power outage in Florida caused by a shut
down of a nuke plant for safety issues.
NO!!!

YES!!!!!!!!!
What would that have been and how do you know?

The root cause of the event is still undetermined.
Incorrect.

A switch failed causing a huge "ripple" in the grid, which in turn
caused the nuke plants to react defensively by shutting down to avoid
being overstressed by the sudden imbalance. IOW, they shut down for
"safety reasons".
That is operational design trip, not a safety system-induced trip.
There's a difference between the two.

--
Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to
wake you from your dream.
No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility
operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety
system--I designed them.

So, then, there is no chance of you having some sort of perverted and heavily
biased view in favor of what provided your livelyhood for 30 years.

Not on a definition, no.

A safety system reactor trip has a precise meaning, and this wasn't it.

--

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.

--

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.......

In article
,
" wrote:

you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more
common today.
It wasn't for the all BS that surrounded it. TMI should have been a
poster child for the safety of nuclear power since something went wrong,
yet the safety systems all worked the way they were supposed to.

but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl
here in our country is folly.
In any degree? You want 100% assurances that nothing will ever go
wrong? Then we should pretty much sit back and contemplate our navels in
the dark. But even that is fraught with dangers.

wrote:
....

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

True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any
reasoned evaluation of the consequences.

There was no measurable offsite harm, no onsite injuries. Nothing but
some damaged equipment. How many other industries can have that as
their worst scenario after almost 40 years?

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

Again I repeat--the LWR designs and Chernobyl have _nothing_ in common
other than sharing the word "nuclear".

If you had any idea of the differences, you would understand that.

And again, what was the accident mechanism in Chernobyl? Do you even
know what actually happened?

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

I made no such statement. If you want to have a discussion, at least
don't make stuff up and attempt to make me say things I didn't say.
This is the second time you've done this--to another respondent
previously I saw.

--

On Feb 28, 12:20*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

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

True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any
reasoned evaluation of the consequences.

There was no measurable offsite harm, no onsite injuries. *Nothing but
some damaged equipment. *How many other industries can have that as
their worst scenario after almost 40 years?

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

Again I repeat--the LWR designs and Chernobyl have _nothing_ in common
other than sharing the word "nuclear".

If you had any idea of the differences, you would understand that.

And again, what was the accident mechanism in Chernobyl? *Do you even
know what actually happened?

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

I made no such statement. *If you want to have a discussion, at least
don't make stuff up and attempt to make me say things I didn't say.
This is the second time you've done this--to another respondent
previously I saw.

--



As I previously pointed out, you could extend this fear mongering to
many things. Imagine the airplane having just been invented. You
could conjure up all kinds of images of impending doom. Planes
falling from the sky and killing hundreds at a time. Yet, we have 3
major airports withing a few miles of NYC. People fly every day and
it's recognized as the safest and most efficient means of
transportation.

We keep hearing Chernobyl. How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Look
on a map and they are completely rebuilt thriving cities today.

And the final hypocrisy with the fear mongers is this. The same
extremists that rail against nuclear power rail against just about
everything else. Global warming for example. We're suppose to
believe that life on the whole planet is in jeopardy, yet we're not
suppose to use nuclear power, which has close to zero green house
emissions. They have no solutions, only extreme positions.

dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

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

True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any
reasoned evaluation of the consequences.
....

I should also point out that the trend had already begun well before TMI
and the conclusion was already foregone -- TMI simply was the final
chapter in the story at the time.

The incessant harping on negatives by the anti-nuke activists and the
antagonism in the Carter Administration combined with the ability of the
environmentalists to wreak havoc in the licensing process by the misuse
of EPA and other subterfuges were sufficient impediments to the
economics to make the utilities look for either postponing expansion or
more expedient-at-the-time alternatives. Add into the mix, of course,
the cost of money owing to the out-of-control inflation at the time.

That short-sighted handling of circumstances led to where we are now --
massive reliance on what has now become very expensive natural-gas fired
units, old coal-fired units still on line 20-30 years after they would
have otherwise been retired in favor of cheaper and cleaner units (both
fossil- and nuclear-powered) and no comprehensive energy policy to this
day other than avoidance of the inevitable for the short-term.

All in all, not at all a good legacy for those on that side to look back on.

Irrational discussion of stuff as you posit here doesn't advance the
cause, either, so in many respects we're no better off after 30 years.

--

In article ,
wrote:

to sell movie tickets. I bet if you looked you would find out more
people have died falling off of wind turbines than died in US reactor
accidents. There certainly have been many thousand times the number
who have died in coal and oil related accidents.

Heck, as the bumper sticker said, more people have died in Teddy
Kennedy's car than from nuclear accidents. Sometimes I think Teddy poses
the greater danger to the country (g).

Hi,

I had the good fortune to work for a company that supplied parts for AECL
many years ago.
We got a tour of Bruce B, during its construction, and the then working
Bruce A plant.
We walked through what would be a reactor chamber, and really enjoyed the
professionalism, and had the safety systems explained to us, including
systems that were already in place, that had never been used. It was truly,
and quietly, impressive.

The ignorant should have just a little information before they start the
childish name-calling.
I'm not saying it's the best that can be done, but it's the best we have.

"dpb" wrote in message ...
dpb wrote:
wrote:
...

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

True, but the reaction was hysteria from folks like you, not from any
reasoned evaluation of the consequences.
...

I should also point out that the trend had already begun well before TMI
and the conclusion was already foregone -- TMI simply was the final
chapter in the story at the time.

The incessant harping on negatives by the anti-nuke activists and the
antagonism in the Carter Administration combined with the ability of the
environmentalists to wreak havoc in the licensing process by the misuse of
EPA and other subterfuges were sufficient impediments to the economics to
make the utilities look for either postponing expansion or more
expedient-at-the-time alternatives. Add into the mix, of course, the cost
of money owing to the out-of-control inflation at the time.

That short-sighted handling of circumstances led to where we are now --
massive reliance on what has now become very expensive natural-gas fired
units, old coal-fired units still on line 20-30 years after they would
have otherwise been retired in favor of cheaper and cleaner units (both
fossil- and nuclear-powered) and no comprehensive energy policy to this
day other than avoidance of the inevitable for the short-term.

All in all, not at all a good legacy for those on that side to look back
on.

Irrational discussion of stuff as you posit here doesn't advance the
cause, either, so in many respects we're no better off after 30 years.

--