On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:44:02 -0400, John
wrote:

wrote:
I understand that you are being sarcastic. There are some reports that
Western Japan runs on a 50 Hz system and Eastern Japan runs at 60 Hz.
It's possible the generators brought in were incompatable for that
reason.
Dave

I would suspect you could just crank up the govenor to get the 60 cps.
or crank it down to get the 50 Hz.

John

The frequency of the AC output of a generator system is not a function
of the operational RPM's of the motor powering the generator coils, be
it diesel, gasoline, steam, etc. The AC frequency output is a function
of the power conditioning circuitry at the output of the generator
coils. If it were a function of the motor's RPM's, any change in motor
RPM's would vary the frequency of the AC output. This would destroy
various types of equipment, designed to operated a certain specific
frequencies, plugged into such a system.

It IS possible that a power conditioning electrical circuit could be
built to switch (by operator selection switch) between the two
separate frequencies (50 or 60 Hz) as required, but it's also possible
the generators in question were not so equipped.

I suspect that the plugs for Japan's two separate frequency systems
are each unique to prevent accidents caused by plugging a 50 HZ device
into a 60 Hz system, and visa-versa.
Dave

CaveLamb wrote:

A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html


The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

lid wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:44:02 -0400,
wrote:

lid wrote:
I understand that you are being sarcastic. There are some reports that
Western Japan runs on a 50 Hz system and Eastern Japan runs at 60 Hz.
It's possible the generators brought in were incompatable for that
reason.
Dave

I would suspect you could just crank up the govenor to get the 60 cps.
or crank it down to get the 50 Hz.

John

The frequency of the AC output of a generator system is not a function
of the operational RPM's of the motor powering the generator coils, be
it diesel, gasoline, steam, etc. The AC frequency output is a function
of the power conditioning circuitry at the output of the generator
coils. If it were a function of the motor's RPM's, any change in motor
RPM's would vary the frequency of the AC output. This would destroy
various types of equipment, designed to operated a certain specific
frequencies, plugged into such a system.

It IS possible that a power conditioning electrical circuit could be
built to switch (by operator selection switch) between the two
separate frequencies (50 or 60 Hz) as required, but it's also possible
the generators in question were not so equipped.

I suspect that the plugs for Japan's two separate frequency systems
are each unique to prevent accidents caused by plugging a 50 HZ device
into a 60 Hz system, and visa-versa.
Dave


Every AC generator system that i have worked on the frequency output is
determined by the rpm of the rotor.

John

On 2011-03-18, John wrote:
lid wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 23:44:02 -0400,
wrote:

lid wrote:
I understand that you are being sarcastic. There are some reports that
Western Japan runs on a 50 Hz system and Eastern Japan runs at 60 Hz.
It's possible the generators brought in were incompatable for that
reason.
Dave

I would suspect you could just crank up the govenor to get the 60 cps.
or crank it down to get the 50 Hz.

John

The frequency of the AC output of a generator system is not a function
of the operational RPM's of the motor powering the generator coils, be
it diesel, gasoline, steam, etc. The AC frequency output is a function
of the power conditioning circuitry at the output of the generator
coils. If it were a function of the motor's RPM's, any change in motor
RPM's would vary the frequency of the AC output. This would destroy
various types of equipment, designed to operated a certain specific
frequencies, plugged into such a system.

It IS possible that a power conditioning electrical circuit could be
built to switch (by operator selection switch) between the two
separate frequencies (50 or 60 Hz) as required, but it's also possible
the generators in question were not so equipped.

I suspect that the plugs for Japan's two separate frequency systems
are each unique to prevent accidents caused by plugging a 50 HZ device
into a 60 Hz system, and visa-versa.
Dave


Every AC generator system that i have worked on the frequency output is
determined by the rpm of the rotor.

John

Yep, up to my 0.06 megawatt generator.

i

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:26:19 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:

FOX is among the worst but research and fact checking is pretty weak

Oh, well, I guess we know where you stand.

accross the board.
The latest bon mot is that there has only been one nuclear incident in
the
US (TMI) and no deaths.
Nuclear power is pretty safe but there are a bunch of concreted in
reactors around the country and the number of deaths is non-zero.

But there is a small voice of reason amongst the firestorm of hysteria;
it's
by Ann Coulter, who might be a nut case, but she is a reporter, and she
does
quote verifiable facts and figures (but sometimes I think that the NIMBYs,
like the warmingists, are impervious to facts and figures):
http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...t_on_radiation

Interesting. Tucker showed some of the same data in his _Terrestrial
Energy_ book. One more stat from the book: 45% of any given population
will contract cancer anyway. (pg 325)

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
-- William S. Burroughs

Well obviouisly we need to send Ann Coulter to fix Fukushima; it will be
good for her health, and she seems to know more about nuclear stuff than
most experts.

Seriously, though, the as-yet-unproven theory she is talking about involves
slightly elevated exposure to EXTERNAL sources of radation where there is no
danger of radioactive dust or vapor entering your body. That is not the
case with fallout from a bomb or reactor. Even if your total exposure in
REMs (or Sieverts) is not outrageous, the dust and vapor are still
dangerous. A radioactive dust particle lodged in your body irrradiates the
same few cells continuously.

The other thing she misrepresents is that the low iodine in the Russian diet
was the cause of all the thyroid cancer after Chernobyl and so those should
be discounted. She is smart enough to understand the real issue, she just
chooses to misrepresent it. Low iodine does not cause thyroid cancer by
itself. The cancers were caused by radioactive iodine from Chernobyl.
People with low iodine in their diet simply absorb more of the radioactive
iodine.

Concerning your statistic that "45% of any given population will contract
cancer anyway", you might be surprised to learn that 100% of us will die
from some cause or another anyway. Of course the crucial bit is, will it be
when we are 8 or 80? Your number does not say anything about that or what
radiation does to shorten life.

Rich Grise wrote:
John R. Carroll wrote:
Posing - as in bent over.
I think his googlefu is weak.

This is SOP - got no facts, so resort to ad hominem attacks.
GFY.

Rich


Naw, I think it was just a friendly observation.


--

Richard Lamb

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html


The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf




yes...?

--

Richard Lamb
email me:
web site: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb

anorton wrote:

...bomb or reactor

Do you even know the difference? I think that's one of the problems with
NIMBYs.

A reactor is NOT a bomb!

Thanks,
Rich

On Mar 18, 2:20*am, "anorton"
wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:26:19 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

John R. Carroll wrote:

FOX is among the worst but research and fact checking is pretty weak

Oh, well, I guess we know where you stand.

accross the board.
The latest bon mot is that there has only been one nuclear incident in
the
US (TMI) and no deaths.
Nuclear power is pretty safe but there are a bunch of concreted in
reactors around the country and the number of deaths is non-zero.

But there is a small voice of reason amongst the firestorm of hysteria;
it's
by Ann Coulter, who might be a nut case, but she is a reporter, and she
does
quote verifiable facts and figures (but sometimes I think that the NIMBYs,
like the warmingists, are impervious to facts and figures):
http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...glowing_report....

Interesting. *Tucker showed some of the same data in his _Terrestrial
Energy_ book. One more stat from the book: 45% of any given population
will contract cancer anyway. (pg 325)

--
A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- William S. Burroughs

Well obviouisly we need to send Ann Coulter to fix Fukushima; it will be
good for her health, and she seems to know more about nuclear stuff than
most experts.

Seriously, though, *the as-yet-unproven theory she is talking about involves
slightly elevated exposure to EXTERNAL sources of radation where there is no
danger of radioactive dust or vapor entering your body. *That is not the
case with fallout from a bomb or reactor. Even if your total exposure in
REMs (or Sieverts) is not outrageous, the dust and vapor are still
dangerous. A radioactive dust particle lodged in your body irrradiates the
same few cells continuously.

The other thing she misrepresents is that the low iodine in the Russian diet
was the cause of all the thyroid cancer after Chernobyl *and so those should
be discounted. She is smart enough to understand the real issue, she just
chooses to misrepresent it. *Low iodine does not cause thyroid cancer by
itself. *The cancers were caused by radioactive iodine from Chernobyl.
People with low iodine in their diet simply absorb more of the radioactive
iodine.

Concerning your statistic that "45% of any given population will contract
cancer anyway", *you might be surprised to learn that 100% of us will die
from some cause or another anyway. *Of course the crucial bit is, will it be
when we are 8 or 80? Your number does not say anything about that or what
radiation does to shorten life.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Crazy Ass"Ann will say anything to get her ratings up.

Higher ratings = more money for Ann.

Ann would tell her audience of sheeple to stick their guns in their
mouths and pull the trigger if it made her more money.

TMT

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
...
anorton wrote:

...bomb or reactor

Do you even know the difference? I think that's one of the problems with
NIMBYs.

A reactor is NOT a bomb!

Thanks,
Rich


I would say I understand the physics of both at a great level of detail. A
damaged reactor has the potential to produce a much larger quantity of
fallout than a bomb albeit with a different variety of isotopes and a
different distribution pattern.
I think you have a Pavlovian response when you see the words "reactor" and
"bomb" in one sentence.

I would like to see nuclear power in some form. But from my point of view,
to be safe a reactor must stay stable when all the supporting systems are
knocked out. There are designs being developed that might meet this
criterion. Otherwise, no, I would not want it in my backyard.

CaveLamb wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
CaveLamb wrote:
A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html


The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf



yes...?


Would you have thought of adding a nuclear power plant to the
National Register of Historical Places?

I was shocked to find that the hospital I was born in was on that
list, even though it was closed & abandoned in 1957.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Ignoramus32087 wrote:

They should also hire a person who can change electric plugs on
cables. The Japanese brought in mobile generators, but could not use
them because "the plugs did not fit".

I'd solder them together if I could find solder and a torch, I'd crimp them if I could
find copper tubing and a rock. Hell, I'd splay the individual wires from the twisted
cable and twist each strand together.

I do not know how true this is, but one thing I've heard about the Japanese is that their
culture doesn't encourage 'out of the box' thinking. Something I consider an essential
trait as a repair tech and a DIY type.

Wes

lid wrote:

I understand that you are being sarcastic. There are some reports that
Western Japan runs on a 50 Hz system and Eastern Japan runs at 60 Hz.
It's possible the generators brought in were incompatable for that
reason.

In 1977 when I was last there, I believe it was a north / south issue as far as 50/60hz,
iirc.

Wes

On 2011-03-19, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus32087 wrote:

They should also hire a person who can change electric plugs on
cables. The Japanese brought in mobile generators, but could not use
them because "the plugs did not fit".

I'd solder them together if I could find solder and a torch, I'd crimp them if I could
find copper tubing and a rock. Hell, I'd splay the individual wires from the twisted
cable and twist each strand together.

I do not know how true this is, but one thing I've heard about the Japanese is that their
culture doesn't encourage 'out of the box' thinking. Something I consider an essential
trait as a repair tech and a DIY type.

Wes, you and I have small garage shops. At least I thought you had one
too, with that Bridgeport that you brought with your uncle etc.

That sort of thing, does encourage out of the box thinking.

The Japanese cannot have anything of the sort due to crowdedness.

i

Ignoramus25332 wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus32087 wrote:

They should also hire a person who can change electric plugs on
cables. The Japanese brought in mobile generators, but could not use
them because "the plugs did not fit".

I'd solder them together if I could find solder and a torch, I'd crimp them if I could
find copper tubing and a rock. Hell, I'd splay the individual wires from the twisted
cable and twist each strand together.

I do not know how true this is, but one thing I've heard about the Japanese is that their
culture doesn't encourage 'out of the box' thinking. Something I consider an essential
trait as a repair tech and a DIY type.

Wes, you and I have small garage shops. At least I thought you had one
too, with that Bridgeport that you brought with your uncle etc.

Yes, I have a shop. BP and Lathe. Wood working and reloading areas also. I have a band
mill for sawing up timber also.

That sort of thing, does encourage out of the box thinking.

The Japanese cannot have anything of the sort due to crowdedness.

Being packed in tight tends to breed those that are are conformists.

Out in the country, using the US as an example, the more rural it is, the less conformist
it is.

I suspect this is why big cities seem to be inhabited by those that will tolerate central
command and control.

I'll do my best to make my own decisions as long as possible.

Wes

Wes wrote:

Being packed in tight tends to breed those that are are conformists.

Out in the country, using the US as an example, the more rural it is, the less conformist
it is.

I suspect this is why big cities seem to be inhabited by those that will tolerate central
command and control.

I'll do my best to make my own decisions as long as possible.


Amen, brother!


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:01:39 -0400, John
wrote:


Every AC generator system that i have worked on the frequency output is
determined by the rpm of the rotor.

John

Hmmmm.... I guess I aways just thought there was circuitry attendent
with controlling the output frequency, voltage spikes, load shifts,
etc. I have seen some boxes for that and thought it was standard
equipment.
Dave

lid wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:01:39 -0400,
wrote:


Every AC generator system that i have worked on the frequency output is
determined by the rpm of the rotor.

John

Hmmmm.... I guess I aways just thought there was circuitry attendent
with controlling the output frequency, voltage spikes, load shifts,
etc. I have seen some boxes for that and thought it was standard
equipment.
Dave


They do have control boxes like you said but they controlled the rpm of
the engine by some link to the engine govenor.

John

On 2011-03-18, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

CaveLamb wrote:

A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html


The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf

So *that's* what that area was. I used to work within the
overall compound which enclosed that compound, and we would occasionally
take a picnic lunch down to near there in the early 1990s.

Back in the mid to late 1960s, I remember we would occasionally
have a radiation drill, requiring us to all move cars to a somewhat
distant location (the parking lot of the on-post movie theater IIRC) and
get everybody checked for radiation. They used to shout at people to
close the air intake vent (remember those at the base of the
windshield?) as we drove out of the compound. Since I drove a MGA at
the time, there was no such vent, and the whole vehicle was totally
un-sealable.

There was also another reactor not that far away -- on a ship,
with heavy duty power lines going from there to the shore and joining
the commercial power lines. I thought that was why we had the drills.
I didn't know about the ground-locked one.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2011-03-18, Michael A. Terrell ? wrote:
?
? CaveLamb wrote:
??
?? A few more historical accidents.
??
?? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html
?
?
? The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
? place. it was built in the late '50s:
?
??http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/register... mination.pdf?

So *that's* what that area was. I used to work within the
overall compound which enclosed that compound, and we would occasionally
take a picnic lunch down to near there in the early 1990s.

Back in the mid to late 1960s, I remember we would occasionally
have a radiation drill, requiring us to all move cars to a somewhat
distant location (the parking lot of the on-post movie theater IIRC) and
get everybody checked for radiation. They used to shout at people to
close the air intake vent (remember those at the base of the
windshield?) as we drove out of the compound.


None of my cars ever had one, the first being a '63 Catalina
convertible which was followed by a '66 GTO.


Since I drove a MGA at the time, there was no such vent, and the
whole vehicle was totally un-sealable.

There was also another reactor not that far away -- on a ship,
with heavy duty power lines going from there to the shore and joining
the commercial power lines. I thought that was why we had the drills.
I didn't know about the ground-locked one.


It's twin, the SM-1A was across the street from my barracks at Ft
Greely, AK. It was decommisioned and encapsuled in concrete, on site.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program has a photo
about half way down, on the right side of the page.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

John wrote:
Every AC generator system that i have worked on the frequency output is
determined by the rpm of the rotor.

John
Yep every thing from the itty bitty RV things to the
Big diesels that ran the radar sites. and connecting
two of the big ones together by watching the phase
indicators and switching at the right time. :-)
...lew...

On 2011-03-19, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

So *that's* what that area was. I used to work within the
overall compound which enclosed that compound, and we would occasionally
take a picnic lunch down to near there in the early 1990s.

Back in the mid to late 1960s, I remember we would occasionally
have a radiation drill, requiring us to all move cars to a somewhat
distant location (the parking lot of the on-post movie theater IIRC) and
get everybody checked for radiation. They used to shout at people to
close the air intake vent (remember those at the base of the
windshield?) as we drove out of the compound.


None of my cars ever had one, the first being a '63 Catalina
convertible which was followed by a '66 GTO.

I think that you need to go back to the late 1950s to get that
feature.

[ ... ]

There was also another reactor not that far away -- on a ship,
with heavy duty power lines going from there to the shore and joining
the commercial power lines. I thought that was why we had the drills.
I didn't know about the ground-locked one.


It's twin, the SM-1A was across the street from my barracks at Ft
Greely, AK. It was decommisioned and encapsuled in concrete, on site.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program has a photo
about half way down, on the right side of the page.

Yep! and the SM-1 was certainly the first which I had wondered
about. (I mean a security compound within a security compound after all. :-)

The other I mentioned turns out to be the MH-1A -- also shown in
the collection of photos on that Wikipedia site. I -- never knew its
designation either. And it appears to still be functional.

With two reactors, no wonder we had those radiation drills. The
never told us why (of course), just to do it.

Thanks,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2011-03-19, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

It's twin, the SM-1A was across the street from my barracks at Ft
Greely, AK. It was decommisioned and encapsuled in concrete, on site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program has a photo
about half way down, on the right side of the page.

Yep! and the SM-1 was certainly the first which I had wondered
about. (I mean a security compound within a security compound after all.
:-)

The other I mentioned turns out to be the MH-1A -- also shown in
the collection of photos on that Wikipedia site. I -- never knew its
designation either. And it appears to still be functional.

With two reactors, no wonder we had those radiation drills. The
never told us why (of course), just to do it.

Here's a little item to **** off both extremist sides of the "debate":

A transcript from
http://www.freedompolitics.com/news/...ety-power.html
"Article from the Carnegie Endowment

Written by James M. Acton

Original Article

Until March 11, with the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident
approaching -- and memories of that disaster receding -- safety concerns no
longer appeared to be the killer argument against nuclear power they once
were. Instead, another fear, of climate change, looked like it might be
driving a "nuclear renaissance" as states sought carbon-free energy
sources. But the ongoing crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power
Station will return safety to the forefront of the nuclear power debate.
Even the most ardent industry advocates now recognize that the unfolding
crisis inside two reactors there -- shown on live television and beamed
around the world -- has left the future of their industry in doubt.

Nevertheless, the case for nuclear power remains strong. All forms of energy
generation carry risks. Fossil fuels, which (for the time being at least)
are nuclear energy's principal rival, carry the risk of catastrophic
climate change. And as we're seeing in Japan, we haven't eliminated all the
dangers associated with nuclear power, even though accidents are few and
far between.

Good public policy involves balancing these risks. Persuading the public to
accept the risks of nuclear energy will, however, not be easy. To do so,
the nuclear industry will have to resist a strong temptation to argue that
the accident in Japan was simply an extraordinarily improbable confluence
of events and that everything is just fine. Instead, it must recognize and
correct the deficiencies of its current approach to safety.

When it comes to safety, the nuclear industry emphasizes the concept
of "defense in depth." Reactors are designed with layers of redundant
safety systems. There's the main cooling system, a backup to it, a backup
to the backup, a backup to the backup to the backup, and so on. A major
accident can only occur if all these systems fail simultaneously. By adding
extra layers of redundancy, the probability of such a catastrophic failure
can -- in theory at least -- be made too small to worry about.

Defense in depth is a good idea. But it suffers from one fundamental flaw:
the possibility that a disaster might knock out all of the backup systems.
A reactor can have as many layers of defense as you like, but if they can
all be disabled by a single event, then redundancy adds much less to safety
than might first meet the eye.

This kind of failure occurred at Fukushima Daiichi on March 11. As soon as
the earthquake struck, the reactors scrammed: The control rods, used to
modulate the speed of the nuclear reaction, were inserted into the reactor
cores, shutting off the nuclear reactions. So far so good. Nevertheless,
the cores were still hot and needed to be cooled. This in turn required
electricity in order to power the pumps, which bring in water to cool the
fuel.

Unfortunately, one of the external power lines that was designed to provide
electricity in just such a contingency was itself disrupted by the
earthquake. This shouldn't have mattered because there was a backup. But,
according to a news release issued by the power-plant operator, the
malfunction in one external supply somehow caused off-site power to be lost
entirely.

Once again, this shouldn't have been too much of an issue. There was a
backup to the backup in the form of on-site diesel generators. And, sure
enough, they kicked in. Fifty-five minutes later, however, they were
swamped by the tsunami that followed the earthquake. From that moment on,
plant operators were in a desperate struggle to prevent core melting.

Japanese regulators are certainly aware of the danger of earthquakes; they
take safety extremely seriously. Like other buildings in Japan, nuclear
reactors must be able to withstand earthquakes. The problem, as we now
know, is that there is a significant chance of them falling victim to
events more extreme than those they were designed to withstand.

This problem was highlighted by the earthquake centered near the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in 2007. The earth movements
generated by that quake were larger than the plant's design limit.
Fortunately, there was not a major accident; the safety systems worked as
designed in spite of the quake's physical impact. Before the plant could
reopen, however, new safety features had to be added to ensure that it was
capable of withstanding bigger earthquakes.

Of course, the issues raised by the 2007 and 2011 earthquakes are relevant
to the whole world -- not just Japan. What is needed now is a sober and
careful assessment of what engineers call the "design basis" for all
nuclear power plants worldwide -- those already in operation, those under
construction, and those being planned. Specifically, we need to determine
whether they are truly capable of withstanding the whole range of natural
and man-made disasters that might befall them, from floods to earthquakes
to terrorism.

Even after the ongoing disaster in Japan, the nuclear industry is unlikely
to welcome such an exercise. It is almost certain to argue that a
whole-scale reassessment is unnecessary because existing standards are
adequate. But after two earthquakes in less than four years shook Japanese
reactors beyond their design limits, this argument is simply not credible.
It is also self-defeating.

For nuclear energy to expand, the public must trust the nuclear industry. It
must trust reactor operators to run their reactors safely. It must trust
regulators to ensure there is adequate oversight. And, most importantly
perhaps, it must trust reactor designers to create new reactors that do not
share the vulnerabilities of older ones.

This last point is crucial. New reactors, with enhanced safety features,
would almost certainly not have befallen the same fate as those at
Fukushima Daiichi, which is four decades old. Convincing the public of this
argument will be extremely hard now, however.

After Chernobyl, the nuclear industry argued that -- as far as safety was
concerned -- Soviet RBMK-type reactors, like the one involved in the 1986
accident, had about as much in common with modern Western reactors as an
inflatable dinghy does with an ocean liner. And they were right. But their
argument made very little impact because the nuclear industry had lost the
public's trust.

It is vital the nuclear industry does not make the same mistake now. It must
not try to sweep safety issues under the carpet by telling people that
everything is OK and that they should not worry. This strategy simply won't
work. What might work is to acknowledge the problem and work to fix it."

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

So *that's* what that area was. I used to work within the
overall compound which enclosed that compound, and we would occasionally
take a picnic lunch down to near there in the early 1990s.

Back in the mid to late 1960s, I remember we would occasionally
have a radiation drill, requiring us to all move cars to a somewhat
distant location (the parking lot of the on-post movie theater IIRC) and
get everybody checked for radiation. They used to shout at people to
close the air intake vent (remember those at the base of the
windshield?) as we drove out of the compound.


None of my cars ever had one, the first being a '63 Catalina
convertible which was followed by a '66 GTO.

I think that you need to go back to the late 1950s to get that
feature.

[ ... ]

There was also another reactor not that far away -- on a ship,
with heavy duty power lines going from there to the shore and joining
the commercial power lines. I thought that was why we had the drills.
I didn't know about the ground-locked one.


It's twin, the SM-1A was across the street from my barracks at Ft
Greely, AK. It was decommisioned and encapsuled in concrete, on site.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program has a photo
about half way down, on the right side of the page.

Yep! and the SM-1 was certainly the first which I had wondered
about. (I mean a security compound within a security compound after all. :-)

The other I mentioned turns out to be the MH-1A -- also shown in
the collection of photos on that Wikipedia site. I -- never knew its
designation either. And it appears to still be functional.

With two reactors, no wonder we had those radiation drills. The
never told us why (of course), just to do it.


Two reactors, no waiting! Getchur mushrooms today! ;-)


Their existance was likely 'Need to know' in most places. Otherwise
you would have had too many idiots wanting the nickle tour of a
restricted facility. There was a building near one base I served at
that had no windows, and two fences around it. It was about two miles
from the main base on a military reserve and bristled with antennas. I
casually mentioned it one day and almost got arrested for simply stating
that they had more antennas than the Radio & TV station I was assigned
to.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2011-03-19, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

So *that's* what that area was. I used to work within the
overall compound which enclosed that compound, and we would occasionally
take a picnic lunch down to near there in the early 1990s.

Back in the mid to late 1960s, I remember we would occasionally
have a radiation drill, requiring us to all move cars to a somewhat
distant location (the parking lot of the on-post movie theater IIRC) and
get everybody checked for radiation. They used to shout at people to
close the air intake vent (remember those at the base of the
windshield?) as we drove out of the compound.


None of my cars ever had one, the first being a '63 Catalina
convertible which was followed by a '66 GTO.

I think that you need to go back to the late 1950s to get that
feature.

[ ... ]

There was also another reactor not that far away -- on a ship,
with heavy duty power lines going from there to the shore and joining
the commercial power lines. I thought that was why we had the drills.
I didn't know about the ground-locked one.


It's twin, the SM-1A was across the street from my barracks at Ft
Greely, AK. It was decommisioned and encapsuled in concrete, on site.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Nuclear_Power_Program has a photo
about half way down, on the right side of the page.

Yep! and the SM-1 was certainly the first which I had wondered
about. (I mean a security compound within a security compound after all. :-)

The other I mentioned turns out to be the MH-1A -- also shown in
the collection of photos on that Wikipedia site. I -- never knew its
designation either. And it appears to still be functional.

With two reactors, no wonder we had those radiation drills. The
never told us why (of course), just to do it.

Two reactors, no waiting! Getchur mushrooms today! ;-)

Their existance was likely 'Need to know' in most places. Otherwise
you would have had too many idiots wanting the nickle tour of a
restricted facility. There was a building near one base I served at
that had no windows, and two fences around it. It was about two miles
from the main base on a military reserve and bristled with antennas. I
casually mentioned it one day and almost got arrested for simply stating
that they had more antennas than the Radio & TV station I was assigned
to.


I recieved this in an email today:


DAV Supports Review of Radiation Exposure in Antarctic Veterans

WASHINGTON—The Disabled American Veterans (DAV) is supporting a request
from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) that the Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs evaluate the probability of radiation exposure from a
leaking nuclear reactor at McMurdo Station that may have caused cancer
in veterans serving there from 1964 to 1973 during Operation Deep
Freeze.

“Thousands of service members may have been exposed to radioactive
contamination in the air, their water and their food,” said DAV National
Commander Wallace E. Tyson. “The experimental, one-of-a-kind nuclear
reactor used at McMurdo Station suffered hundreds of reported
malfunctions over its lifetime. The same reactor was used to melt snow
and desalinate seawater used by the service members stationed there for
as long as 13 months at a time.”

In his letter to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Sen. Brown said that
veterans stationed at McMurdo have made numerous disability claims to
the VA for cancers they suffered, only to be denied. Many died before
their cases could be fully decided.

“According to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC),
cancers that may develop as a result of radiation exposure are
indistinguishable from those that occur naturally or as a result of
exposure to other carcinogens,” said Brown. “We owe it to our veterans
to err on the side of caution and support the claims of those whose
cancer we cannot legitimately determine was not caused by radiation
exposure at McMurdo Station.”

“Our veterans deserve to know if the radiation exposures at McMurdo
Station’s nuclear power plant are the source of their cancers. Unless
proven conclusively that they are not, the VA should award service
connections to veterans suffering from cancer that may have been caused
by extended periods of exposure to radiation,” said Commander Tyson.
“Veterans also need to know how many of our McMurdo veterans have
already died from cancer linked to radiation exposure.”

“We encourage the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to give
priority to the studies in hopes that no more veterans will die without
proper review of their disability claims,” he said. “Justice delayed, in
this case as much as any others, is justice denied.”


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:52:20 -0500, Ignoramus11979
wrote:

The plant is completely abandoned.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Radiat...html?x=0&.v=91

``FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan suspended operations to prevent a
stricken nuclear plant from melting down Wednesday after a surge in
radiation made it too dangerous for workers to remain at the facility.''
snip

If you are following this disaster, here is an article from
Germany that gives some of the background/run up and why
things seem to have gone so very wrong.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...752704,00.html
snip.
For years, Tepco, the operator of the Fukushima power plant,
has been widely criticized for deadly accidents and improper
inspections. The Fukushima disaster is the tragic nadir in a
history of poor management at the company's nuclear
facilities.
snip.
Both before and after the speech, an impressive list of
incidents continued to grow, including deadly accidents.

* During the 1980s and 1990s, in several instances Tepco
falsified data in voluntary inspections, including the
number of cracks in the reactor pressure vessels.

* In 1991 and 1992, the safety vessel of Reactor 1 at
the Fukushima plant, which had gone online in 1971, was
tested for leaks. According to Tepco, workers pumped air
into the safety vessel in order to reduce the rate of leaks.

* In 2000, a reactor at the Fukushima nuclear plant had
to be shut down because of a hole in a fuel rod. Similar
incidents had already occurred in 1997 and 1994 in which
radiation had been released.

* In 2002, cracks in water pipes were discovered at the
nuclear power plant.

* In 2002, an engineer with the US firm General
Electric, which manufactured three of the six reactors at
the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, also raised the
alarm bell. Inspeactions had not been carried out at a total
of 13 reactors at Tepco power plants. He showed the Japanese
nuclear regulatory authority 29 instances of falsified data
and cover-ups, a development that led to the resignations in
2002 of top Tepco executives.

* In 2006, radioactive steam leaked from a pipe at the
Fukushima plant.

* The company was also accused the same year of
falsifying data about coolant water temperatures in 1985 and
1988. The data had then been used during mandatory
inspections of the plant in 2005. In 2007, further falsified
reactor data from Tepco emerged.

* In 2007, at least eight people died when the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant was badly damaged in
an earthquake. Pipes burst, fire broke out and radioactive
water leaked from a spent fuel pool. Tepco had to
decontaminate the affected building. The nuclear power plant
remained closed for one year so earthquake safety -- which
had allegedly already been good enough -- could be improved.
Later it was determined that Tepco had missed 117
inspections at the site.

* In March 2009, another fire broke out at the
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, resulting in one employee injury.

* On March 2, 2011, just days before the start of the
current earthquake catastrophe, Japan's nuclear regulators
lobbed accusations of mass negligence against Tepco. It
alleged that Tepco had failed to inspect 33 pieces of
equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, one of the sites
of the current catastrophe, including central cooling system
elements in the six reactors, and spent fuel pools that
hadn't been inspected according to regulations. The company
has since admitted to having made the errors.

* At the same time, Tepco also reported to the nuclear
regulatory authority that it had not only failed to do the
33 inspections at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, but also 19
further inspections at the nearby Fukushima-Daini plant.

* Some experts had already been warning since the 1970s
that the Mark 1 reactor type, produced by US manufacturer
General Electric and also called the "Fukushima design," was
not constructed to survive a combination of an earthquake
and tsunami. Only days after the earthquake, two engineers
who helped build the plant confirmed at a press conference
that serious construction errors had been made. Many backup
systems for emergencies had not been built at the plant.
snip


-- Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...


CaveLamb wrote:

A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html


The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid„¢ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.


Reply:
Dang, my brother is old. He worked on that plant. Was a Seabee Nuclear
construction guy. Built the plant at the Antarctic base after learning at
Ft. Belvoir. Met his wife while in the hospital there. Appendix, not nuke
illness.

Califbill wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...

CaveLamb wrote:

A few more historical accidents.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ne/nucacc.html

The SM-1 reactor at Fort Belvoir, Virginia is listed as a historical
place. it was built in the late '50s:

http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Fairfax/029-0193_U.S._Army_Power_Package_Reactor_1992_draft_no mination.pdf

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid„¢ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Reply:
Dang, my brother is old. He worked on that plant. Was a Seabee Nuclear
construction guy. Built the plant at the Antarctic base after learning at
Ft. Belvoir. Met his wife while in the hospital there. Appendix, not nuke
illness.


There was one death directly related to those early plants. Overall,
it looks like there was little or no health issues in the crews.

The reactor at Ft. Greely was supposedly covered with concrete,
rather than dismantling it and hauling it away.

http://www.cnas.org/blogs/naturalsecurity/2010/04/dod-and-sector-7g.html
has a photo of the simulated controls used to train operators for the
MH1A, which was built as a floating nuclear plant aboard the USS
Sturgis.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.