On 2011-03-16, dpb wrote:

unfortunately, but the misinformation and assertions far outweigh the
actual facts.

So I, and everyone else, are supposed to assume 60 Minutes and
wikipedia and myself and my family are all lying and only you have the
true facts. Sorry pal, but I don't know you from spit.

nb

On 3/16/2011 5:36 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2011-03-16, wrote:

unfortunately, but the misinformation and assertions far outweigh the
actual facts.

So I, and everyone else, are supposed to assume 60 Minutes and
wikipedia and myself and my family are all lying and only you have the
true facts. Sorry pal, but I don't know you from spit.

"Lying" is a little strong; "one-sided presentation" is generally the 60
Minutes way.

Didn't sa there were _zero_ instances of misbehavior; there are
miscreants in every area of human activity.

--

"Robert Green" wrote in
:

"dpb" wrote in message
...
On 3/15/2011 11:21 PM, Molly Brown wrote:
...
So what you're saying is that you would let your wife and two
children drive around in a

... even though it's outdated.

Ignore this bozo, Molly; he's totally wrong.

The CANDU reactor also has emergency core cooling systems and
requires core cooling after shutdown; see the earlier link I posted
that describes the systems.

The issue is that fission reactors of _ALL_ types produce fission
products (well, DOH! ) which are radioactive and therefore,
decay. The process of radioactive decay gives of heat as the decay
products are absorbed in the various materials of the reactor and
this gives rise to the (amazingly well-named ) decay heat which
must be removed even after the reactor is shut down.

The fission nuclear reaction has been shut down by "scramming" the
reactor and once so, that reaction does (essentially) cease. That is
no different in a LWR (BWR or PWR) as it is in the CANDU heavy water
design.

(I am, btw, degreed NucE w/ 30+ yrs in commercial nuclear generation
with both a reactor vendor and as consultant to power utilities,
various US national laboratories, US DOE and commercial clients)

This is all about money. Reactors *could* be built to withstand
tsunamis AND earthquakes but no one would be able to afford them.
It's only after disasters that business and governments are willing to
spend money on additional protections against theoretically rare
events.

I think the real problem here was believing the tsunami barriers would
work. It turns out they had multiple modes of failure. We do learn an
awful lot with each near meltdown. From what I've been reading,
designs subsequent to the GE MK1 have incorporated a lot of
improvements, much of it learned from failures at TMI and Chernobyl.
This accident will probably cause regulators to up the requirements
for cooling system survivability, armoring them up perhaps as much as
the reactor containment vessels. In all the designs I've seen posted
on the net, the cooling systems seem to be a pretty serious Achilles'
heel.

As a NucE, what would you say the worst case scenario is in the
Japanese crisis? What would it look like compared to Chernobyl?

--
Bobby G.

I believe Chernobyl is returning to normalcy now after 25 years. How
normal, I don't know. I wouldn't want to live there yet. Maybe in
another lifetime.

As a total layman, I'd say the bad situation in Japan depends on 2
things: If the cores don't melt down and they don't get exposed. nothing
much will happen apart from sick and dead nuclear plant workers - the
heroes here (hat off to them).

If one or more cores met down and get exposed, let us hope the wind will
blow all the radioactive stuff out over the ocean. You'd have to sample
the fish for radioactivity, but that'll be it. I don't think we'll get
scary mutant monsters.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/16/2011 5:04 PM, Robert Green wrote:
....

As a NucE, what would you say the worst case scenario is in the Japanese
crisis? What would it look like compared to Chernobyl?
....

A) Not enough hard data to be able to tell, realistically...

B) Unlikely imo to be nearly as bad owing to the major difference
between the reactor design and containment. At Chernobyl, since it was
a graphite-pile reactor they manage to actually catch the graphite
surrounding the fuel on fire and with no containment building around the
reactor at all (other than a metal-covered turbine/reactor building that
melted immediately), the whole release was straight to atmosphere.

Here, there is containment around the reactors themselves and afaict at
the moment the major problems w/ spent fuel storage pools.

But, I don't have any inside connections to find out what is actually
going on in sufficient detail to really be able to judge what the
situation is there. That one I do find a little puzzling but I don't
know the design of their pools.

So, overall, "I don't know"...whatever it is, they gots their hands
full...

--

On 2011-03-16, dpb wrote:

Didn't sa there were _zero_ instances of misbehavior; there are
miscreants in every area of human activity.

Look at the wikipedia page for USA reactors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors


....then look at all the one's "decommissioned" in the USA, then read
the dedicated pages. I quit after a half dozen cuz it was the same
story every time. Failures within a dozen yrs (Rancho Seco: 3!),
failure to meet stds, poor planning, jes plain bad mojo all the way
around. You can rationalize it any way you like, but the bottom line
is the US does shoddy work in an arena where lax standards, poor
planning, and inattention to detail are not only unacceptable, but
potentially catastrophically fatal.

Considering this country's traditional business ethic and how
mega-corps would rather shoot their own workers rather than pay 'em, I
hold little hope for the poor schlubs who are merely paying customers.

nb

Home Guy wrote:
Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical the way
that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE rectors
in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people in Japan that
can thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that keeps on giving.

Hmm. So far, no one has died (or even gotten sick) from the Japanese nuclear
power plants.

A pundit who studied Chernobyl for 30 years recently concluded that more
people died from WORRY over the events at Chernobyl than from radiation
poisoning or its aftermaths.

This worry manifested itself in agitation over relocation, heart disease,
Type II diabetes, consternation, upheavals, etc. There was a ten-fold
increase in abortions as women feared their children might be born with god
knows what.

It might be said, to coin a phrase, we have nothing to fear but fear.

On 3/16/2011 7:22 PM, notbob wrote:
On 2011-03-16, wrote:

Didn't sa there were _zero_ instances of misbehavior; there are
miscreants in every area of human activity.
....

... You can rationalize it any way you like, but the bottom line
is the US does shoddy work in an arena where lax standards, poor
planning, and inattention to detail are not only unacceptable, but
potentially catastrophically fatal.

Considering this country's traditional business ethic and how
mega-corps would rather shoot their own workers rather than pay 'em, I
hold little hope for the poor schlubs who are merely paying customers.
....

I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective output.

--

dpb wrote:

There are some differences but the really significant ones only
come into play over a longer time frame than an initial response
to an accident. And, of course, to date no CANDU has been tested
to see if the implementation holds for them in practice as well
as the theory...

When you look at the over-head pictures of the Japanese reactor sites,
they really don't look like they were swamped by a tsumai wave.

So I don't understand how or why their coolant circulation systems
failed. Seemingly not from mechanical / structural breakage.

On-site diesel electrical generation can be housed in water-tight
buildings and can operate for days or weeks - given a competent fuel
supply.

"Robert Green" wrote:

"dpb" wrote in message
...
On 3/15/2011 11:21 PM, Molly Brown wrote:

This is all about money. Reactors *could* be built to withstand tsunamis
AND earthquakes but no one would be able to afford them. It's only after
disasters that business and governments are willing to spend money on
additional protections against theoretically rare events.

I think the real problem here was believing the tsunami barriers would work.
It turns out they had multiple modes of failure. We do learn an awful lot
with each near meltdown. From what I've been reading, designs subsequent to
the GE MK1 have incorporated a lot of improvements, much of it learned from
failures at TMI and Chernobyl. This accident will probably cause regulators
to up the requirements for cooling system survivability, armoring them up
perhaps as much as the reactor containment vessels. In all the designs I've
seen posted on the net, the cooling systems seem to be a pretty serious
Achilles' heel.

Just a little clarification needed: I thought the best way to protect
any structure from earthquake damage was to "float" it. That is the
ground may move significantly side-to-side and up-and-down but as long
as the components of the building remained in the same relative
position there would be no catastrophic damage. The same principle
protects against other disasters such as hurricanes. Of course I'm
basing this on building code requirements for residential housing and
things may be more complex for very heavy and large structures such as
nuclear plants. Although enormous office buildings don't seem to come
crumbling down.

For tsunami's I presume the protection was some sort of physical
barrier between it and the sea although none of the reports I've seen
seem to talk about this. Why do reactors have to be built right next
to the ocean or river? Presumably they don't actually pump out
potentially contaminated water into the ocean/river but instead use it
as a giant heat sink. It would doubtless cost more if the reactor were
built on a bluff or even an artificial mountain/hill to elevate it 100
meters or so above sea level but in many parts of the country there
are plenty of areas where this could be done. Doubtless the pumping
would be more expensive but I'm unconvinced it would be prohibitive.

Same goes with the people. Based on the videos all the areas where the
tsunami wreaked havoc were on a large near-sea-level plain where
people would have had to run or drive miles to any sort of safety.
Just a requirement to dot hills around the place would seem to be life
saving for many.

Just a thought...

On Mar 16, 3:36*pm, notbob wrote:
On 2011-03-16, dpb wrote:

unfortunately, but the misinformation and assertions far outweigh the
actual facts.

So I, and everyone else, are supposed to assume 60 Minutes and
wikipedia and myself and my family are all lying and only you have the
true facts. *Sorry pal, but I don't know you from spit.

nb

And how well do you know the 60 minutes or the wikipedia folks?

I used to put a lot of credence in 60 Minutes until I happened to see
a couple "reports" on subject areas that I am an expert.
Bye, bye 60 Minutes' reputation. If they are wrong on the stuff I know
about, how can I trust them about the stuff I don't know about?

IMO, they "sold out" long ago.

I've had private conversations with dpb.
AHR readers should be happy that we have our own experienced, level
headed nuke expert.

Had my engineering career (started in 1975) taken a different turn, I
could have be the group's nuke expert.
That job at Westinghouse (Hanford, WA) had to do without me.

I've been silent on the whole Japan nuke problem, not my area of
expertise.

But I'm glad that dpb takes the time to give us the benefit of his
knowledge & experience.

The nuke "non-experts" in AHR should lay off the 60 minutes &
wikipedia stuff.
Read dpb's posts & learn.

cheers
Bob

PS Chernobyl & TMI were way different installations, events &
outcomes.
Chernobyl was "a nuke in a warehouse" and killed how many?
TMI killed how many?

To link these in the same discussion is to show one's lack of
knowledge of nukes.

On 3/16/2011 9:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical the way
that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE rectors
in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people in Japan that
can thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that keeps on giving.

Hmm. So far, no one has died (or even gotten sick) from the Japanese nuclear
power plants.


Always good to make jokes especially when you know that except in the
case of exposure to mega quantities of radiation health effects are not
instantaneous.


A pundit who studied Chernobyl for 30 years recently concluded that more
people died from WORRY over the events at Chernobyl than from radiation
poisoning or its aftermaths.


The FSU was really open about all of their doings so we can certainly
count on accurate statistics....





This worry manifested itself in agitation over relocation, heart disease,
Type II diabetes, consternation, upheavals, etc. There was a ten-fold
increase in abortions as women feared their children might be born with god
knows what.

It might be said, to coin a phrase, we have nothing to fear but fear.

DD_BobK wrote in news:d5513597-2273-4d47-8e5f-
:

PS Chernobyl & TMI were way different installations, events &
outcomes.
Chernobyl was "a nuke in a warehouse" and killed how many?
TMI killed how many?

To link these in the same discussion is to show one's lack of
knowledge of nukes.

That comparison was to indicate that design flaws and operator error
occurred, just like in the Japanese plant

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

What does this have to do with home repair? Unless the discussion
touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a reactor, then
this is the wrong newsgroup.

On 3/16/2011 8:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical the way
that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE rectors
in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people in Japan that
can thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that keeps on giving.

Hmm. So far, no one has died (or even gotten sick) from the Japanese nuclear
power plants.

A pundit who studied Chernobyl for 30 years recently concluded that more
people died from WORRY over the events at Chernobyl than from radiation
poisoning or its aftermaths.

This worry manifested itself in agitation over relocation, heart disease,
Type II diabetes, consternation, upheavals, etc. There was a ten-fold
increase in abortions as women feared their children might be born with god
knows what.

It might be said, to coin a phrase, we have nothing to fear but fear.

George wrote:
On 3/16/2011 9:02 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Home Guy wrote:
Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical the
way that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE
rectors in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people in
Japan that can thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that keeps on
giving.

Hmm. So far, no one has died (or even gotten sick) from the Japanese
nuclear power plants.


Always good to make jokes especially when you know that except in the
case of exposure to mega quantities of radiation health effects are
not instantaneous.



No joke. There are three possible bad effects from radiation:

* Radiation sickness - you either get over it or you die. There is no
lasting effect.
* Genetic mutation - there is no case on record of a mutated fetus surviving
to term.
* Cancer - Cancer is the most studied disease on the planet.

Next, there are no "mega quantities" of radiation in Japan (or at least none
reported).

The point the pundit was making is that there is a fourth deleterious health
effect: Fear. Fear, and the accompanying trepidation, causes heart problems,
psychological dysfunction, and irrational actions, such as tens of thousands
of elective abortions.

On 3/16/2011 8:37 PM, dpb wrote:
....

I prefer to look at the _OPERATING_ reactors and their collective output.
....

For 2007 thru the first 11 months of 2010, EIA production data for the
104 US reactors had average capacity factors of

2007 91.8%
2008 91.1
2009 90.3
2010 90.6% (Jan-Nov)

That 104 includes several plants I can recall otomh(+) of same
design/reactor vendor to Rancho Seco just to indicate the operations
there weren't inherently associated w/ the plant design itself.

(+) Oconee-1,-2,-3
Crystal River III
Arkansas Nuclear One-1
TMI-1 (99.4% 2008)
Davis-Besse (88.6% 2008)

--

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:23:08 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Han" wrote in message
.. .
Vic Smith wrote in
:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:46:11 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , Home Guy wrote:

That's when it's operating. A Candu core can be shut down without
needing a cooling system to remain functioning after shutdown.

This is the key point:

Just my cynicism, but I'm guessing that nuclear power just got shoved
back another 40 years. Yer average lay person doesn't give a damn about
facts, or science, or about how the reactors in Japan differ from the
ones you advocate. "Nuke" just resumed its status as a dirty word.

Might be a good guess if it really goes to hell in Japan.
I hope not.
Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years.

--Vic

Two things:
"Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years."
That's until now. We won't know until the stuff has cooled down and the
extent of contamination is known.

There are very expensive lessons to be learned from this quake and
tsunami. Especially on the West coast. Hopefully the lessons will
indeed be studied and acted upon, both the physical threats directly from
a tsunami, and the nuclear physics threats from misbehaviors of nuclear
plants.

I, too, hope that some important lessons will be learned here, especially
since we have serious earthquake vulnerability on the West Coast. But then
I think about what I thought we learned in Vietnam and where we are now and
I would say that in 25 years, nearly all lessons learned are forgotten
again. )-:

US wars are always to insure that wealthy Americans can invest abroad
safely. The soldiers are there to protect that investment. What was
the lesson from Vietnam? To continue to have wars overseas so that the
wealthy can make more money, but try to make sure that the outcome is
successful. The lesson was not to stop getting involved in foreign
wars.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:23:37 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I believe there is plenty of energy. The main
problem is the politicians and activists who
prevent the safe development and delivery of
energy.

Things like Obama and the drilling ban.

Wasn't there just some problem about drilling, I forget, something
about the gulf?

But yes, too many people. Be fruitful and multiply. Do not stop when
the planet gets full.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 09:27:31 -0400, Fuddy Dud
wrote:

Home Guy wrote:
Fuddy Dud wrote:

Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical
the way that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE
rectors in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people
in Japan that can thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that
keeps on giving.

That wasn't the problem. It was the back up generators and fuel
tanks that were taken out by the tsunami. No back up cooling,
not reactor design that is causing the problem.

It is the reactor design.

Even when all the control rods are inserted to stop the reaction, the
core still operates at 7% heat output - not zero percent. A constantly
operating coolant system must be available at all times to maintain this
type of reactor in a safe state, even during shut-down. Clearly in an
area prone to earth quakes and tsunami's, such a requirement seems to be
practically infeasible.

============
Canadian CANDU reactor overview:

The large thermal mass of the moderator provides a significant heat sink
that acts as an additional safety feature. If a fuel assembly were to
overheat and deform within its fuel channel, the resulting change of
geometry permits high heat transfer to the cool moderator, thus
preventing the breach of the fuel channel, and the possibility of a
meltdown. Furthermore, because of the use of natural uranium as fuel,
this reactor cannot sustain a chain reaction if its original fuel
channel geometry is altered in any significant manner.

Today there are 29 CANDU reactors in use around the world, and a further
13 "CANDU-derivatives" in use in India (these reactors were developed
from the CANDU design after India detonated a nuclear bomb in 1974 and
Canada stopped nuclear dealings with India). The countries the reactors
are located in a

* Canada: 17 (+3 refurbishing, +5 decommissioned)
* South Korea: 4
* China: 2
* India: 2 (+13 in use, +3 under construction)
* Argentina: 1
* Romania: 2 (+3 under construction, currently dormant)
* Pakistan: 1

CANDU fuel bundles, each about 50 cm in length and 10 cm in diameter,
weight approx. 20 kg (44 lb), generate about 1 GWh of electricity during
its time in the reactor.

The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, the second multi-unit CANDU
station, was constructed in stages between 1970 and 1987 by the
provincial Crown corporation, Ontario Hydro. It consists of eight units
each rated at approximately 800 MWe each, and is currently owned by
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and run by Bruce Power.

The Bruce station is the largest nuclear facility in North America, and
second largest in the world (after Kashiwazaki-Kariwa in Japan),
comprising eight CANDU nuclear reactors having a total output of 6,232
MW (net) and 7,276 MW (gross) when all units are online. Current output
with six of the eight reactors on line is 4,640 MW. Restart of the
remaining two units is planned by 2012.

(note: The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa reactor mentioned above is NOT a
CANDU-type reactor. It is a Boiling Water varient of a Light Water
Reactor, made by General Electric).
===========

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candu

Well it the generators and generator fuel tanks were underground like in
the US they would all be cooling just fine right now with no problems.

It's good that an earthquake doesn't actually disturb the ground.

dgk wrote in news:f8l4o6h4au5o2b0jaibm2k6sivicpu29hl@
4ax.com:

It's good that an earthquake doesn't actually disturb the ground.


???
There is no disturbing of the ground if a road splits down the yellow
centerline and one half is suddenly 4 feet below the other half??

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I believe there is plenty of energy. The main
problem is the politicians and activists who
prevent the safe development and delivery of
energy.

There is plenty of energy at an increasingly high price, economic and
otherwise. The question is what happens when the price of gas is ten or
fifteen bucks a gallon, when burning coal has made seafood unsafe to eat,
when the search for natural gas has polluted the water supply over large
areas? Will Americans finally decide that instead of turning up the
thermostat maybe they'll put on a sweater?

Things like Obama and the drilling ban.

Yeah, we wouldn't want to stop and think it over for even a moment, just
keep drilling, mama's Escalade needs gas!

wrote in message
...


Also, nothing in that cite says anything
close to what you claim it does. It comments on one narrow aspect
of the design. Show us where it says cooling water is not critical
after inserting the control rods.

I'ts also particularly foolish to start claiming some Canadian
reactor,
which your obvioulsy don't understand, is superior and would have
prevented the accident. Wouldn't it be better to first at least
find
out the full story and sequence of events from an investiation?

Canadian reactors don't use uranium, they are fueled by worn-out hockey
pucks of which Canada has an infinite supply. And they can stop their
reactors instantly, the control rods look like a big goalie stick and a big
goalie glove and once they're in there a whistle blows and nothing happens
after that until the restart procedure which is known as a face-off.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Han wrote:

dgk wrote in
news:f8l4o6h4au5o2b0jaibm2k6sivicpu29hl@
4ax.com:

It's good that an earthquake doesn't actually disturb the ground.


???
There is no disturbing of the ground if a road splits down the yellow
centerline and one half is suddenly 4 feet below the other half??

For a bunch of supposedly smart people, there sure do seem to be a big
contingent of a.h.r. participants who can't recognize sarcasm when it
whacks them over the head.

Cut him a break. I don't think English is his first language even though he
does remarkably well with it. Given that much of the humor in AHR wouldn't
get you a 3AM slot in a comedy club in bum **** Egypt, it's easy for me to
see how people often react poorly to humor or sarcasm.

--
Bobby G.

"dgk" wrote in message
wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
Vic Smith wrote in
wrote:
Home Guy wrote:

That's when it's operating. A Candu core can be shut down without
needing a cooling system to remain functioning after shutdown.

This is the key point:

Just my cynicism, but I'm guessing that nuclear power just got shoved
back another 40 years. Yer average lay person doesn't give a damn
about
facts, or science, or about how the reactors in Japan differ from the
ones you advocate. "Nuke" just resumed its status as a dirty word.

Might be a good guess if it really goes to hell in Japan.
I hope not.
Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years.

--Vic

Two things:
"Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years."
That's until now. We won't know until the stuff has cooled down and
the
extent of contamination is known.

There are very expensive lessons to be learned from this quake and
tsunami. Especially on the West coast. Hopefully the lessons will
indeed be studied and acted upon, both the physical threats directly
from
a tsunami, and the nuclear physics threats from misbehaviors of nuclear
plants.

I, too, hope that some important lessons will be learned here, especially
since we have serious earthquake vulnerability on the West Coast. But
then
I think about what I thought we learned in Vietnam and where we are now
and
I would say that in 25 years, nearly all lessons learned are forgotten
again. )-:

US wars are always to insure that wealthy Americans can invest abroad
safely. The soldiers are there to protect that investment. What was
the lesson from Vietnam? To continue to have wars overseas so that the
wealthy can make more money, but try to make sure that the outcome is
successful. The lesson was not to stop getting involved in foreign
wars.

Sad but true. Vietnam is now supplying us with computer parts for even LESS
than Chinese wage slaves can make them. Conquer and turn into a sweat shop.
Ironically, we didn't even win in 'Nam!

I had hoped we had learned that a war in which we can't tell friend from foe
is a war to avoid. Obviously not. Amazingly in the 80's the various war
colleges were full of "lessons learned" from 'Nam but when the old war wagon
got rolling and fast promotions started coming, all bets were off.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Han wrote:

dgk wrote in
news:f8l4o6h4au5o2b0jaibm2k6sivicpu29hl@
4ax.com:

It's good that an earthquake doesn't actually disturb the ground.


???
There is no disturbing of the ground if a road splits down the yellow
centerline and one half is suddenly 4 feet below the other half??

For a bunch of supposedly smart people, there sure do seem to be a big
contingent of a.h.r. participants who can't recognize sarcasm when it
whacks them over the head.

Cut him a break. I don't think English is his first language even though he
does remarkably well with it. Given that much of the humor in AHR wouldn't
get you a 3AM slot in a comedy club in bum **** Egypt, it's easy for me to
see how people often react poorly to humor or sarcasm.

--
Bobby G.

Sorry, if you can't understand GLARING sarcasm, you'll get no quarter
from me. This happens every damn day, and it's pretty widespread, and
it's not at all limited to ESL people.

In article ,
"DGDevin" wrote:



Canadian reactors don't use uranium, they are fueled by worn-out hockey
pucks of which Canada has an infinite supply. And they can stop their
reactors instantly, the control rods look like a big goalie stick and a big
goalie glove and once they're in there a whistle blows and nothing happens
after that until the restart procedure which is known as a face-off.

You forgot to append your comments with the disclaimer:

"I was just kidding, this is a joke, please don't respond as though I
was actually being serious."

On Mar 17, 6:33*pm, dgk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:23:08 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
"Han" wrote in message
.. .
Vic Smith wrote in
m:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:46:11 -0700, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article , Home Guy wrote:

That's when it's operating. *A Candu core can be shut down without
needing a cooling system to remain functioning after shutdown.

This is the key point:

Just my cynicism, but I'm guessing that nuclear power just got shoved
back another 40 years. Yer average lay person doesn't give a damn about
facts, or science, or about how the reactors in Japan differ from the
ones you advocate. "Nuke" just resumed its status as a dirty word.

Might be a good guess if it really goes to hell in Japan.
I hope not.
Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years.

--Vic

Two things:
"Burning gas, coal and oil kills more people every day than nukes have
done in 50 years."
That's until now. *We won't know until the stuff has cooled down and the
extent of contamination is known.

There are very expensive lessons to be learned from this quake and
tsunami. *Especially on the West coast. *Hopefully the lessons will
indeed be studied and acted upon, both the physical threats directly from
a tsunami, and the nuclear physics threats from misbehaviors of nuclear
plants.

I, too, hope that some important lessons will be learned here, especially
since we have serious earthquake vulnerability on the West Coast. *But then
I think about what I thought we learned in Vietnam and where we are now and
I would say that in 25 years, nearly all lessons learned are forgotten
again. *)-:

US wars are always to insure that wealthy Americans can invest abroad
safely. The soldiers are there to protect that investment. What was
the lesson from Vietnam? To continue to have wars overseas so that the
wealthy can make more money, but try to make sure that the outcome is
successful. The lesson was not to stop getting involved in foreign
wars.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Libya next? Gotta keeep the shekels rolling in!

On Mar 16, 10:32*am, dpb wrote:
On 3/15/2011 11:21 PM, Molly Brown wrote:
... So what you're saying is that you would let your wife and two children
drive around in a

... even though it's outdated.

Ignore this bozo, Molly; he's totally wrong.

TheCANDUreactor also has emergency core cooling systems and requires
core cooling after shutdown; see the earlier link I posted that
describes the systems.

The issue is that fission reactors of _ALL_ types produce fission
products (well, DOH! * ) which are radioactive and therefore, decay.
The process of radioactive decay gives of heat as the decay products are
absorbed in the various materials of the reactor and this gives rise to
the (amazingly well-named ) decay heat which must be removed even
after the reactor is shut down.

The fission nuclear reaction has been shut down by "scramming" the
reactor and once so, that reaction does (essentially) cease. *That is no
different in a LWR (BWR or PWR) as it is in theCANDUheavy water design.

(I am, btw, degreed NucE w/ 30+ yrs in commercial nuclear generation
with both a reactor vendor and as consultant to power utilities, various
US national laboratories, US DOE and commercial clients)

--

He's not "totally" wrong and you're glossing over the differences in
fundamental design and safety margins of PHWR (Candu) vs BWR. In the
event of Station Black Out (SBO) + loss of ECCS w/o operator
intervention, a Candu reactor, due to the heat sinks provided in the
design from the low pressure/low temp moderator and water filled
reactor core, will very likely not "melt down" while a BWR certainly
will and did.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news
Canadian reactors don't use uranium, they are fueled by worn-out hockey
pucks of which Canada has an infinite supply. And they can stop their
reactors instantly, the control rods look like a big goalie stick and a
big
goalie glove and once they're in there a whistle blows and nothing
happens
after that until the restart procedure which is known as a face-off.

You forgot to append your comments with the disclaimer:

"I was just kidding, this is a joke, please don't respond as though I
was actually being serious."

Good point, there are folks here who might not be sure.

R. F. Duffer wrote:
What does this have to do with home repair? Unless the discussion
touches on how much lead is needed to wrap a house near a reactor,
then this is the wrong newsgroup.


Complaining about the content of various posts doesn't really fit the
portfolio of the group either.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 19:02:37 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

Canadian CANDU nuclear reactors can't melt down or go critical the way
that these GE reactors are doing in Japan.

It's too bad that they were basically forced into using the GE rectors
in Japan. Now we will have a new generation of people in Japan that can
thank the US for the nuclear "gift" that keeps on giving.

were candu reactors around 50 years ago?