On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life, it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.


I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?


Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs
General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to,
and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people
worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like
most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't
advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal
accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero. Besides the
Hudson ditching, several recent accidents had all (or almost all)
survive.

The point is that on a 500 mile trip to Grandma's house, you're
significantly more likely to have an 18-wheeler plow into you head-on
(for which the survival rate is *really* close to 0) than to have your
airliner "drop out of the sky". One airliner crash makes the
worldwide news, but 1000 fatal car crashes don't.

As others have said, you're clouding facts with emotion, which is
clearly what you're doing on the nuclear power issue also...

Josh

On May 3, 1:08 pm, Josh wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"



wrote:
"Robert Neville" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life, it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs
General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to,
and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people
worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like
most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't
advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal
accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero.

Important to note here is the above 25-35% survival rate is for
accidents that have AT LEAST ONE FATALITY. So, obviously, when you
include accidents that have NO fatalities, the survival rate for all
accidents is going to be substantially higher. There are plenty of
accidents where an aircraft has an accident, like landing long and
going off the end of runway, where everyone walks away.








Besides the
Hudson ditching, several recent accidents had all (or almost all)
survive.

The point is that on a 500 mile trip to Grandma's house, you're
significantly more likely to have an 18-wheeler plow into you head-on
(for which the survival rate is *really* close to 0) than to have your
airliner "drop out of the sky". One airliner crash makes the
worldwide news, but 1000 fatal car crashes don't.

As others have said, you're clouding facts with emotion, which is
clearly what you're doing on the nuclear power issue also...

Josh

wrote in message
...
On May 3, 12:23 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Robert Neville" wrote in message

...



"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life,
it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close
enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the
rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

That's just plain false. The survival rate for airplane crashes is
most definitely NOT close to zero. There are frequently crashes
where a plane skids off a runway, lands long and overruns the runway,
strikes another while taxing on the ground, etc and either everyone
lives or a small percentage perish. You're simply focusing on the
attention getting headlines of the truly catastrophic accidents and
ignoring the others.

What percentage of crashes fall into either of those categories? I don't
have the number handy, but you obviously do, since you just made such a
powerful statement.


As others have asked, what exactly is your point? To conjure up as
much FUD regarding everything as possible?

Sorry to disturb your nap.

The point is that one must ALWAYS consider the source of statistics before
assuming their meaning is perfect. The airline industry is correct with its
"per miles flown" routine. But that doesn't speak to the issue of survival
rates, which you will help with when you come up with the number I asked you
for above.

One must also look at history before assigning importance to stats from
certain sources. For example, we know for a fact that the airline industry
(and others) compare the cost of improving safety to the cost of litigation,
and make certain improvements (or not) based on this equation. Do you feel
this colors the statistical statements made by the airline industry?

"Josh" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
. ..
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life,
it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.


I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close
enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the
rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?


Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs
General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to,
and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people
worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like
most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't
advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal
accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero. Besides the
Hudson ditching, several recent accidents had all (or almost all)
survive.

The point is that on a 500 mile trip to Grandma's house, you're
significantly more likely to have an 18-wheeler plow into you head-on
(for which the survival rate is *really* close to 0) than to have your
airliner "drop out of the sky". One airliner crash makes the
worldwide news, but 1000 fatal car crashes don't.

As others have said, you're clouding facts with emotion, which is
clearly what you're doing on the nuclear power issue also...

Josh



No emotion here at all. I'm referring to flights like this one, which are
not unusual:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._aircrash.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/dissection.html

While you're at the second linked page, scroll down to "Taking action - and
not", and look at the picture to the right of that paragraph.

"To investigators' surprise, the aircraft's thermal insulation blankets,
which had passed an FAA test for fire safety, readily ignited in a test
conducted during the crash investigation.

Tell me how the material passed the FAA's fire safety test once, but failed
later. Give me all the reasons you can imagine.

wrote in message
...
On May 3, 1:08 pm, Josh wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"



wrote:
"Robert Neville" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life,
it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close
enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the
rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs
General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to,
and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people
worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like
most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't
advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal
accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero.

Important to note here is the above 25-35% survival rate is for
accidents that have AT LEAST ONE FATALITY. So, obviously, when you
include accidents that have NO fatalities, the survival rate for all
accidents is going to be substantially higher. There are plenty of
accidents where an aircraft has an accident, like landing long and
going off the end of runway, where everyone walks away.


Right. Now, compare that to incidents where the plane falls out of the sky,
like Swiss Air 111.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
...I assume complacency on the part of regulators.
....

When you've actually been through onsite inspection, testified in front
ACRS or in other NRC hearings under oath, qualified for and passed SRO
exam or any other actual piece of quantitative accomplishment in the
area, _THEN_ I might take some heed.

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
...I assume complacency on the part of regulators.
...

When you've actually been through onsite inspection, testified in front
ACRS or in other NRC hearings under oath, qualified for and passed SRO
exam or any other actual piece of quantitative accomplishment in the area,
_THEN_ I might take some heed.

--


Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they don't
change history. I know there's a certain type of person who loves to ignore
history, and that type of person should not participate in discussions like
these. Faith has no place in this type of discussion, nor does defensiveness
stemming from pride in one's work.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they don't
change history. ...

And the history is _still_ [0] in the numerator for deaths/serious
injuries from nuclear-related causes in commercial LWRs.

If the NRC and its inspectors really were so ineffective and such a
stooge of the industry as your attempts to make it seem, and the
industry operators and reactor vendors were also so incompetent and
hell-bent to melt down their (rather large) investments, how can you
explain the observable result?

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they don't
change history. ...

And the history is _still_ [0] in the numerator for deaths/serious
injuries from nuclear-related causes in commercial LWRs.

If the NRC and its inspectors really were so ineffective and such a stooge
of the industry as your attempts to make it seem, and the industry
operators and reactor vendors were also so incompetent and hell-bent to
melt down their (rather large) investments, how can you explain the
observable result?


Of course I can: Who really knows how close we came to serious incidents?
Even the NYT article suggests that the condition of buried pipes seemed to
come as somewhat of a surprise, and that backup measures MAY not have worked
according to plan had things gotten worse.

Back to the faith issue: Do you believe that industry ***NEVER*** meddlies
with regulatory agencies?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

Absolutely.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
Of course I can: Who really knows how close we came to serious incidents?
....

That's raising a different question and not answering the one raised --
your favorite tactic, it seems.

The question raised is _HOW_ w/ if it were so poorly designed, regulated
and operated as you seem to believe have there not been rampant injuries
and deaths already?

As for the "NEVER" question, I never say never. I would say the
difference is in frequency and level and specifically w/ NRC which is
where my experience is. In 30+ years I've not run across a case in
which I thought it was a contributing factor, no.

I've had lots of times I've had serious disagreements and protracted
battles over particular issues but have always had them eventually
resolved in a manner in which I think were completely aboveboard.

Back to using airplanes as examples, it's only the crash that makes
news, not the thousands of safe landings every day that are reported.
Only the rare occurrence is worth reporting; you simply latch onto each
and every one of them as if they were the ordinary instead of the
extraordinary.

--

On May 3, 1:33 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:
"Josh" wrote in message

...



On Sun, 3 May 2009 12:23:22 -0400, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
. ..
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life,
it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close
enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the
rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

Care to cite that? Let's separate out commercial airline travel vs
General Aviation (GA fatality rates per passenger mile are closer to,
and possibly higher, than auto travel, but that's not what most people
worry about when they're deciding how to make a given trip, just like
most of us advocating safe industrial nuclear power plants aren't
advocating personal "Mr. Fission" machines). From:

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm

The "Survival rate of passengers on aircraft involved in fatal
accidents carrying 10+ passengers" is ~25-35%. Not zero. Besides the
Hudson ditching, several recent accidents had all (or almost all)
survive.

The point is that on a 500 mile trip to Grandma's house, you're
significantly more likely to have an 18-wheeler plow into you head-on
(for which the survival rate is *really* close to 0) than to have your
airliner "drop out of the sky". One airliner crash makes the
worldwide news, but 1000 fatal car crashes don't.

As others have said, you're clouding facts with emotion, which is
clearly what you're doing on the nuclear power issue also...

Josh

No emotion here at all. I'm referring to flights like this one, which are
not unusual:

Emotion, no, of course not. LOL. You just substitute relying on a
couple of the most horrifying and tragic aircrashes instead of looking
at statistics that cover ALL or at least a reasonable number of
aircraft accidents. And then you make the outrageous claim that the
chance of surviving an aircraft accident is close to zero. The other
poster just showed you statistics that show the actual rate is more
like 30% for ACCIDENTS THAT INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE FATALITY. Meaning
the survival rate for all aircraft accidents is obviously way higher
than that, because there are plenty of them where there are NO
fatalities.

So. OK, you're not emotional, just stupid. Feel better?



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._aircrash.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/dissection.html

While you're at the second linked page, scroll down to "Taking action - and
not", and look at the picture to the right of that paragraph.

"To investigators' surprise, the aircraft's thermal insulation blankets,
which had passed an FAA test for fire safety, readily ignited in a test
conducted during the crash investigation.

Tell me how the material passed the FAA's fire safety test once, but failed
later. Give me all the reasons you can imagine.

Which all has zippo to do with what the historical statistical chances
are of surviving an aircraft accident, which you claimed is close to
zero. You really should just stop embarrassing yourself. You have
such an incredible capacity to not even try to understand the basics
of how to analyze anything objectively, analytically, or
scientifically, that all you have are unfounded opinions and
beliefs. Feel free to spout those all you want, but don't try to
pass them off as in any way grounded in reality. You think after
claiming that the chance of surviving an aircraft accident is close to
zero that anyone here is going to believe what you have to say about
nuclear power plants or anything else?

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



Yes. Anyone can come up with feel-good statistics, like "5000
reactor-years". However, the NYT article gives a hint as to why that
statistic is hard to feel good about.

I read it. Yo have to have some metric. Otherwise we should just
decide that everything might do something catastrophic so lets not do
anything. NYT to be suggesting that becuase something might happen then
it is something that should not be done. Everything, NYT
notwithstanding, is a balance of risk.


Before you type your response, keep in mind (AGAIN) that I am not opposed to
nuclear power at all.
I am having more and more trouble reconciling that with your
statements.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Of course I can: Who really knows how close we came to serious incidents?
...

That's raising a different question and not answering the one raised --
your favorite tactic, it seems.

The question raised is _HOW_ w/ if it were so poorly designed, regulated
and operated as you seem to believe have there not been rampant injuries
and deaths already?

As for the "NEVER" question, I never say never. I would say the
difference is in frequency and level and specifically w/ NRC which is
where my experience is. In 30+ years I've not run across a case in which
I thought it was a contributing factor, no.

I've had lots of times I've had serious disagreements and protracted
battles over particular issues but have always had them eventually
resolved in a manner in which I think were completely aboveboard.

Back to using airplanes as examples, it's only the crash that makes news,
not the thousands of safe landings every day that are reported. Only the
rare occurrence is worth reporting; you simply latch onto each and every
one of them as if they were the ordinary instead of the extraordinary.


Two things:

"To investigators' surprise, the aircraft's thermal insulation blankets,
which had passed an FAA test for fire safety, readily ignited in a test
conducted during the crash investigation."

"Now, what do we have in the airline industry? We have what I would call a
confederacy of complacency with respect to in-flight fire detection and
suppression. The National Transportation Safety Board has said that we need
an integrated firefighting philosophy on airplanes. Yet we've got spaces
that we don't have access to that are not protectable by fire detection or
suppression. So the hazard continues to this day."

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



What percentage of crashes fall into either of those categories? I don't
have the number handy, but you obviously do, since you just made such a
powerful statement.


CNN Quoting the NTSB:
But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in
airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you
look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the
survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the
point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board]
analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people
were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,00.html?imw=Y


The point is that one must ALWAYS consider the source of statistics before
assuming their meaning is perfect. The airline industry is correct with its
"per miles flown" routine. But that doesn't speak to the issue of survival
rates, which you will help with when you come up with the number I asked you
for above.
Which are very good.



One must also look at history before assigning importance to stats from
certain sources. For example, we know for a fact that the airline industry
(and others) compare the cost of improving safety to the cost of litigation,
and make certain improvements (or not) based on this equation. Do you feel
this colors the statistical statements made by the airline industry?
Yeah, at least as much as the other side's every life if worth
anything.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

In article , dpb wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they don't
change history. ...

And the history is _still_ [0] in the numerator for deaths/serious
injuries from nuclear-related causes in commercial LWRs.

As the bumpersticker notes, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy's
car than in nuclear accidents.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:



What percentage of crashes fall into either of those categories? I don't
have the number handy, but you obviously do, since you just made such a
powerful statement.


CNN Quoting the NTSB:
But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in
airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you
look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the
survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the
point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board]
analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people
were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,00.html?imw=Y


The point is that one must ALWAYS consider the source of statistics
before
assuming their meaning is perfect. The airline industry is correct with
its
"per miles flown" routine. But that doesn't speak to the issue of
survival
rates, which you will help with when you come up with the number I asked
you
for above.
Which are very good.


OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do nothing.

Definition of nothing: "We'll have it fixed by (now + 10 years)".

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article , dpb wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Your acronyms are fun and maybe even slightly impressive, but they
don't
change history. ...

And the history is _still_ [0] in the numerator for deaths/serious
injuries from nuclear-related causes in commercial LWRs.

As the bumpersticker notes, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy's
car than in nuclear accidents.


Heck - I'll play too:

4000+ dead soldiers in Iraq is nothing compared to the number of deaths in
auto accidents in the same period of time.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do nothing.

Sorry, Joe. Once again you seem to have an unusual grasp on reality. From a PBS
Nova special: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/safer.html Note in
particular the last two sentences.


Swissair Flight 111 | September 2, 1998

This flight on an MD-11 plummeted into the sea off Nova Scotia, Canada, while
traveling from New York to Geneva at night. All 229 people on board were killed.
The crash occurred after the pilot radioed that there was smoke in the cockpit
and requested an emergency landing. As he dumped the aircraft's fuel, vectored
for a runway at Halifax's airport, and reported an escalation of the emergency,
Flight 111 disappeared from radar. After a four-and-a-half-year investigation,
which revealed evidence of an in-flight fire above the cockpit caused by faulty
wiring and fueled by flammable airframe insulation, Canada's Transportation
Safety Board published its final recommendations. These included toughening
flammability standards for all materials used in airplanes and more stringent
testing and certification of electrical wires. The FAA ultimately issued an
order requiring the replacement of insulation in 700 commercial jetliners in the
U.S., including every MD-11 in service. At least 500 other MD-11s worldwide were
also modified.

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

In otherwords you aren't looking for anything that might actually be
indicative of the safety of the entire industry, just that which
reinforces your ideas. You want to look at only those flights that ditch
in the sea and kill everyone on board.



Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do nothing.

The FAA and NTSB would tend to disagree. From the Wiki (and the actual
report from Canada's NTSB_equivalent.'
"TSB Recommendations
The TSB made nine recommendations relating to changes in aircraft
materials (testing, certification, inspection and maintenance),
electrical systems, and flight data capture. (Both flight recorders
stopped when they lost power six minutes before impact.) General
recommendations were also made regarding improvements in checklists and
in fire-detection and fire-fighting equipment and training. These
recommendations have led to widespread changes in FAA standards,
principally impacting wiring and fire hardening.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...h0003/01report
/index.asp#a5



--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in
mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do
nothing.

Sorry, Joe. Once again you seem to have an unusual grasp on reality. From
a PBS
Nova special: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/safer.html Note in
particular the last two sentences.


Swissair Flight 111 | September 2, 1998

This flight on an MD-11 plummeted into the sea off Nova Scotia, Canada,
while
traveling from New York to Geneva at night. All 229 people on board were
killed.
The crash occurred after the pilot radioed that there was smoke in the
cockpit
and requested an emergency landing. As he dumped the aircraft's fuel,
vectored
for a runway at Halifax's airport, and reported an escalation of the
emergency,
Flight 111 disappeared from radar. After a four-and-a-half-year
investigation,
which revealed evidence of an in-flight fire above the cockpit caused by
faulty
wiring and fueled by flammable airframe insulation, Canada's
Transportation
Safety Board published its final recommendations. These included
toughening
flammability standards for all materials used in airplanes and more
stringent
testing and certification of electrical wires. The FAA ultimately issued
an
order requiring the replacement of insulation in 700 commercial jetliners
in the
U.S., including every MD-11 in service. At least 500 other MD-11s
worldwide were
also modified.


I'll have to track the timeline of the PBS story I read, since it contains
this:

"We're presently having new airplanes designed, they're on the drawing
board. Boeing has one. Airbus has what they call the Airbus 380, which is
going to be a 550-passenger airplane. The regulations haven't changed. They
do not have to provide any more fire detection or fire protection than we
had on Swissair 111."

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in
mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

In otherwords you aren't looking for anything that might actually be
indicative of the safety of the entire industry, just that which
reinforces your ideas. You want to look at only those flights that ditch
in the sea and kill everyone on board.



Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement
on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do
nothing.

The FAA and NTSB would tend to disagree. From the Wiki (and the actual
report from Canada's NTSB_equivalent.'
"TSB Recommendations
The TSB made nine recommendations relating to changes in aircraft
materials (testing, certification, inspection and maintenance),
electrical systems, and flight data capture. (Both flight recorders
stopped when they lost power six minutes before impact.) General
recommendations were also made regarding improvements in checklists and
in fire-detection and fire-fighting equipment and training. These
recommendations have led to widespread changes in FAA standards,
principally impacting wiring and fire hardening.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...h0003/01report
/index.asp#a5


"We're presently having new airplanes designed, they're on the drawing
board. Boeing has one. Airbus has what they call the Airbus 380, which is
going to be a 550-passenger airplane. The regulations haven't changed. They
do not have to provide any more fire detection or fire protection than we
had on Swissair 111."

You are quoting the statement of one individual, a pilots union rep, the
validity of which has been has been severely challenged. A pertinent paragraph
follows, but you can read the entire transcript of the 2004 TV program you
watched here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html

as well as the program update that rebuts Adams statements he
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html


From the previous link - note the last sentence:

Finally, both the FAA and an independent expert contradict a statement by Ken
Adams. In the program, Adams, who represented the Air Line Pilots Association
during the investigation, claimed that regulations have not changed and new
planes such as the Boeing 7E7 and Airbus 380 do not have to provide any more
fire detection or fire protection than on Flight 111. According to the FAA, a
more stringent flammability test has been mandated for newly built aircraft, and
the requirement takes effect in September 2005. Both the new Boeing and Airbus
planes will have advanced electrical-system protection and will feature low
flammability materials.



Bottom line is that your attemp to claim that nuclear power generation is an
unacceptible risk because of unknown failure modes isn't supported by pointing
to airline accidents.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
Two things:

....
Neither of which have anything in the world to do w/ the NRC nor
commercial nuclear power.

QED

--

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Robert Neville" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life, it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

No, I do not - I find some significant fraction of airplane crashes to
have survivors.

If airplane crashes were inherently unsurvivable, flammability or flame
retardance of questioned parts of the aircraft mentioned earlier in
this thread would not matter.

I find the Hudson River crash-landing to be exceptional only for being
such a newsnoted-severe case of a "crash landing" of an aircraft having
over 100 passengers and fatality percentage *zero*.

Other times large aircraft made crash landings other than on water, with
high survival rate.

Aircraft crashes with zero survival tend to be the rare bad crashes,
along or close to along lines of "dropping out of the sky", with loss of
ability to glide.
Certified airplane pilots are certified to show ability to safely land
an airplane with zero engine thrust, in case of an airplane having
complete loss of engine thrust within glide range of a runway.

BTW - I have been told that USA's FAA has power to approve or disapprove
use of specific aircraft for commercial carrying of passengers over large
bodies of water. As I hear it, commercial jetliners flying over large
bodies of water have to either take paths allowing gliding onto a land
landing from anywhere in their paths that is subject to FAA regulation, or
else show "sufficient reliability" for FAA to exempt that specific
aircraft from only flying where it can glide onto land from with zero
engine thrust.

I still wonder what that means for trans-continental flights, though it
appears to me that most flights from USA to Europe take paths close enough
to eastern stretches of Canada, Iceland, and Ireland to handle fuel
emergencies. If this issue was "so important", then Denmark would build
some sort of airport in a southern or southwestern location in Greenland.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What percentage of crashes fall into either of those categories? I don't
have the number handy, but you obviously do, since you just made such a
powerful statement.

CNN Quoting the NTSB:
But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in
airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you
look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the
survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the
point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board]
analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people
were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,00.html?imw=Y

The point is that one must ALWAYS consider the source of statistics before
assuming their meaning is perfect. The airline industry is correct with its
"per miles flown" routine. But that doesn't speak to the issue of survival
rates, which you will help with when you come up with the number I asked
you for above.
Which are very good.

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do nothing.

Definition of nothing: "We'll have it fixed by (now + 10 years)".

Can you name your "OTHERS LIKE IT" as in similarity to Swiss Air 111?

Closest to that I can think of is the Florida crash of a flight by
what was then ValuJet, now AirTran. That flight led to an "alligator
joke", and appears to me to be caused by cargo hazardously performing a
function that is a bit risky while being carried as cargo - as opposed to
being cargo intended to be passive as cargo is normally expected to be.

It appears to me that flashlights in "checked luggage" need to have
their batteries removed and unable to conect to anything. Switches in
"off position" appear to me insufficient disconnection according to rules
that appear to me considering possibility of switches being bumped into
"on position".
And temperature rise of a battery-powered device may rise past what it
was intended to survive if it is surrounded by luggage,
and the battery-powered non-passive or possibly-non-passive cargo is not
known to be non-hazardous unless worst-case condition for such
battery-powered equipment (including failure and malfunction modes) is
"sufficiently demonstrated" "through whatever official channels" to be
"officially safe".
It sounds to me that air cargo needs to be reliably safe from igniting a
surrounding pile of "teddy bears".

- Don Klipstein )

"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Two things:

...
Neither of which have anything in the world to do w/ the NRC nor
commercial nuclear power.

QED


They do unless you believe one agency is miraculously immune to the "quirks"
which are typical in all other government agencies.

On May 3, 11:41*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Robert Neville" wrote in message
.. .
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Are you impressed when people say "Per miles traveled , there are less
accidents with airplanes than with cars."?

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per
passenger
mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial
aircraft."
But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important
decisions.

This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life, it's
worth
it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote
for.

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough
to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare
exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?

* No, I do not - I find some significant fraction of airplane crashes to
have survivors.

* If airplane crashes were inherently unsurvivable, flammability or flame
retardance of questioned parts of the aircraft mentioned earlier in
this thread would not matter.

* I find the Hudson River crash-landing to be exceptional only for being
such a newsnoted-severe case of a "crash landing" of an aircraft having
over 100 passengers and fatality percentage *zero*.

* Other times large aircraft made crash landings other than on water, with
high survival rate.

* Aircraft crashes with zero survival tend to be the rare bad crashes,
along or close to along lines of "dropping out of the sky", with loss of
ability to glide.
* Certified airplane pilots are certified to show ability to safely land
an airplane with zero engine thrust, in case of an airplane having
complete loss of engine thrust within glide range of a runway.

* BTW - I have been told that USA's FAA has power to approve or disapprove
use of specific aircraft for commercial carrying of passengers over large
bodies of water. *As I hear it, commercial jetliners flying over large
bodies of water have to either take paths allowing gliding onto a land
landing from anywhere in their paths that is subject to FAA regulation, or
else show "sufficient reliability" for FAA to exempt that specific
aircraft from only flying where it can glide onto land from with zero
engine thrust.

* I still wonder what that means for trans-continental flights, though it
appears to me that most flights from USA to Europe take paths close enough
to eastern stretches of Canada, Iceland, and Ireland to handle fuel
emergencies. *If this issue was "so important", then Denmark would build
some sort of airport in a southern or southwestern location in Greenland.

*- Don Klipstein )


I never heard of any reqt for commercial airliners flying over water
to be able to glide without any power to land. They definitely were
required to have 3 or more engines, until the 1990's. When the 757
and 767 entered service it became extremely desirable for economic
reasons for these two engine jets to be certified to fly over
water. After reviewing decades of actual data on engine
reliability, the FAA certified these planes for 2 engine operation.

Joe would probably see that as a deeply sinister move, some kind of
collusion between industry and regulators. Most folks that looked
at the facts instead of relying on emotion, would see it as a very
reasonable decision that is saving us a lot of money on airline
tickets. Same thing with going to a 2 man cockpit. And history has
proven the soundness of the decision. There hasn't been a single
crash that I've ever heard of attributed to granting either of those
certifications.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...
Two things:

...
Neither of which have anything in the world to do w/ the NRC nor
commercial nuclear power.

QED


They do unless you believe one agency is miraculously immune to the "quirks"
which are typical in all other government agencies.

They don't and I don't but...

I've already agreed people are people (and agencies and all other
entities involved are comprised of people, they're not monolithic
entities w/ some sort of inherent sentience you seem to provide them)
and therefore susceptible to foibles of same as well as provided with
the wherewithal to resist such.

While the investigation arm of the FAA is as good as it gets, there have
been shortcomings on the regulation side although again I'd submit their
overall record ain't all that bad and you're again making each and every
overall isolated incident into inferring essentially everything is
corrupted which just isn't so even there.

That said, yes, my experience with the NRC has led me to conclude it is,
indeed different from and better than most other agencies. That comes,
I believe, from two primary causes -- first off, it has a heritage that
encompasses a mentality that it is important and secondly, as compared
to the FAA and for commercial reactor safety in particular the subject
here it has a much narrower realm of concentration to focus upon that
makes their task somewhat easier.

But, overall, the results speak for themselves as to the effectiveness
of the oversight program. Perfect? Of course not. Pretty darn good?
You betcha'...

Remember, the numerator is still [0] and the denominator (in whatever
units you choose to select) is increasing daily.

--

"Robert Neville" wrote in message
...

You are quoting the statement of one individual, a pilots union rep, the
validity of which has been has been severely challenged. A pertinent
paragraph
follows, but you can read the entire transcript of the 2004 TV program you
watched here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html

as well as the program update that rebuts Adams statements he
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html


From the previous link - note the last sentence:

Finally, both the FAA and an independent expert contradict a statement by
Ken
Adams. In the program, Adams, who represented the Air Line Pilots
Association
during the investigation, claimed that regulations have not changed and
new
planes such as the Boeing 7E7 and Airbus 380 do not have to provide any
more
fire detection or fire protection than on Flight 111. According to the
FAA, a
more stringent flammability test has been mandated for newly built
aircraft, and
the requirement takes effect in September 2005. Both the new Boeing and
Airbus
planes will have advanced electrical-system protection and will feature
low
flammability materials.


I wonder if existing aircraft will be retrofitted.

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

What percentage of crashes fall into either of those categories? I
don't
have the number handy, but you obviously do, since you just made such a
powerful statement.

CNN Quoting the NTSB:
But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in
airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you
look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the
survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the
point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board]
analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people
were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...,00.html?imw=Y

The point is that one must ALWAYS consider the source of statistics
before
assuming their meaning is perfect. The airline industry is correct with
its
"per miles flown" routine. But that doesn't speak to the issue of
survival
rates, which you will help with when you come up with the number I
asked
you for above.
Which are very good.

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in
mind
were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.

OTHERS LIKE IT.

Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash
because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably
not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the
hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on
the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline
industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do
nothing.

Definition of nothing: "We'll have it fixed by (now + 10 years)".

Can you name your "OTHERS LIKE IT" as in similarity to Swiss Air 111?


My version of "similarity" for purposes of this discussion is "big plane,
falls from sky, no survivors".

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

The consequences (or lack thereof) of TMI-II are ample empirical evidence.

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

That is a ridiculous standard to which no industrial process can be
held and expected to pass. In other words, it is a strawman
argument.

"trag" wrote in message
...


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

The consequences (or lack thereof) of TMI-II are ample empirical
evidence.

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

That is a ridiculous standard to which no industrial process can be
held and expected to pass. In other words, it is a strawman
argument.



Further along in the discussion, a NY Times article pointed out a corroded
underground pipe which nobody (apparently) expected. This was at an actual
nuclear power plant. Strawman?

Is there a water authority worker anywhere on earth who's never heard of
corroded underground pipes?

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

I wonder if existing aircraft will be retrofitted.

It depends. In the case of the SR111 insulation blankets - yes, as was mentioned
in a previous posting.

In the case of other changes, each change is evaluated against the remaining
life of the aircraft and the proibability of occurance. If it makes sense and
can be done in an economical manner - and yes, it is a trade, then the changes
will be ordered.

trag wrote:

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

The consequences (or lack thereof) of TMI-II are ample empirical evidence.

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

That is a ridiculous standard to which no industrial process can be
held and expected to pass. In other words, it is a strawman
argument.

And, of course, that it's been pointed out to him that the analyses
aren't predicated on _HOW_ an initiating event occurs but postulated
that the core must be kept cool with the assumption of large and/or
small LOCAs occurring.

But, since that doesn't fit in with his need to make up "what if"
questions, he ignores the point that it doesn't specifically matter
"how". Hence the reversion to other areas as scare tactics.

I don't know if he really believes all this or simply likes to pretend
there are goblins in the dark under his bed or just likes trolling.

I sorta' think it's a little of "all of the above".

And, of course, to engage in a little (more) of my own, I'm still
waiting for the name(s) of the utilities/operators that he claimed
earlier haven't taken their station security plans seriously so _I_ can
report their deficiencies if Joe won't. (Or, of course, an admission
that he simply threw a grenade over the wall as I suspect with no regard
for facts...)

--

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

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

The consequences (or lack thereof) of TMI-II are ample empirical
evidence.

My point is that we really don't know every possible disaster scenario
connected with nuclear power plants. There are people who claim
otherwise,
but it wasn't that long ago that airplanes took down a couple of office
buildings, which nobody really expected.

That is a ridiculous standard to which no industrial process can be
held and expected to pass. In other words, it is a strawman
argument.

And, of course, that it's been pointed out to him that the analyses aren't
predicated on _HOW_ an initiating event occurs but postulated that the
core must be kept cool with the assumption of large and/or small LOCAs
occurring.

But, since that doesn't fit in with his need to make up "what if"
questions, he ignores the point that it doesn't specifically matter "how".
Hence the reversion to other areas as scare tactics.

I don't know if he really believes all this or simply likes to pretend
there are goblins in the dark under his bed or just likes trolling.

I sorta' think it's a little of "all of the above".

And, of course, to engage in a little (more) of my own, I'm still waiting
for the name(s) of the utilities/operators that he claimed earlier haven't
taken their station security plans seriously so _I_ can report their
deficiencies if Joe won't. (Or, of course, an admission that he simply
threw a grenade over the wall as I suspect with no regard for facts...)


Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated
underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/ny...pagewanted=all

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated
underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.
I, for one would agree. Would you agree "Entergy and the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor
could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup
systems, although operators generally avoid using both."
and "They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after
the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap
water, posed no environmental threat."
Thus an unforeseen problem was discovered, contained, fixed, and ways
to address this concern is being looked at. In other words, there was no
safety issue at all at any time and thus a non issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/ny...ce&pagewanted=
all

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated
underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.
I, for one would agree. Would you agree "Entergy and the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor
could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup
systems, although operators generally avoid using both."
and "They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after
the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap
water, posed no environmental threat."
Thus an unforeseen problem was discovered, contained, fixed, and ways
to address this concern is being looked at. In other words, there was no
safety issue at all at any time and thus a non issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/ny...ce&pagewanted=
all



I have no issues with the cleanliness of the water. Now, read the rest of
the article.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
....
Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated
underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.

It doesn't really matter...there were (as the article correctly points
out and you conveniently ignore) redundant safety systems in place.

To repeat and reiterate yet again the oft-repeated, that's the entire
point of the design process--if one builds in redundancy against
_CONSEQUENCES_ then one removes the need to project _HOW_ any particular
threat is initiated as one has already incorporated the necessary
systems to avoid the end result to be avoid (namely, core melt).

And, extensive FEMA have been done for these systems wherein essentially
every component/subsystem in all safely-related systems have been
analyzed for their impact on the plant operation and safety systems.
That again is a procedure wherein it is not assumed what might cause a
component/system to fail, it is simply assumed that it has failed and
the consequences thereof analyzed and if initially unacceptable, design
modifications and are/were made to handle it. So, we really don't care
whether somebody thought of a particular manner in which a particular
pipe fails, more likely than not the effects of that pipe having
arbitrarily failed have been analyzed. About the only instance where
that wouldn't be true would be for tertiary systems that are not safety
related.

Beyond that, as simply one example, I myself was involved in several
18-24 month long efforts to evaluate the effects of loss of power DC
power to the plant ICS (Integrated Control System; the
non-safety-related system that is the routine control system during
normal operation. "Safety-related" in reactor jargon has a specific
meaning that it is one of the systems required to cause a plant trip or
to bring the plant to safe shutdown conditions; not the systems in play
in normal operation. IOW, they are the redundant systems spoken of in
the Times article you're so fond of.) Anyway, there are several hundred
modules in the ICS and we went through and evaluated what happened if
each one of them were to fail. After we were done, as a QA, the plant
operator made a random selection from the data base and actually
simulated the failure of a number of components to see what actually did
happen. That's laying one's reputation/qualifications on the line.
When you can say you've had some even remotely approaching that kind of
experience and were successful, _THEN_ I'll lend some credence to your
arguments.

And again, who were/are the utilities/operators who aren't fulfilling
their obligations wrt security that you claimed earlier? If there
were/are any and actually are shortfalls, that would be a far more
serious concern than anything else you've managed to dredge up so far.

--

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

Would you agree that the NYT article suggested that the deteriorated
underground pipe was unexpected? Here's the article again.
I, for one would agree. Would you agree "Entergy and the federal
Nuclear Regulatory Commission emphasized that the Indian Point reactor
could still have been shut down safely with either of two other backup
systems, although operators generally avoid using both."
and "They also stressed that the supply pipe was quickly repaired after
the leak was found and that the water itself, which is cleaner than tap
water, posed no environmental threat."
Thus an unforeseen problem was discovered, contained, fixed, and ways
to address this concern is being looked at. In other words, there was no
safety issue at all at any time and thus a non issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/ny...ience&pagewant
ed=
all



I have no issues with the cleanliness of the water. Now, read the rest of
the article.

I read the whole thing. You want to ignore the good parts (could have
been shut down with alternate methods, found quickly, fixed, no escape)
and turn corroding pipes into a movie starring Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon
and Michael Douglas.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke