On 17 Feb 2021 14:19:59 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.

Only one (Chernobyl) can be said to have "blown up", and the operators had to
work quite hard to get it to a state where it was unstable enough for that to
happen (as can be seen by reading about it).

*Once again* your limited Goblin left brain restricts you to only
consider the facts to date (massaged to suit your biases) and miss the
bigger picture (that I thought I'd signposted clearly enough for even
a Goblin to pick up on).;-)

You're just employing the usual
scare-mongering techniques, saying "So a plant blows up ..." as if this is a
common occurrence.

No, it was a very realistic *risk* and one we could have witnessed a
couple of times already, had it not been for luck / circumstances.

'Of course' we would all hope that a mini-nuke-plant designed and
built in the UK by RR would be pretty indestructible, but the problem
is, if it isn't, the consequences are going to be suffered for many
many years to come.

I'm not saying that because I'm against NP, because I'm not, I was
just saying most people wouldn't want one in their back yard and you
don't need a complete meltdown (or it to 'Blow up' as such), for it to
be a massive problem.

Until that happens, the chances are it's 'greener' than many
alternatives, possibly including solar and wind (even if they were
supported by storage).

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:59:38 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:

snip

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

Oh indeed, it's just that whilst there is no doubt all these things
have and are killing (around the world), they aren't something we have
instant control over (but are working on), unlike deciding to build a
nuke etc.

Now, it's 'quite likely' that ignoring a major disaster, the vast
majority of nukes have been running much cleaner (as in their
generation of power), especially when compared with anything that
burns fossil fuels, it's just *if* they were to go wrong big-time the
consequences can contaminate a large are for a long long time with
very little that can be done about it, especially short term.

There is also the 'decommissioning cost / risk and the ongoing waste
disposal.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

Agreed, along with the likes of this:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...aste-to-planet

Cheers, T i m

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:25:52 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

Well you wont get them from B I G O T i m

And I wouldn't try to offer them, it's not the point.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.

That was the point. ^^

consider 'a plant blows up'

No nuclear power plant has ever 'blown up'.

And yet another left brainer takes a concept literally.

Windcasle caught fire,
Chernobyl caught fire and Fukushima had a very small hydrogen explosion
because they were so worried about radioactive release they didn't vent
the gas

3MI just melted down as did fukushima and chernobyl

Ah, all perfectly acceptable things that didn't cause any harm to
humans or the environment (let alone the power generation capacity).

So Tim is just making stupid bigoted emotive statements there

Nothing bigoted about a statement of fact about the bigger (often
hidden) picture.

Then he compounds his idiocy with "a local shop that used to supply food
to the workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless."

Where is that then?

Nowhere (specific), it was a concept highlighting there can be other
consequences outside the immediate / obvious.

Firstly I am sure that there will be more workers solving a core
meltdown issue than there were running a reactor.

Ah, that's ok then. So it's just 'jobs' that matter, not deaths or
suffering (that went without saying of course, we know Turnips
charisma / empathy / compassion by-pass operations were 100%
successful).

3MI and Chernobyl both
continued as power stations long after the accidents.

Yeah, that's good then. Nothing to see there then ...

Fukushima was shut down completely as a political, not an engineering,
decision

Yeah, I'm sure it was still working fine, once they had given it a
lick of paint.

There are more workers on site decommissioning it than there were
operating it

More because of how little exposure they can get before they can't
work there any more.

T I M is a typical leftybrain - he doesn't respond to reality, but to
scary images in what passes for his mind

As opposed to Turnip who CGAF about life as ling as it's not impacting
his.

You can't evaluate the risks if you are in denial about them.

Cheers, T i m

On 17/02/2021 17:03, michael adams wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 17/02/2021 14:59, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

At Chernobyl it was:

1) ignorance of the possible behaviour of the reactor when run outside its
normal operating envelope, combined with removing or shutting down all the
computers and other safety equipment so the reactor could be forced into what
turned out to be a dangerous and unstable mode.

2) Poor operating procedures for running this sort of reactor test

3) Poor emergency procedures and lack of coordination with local fire
services.

4) The usual communist culture of secrecy which led to delays and made the
problem worse.

At Fukushima it was:

1) The assumption that the sea wall could contain the tsunami (they were
nearly right on that one).

2) Not siting the backup power generators and their fuel tanks where they
wouldn't be overwhelmed by a worse rsunami.


Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.

Not only can it tell us how mistakes we made the past could and should have been
avoided, but it will also be able to tell us how mistakes we are inevitably bound
to make in the future, could and should have been avoided as well.

We have moved on to passively cooled reactors, so that loss of power, fans, pumps,
electricity, generators, etc. are not a problem.

That eliminates the common risks of external problems.

Neither the Russians nor the Japanese were, or are, particularly stupid.

The Russians knew of the risks and chose not to address them.

The Japanses underestimated the height of a possible Tsunami and left
the generators vulnerable.

In pointing out the "mistakes" that they made Tim Streater is merely reinforcing
the point - of how easy it is, without the benefit of hindsight for people who aren't
particularly stupid to make "mistakes".

Chernobyl was not a mistake, it was known bad design, there was reliance
on operators to avoid a particular operating regime due to that design
constraint, there was no safety system to prevent such operation and
someone chose to carry out an unauthorised test, within that regime,
outside even the test's pre-determined parameters.

That was not an accident, it really was stupidity - that Western
regulation simply would not permit.

And that basically there's no reason to believe that people, who aren't particularly
stupid aren't going to continue making mistakes in the future of a kind and in areas
we can't even predict. The possible consequences of which may be similarly
difficult to predict.

The point is that with removing the reliance on active safety systems
and relying upon passive ones, you don't have to worry if you've
predicted the highest tsunami correctly; got enough generator fuel on
site; kept the batteries charged for starting them; protected the
control system and cabling sufficiently; maintained access for
operators. They can all be swept away and it still remains safe.

That alone really does remove most of the risks.

Considering the bigger picture, it's not just the deaths / directly
related to an incident that need to be considered, it's all the
negative (and often unrecorded) events that come out of it.

So a plant blows up and a local shop that used to supply food to the
workers goes out of business and the owner also loses his
accommodation and eventually dies whilst homeless.


I would really like some real fact and figures and include the deaths
and damage caused by the use of fossil fuels, palm oil etc etc versus
the deaths and damaged caused by the use of nuclear power.

That is what I'd consider to be the bigger picture.


Well Coal mining has a lotto answer for over time! Have a look at the
excellent Durham mining museum site and you can see the horrors over
time s starting back in the 1700's then the grim 1800 and even in the
1900's with this location Senghenydd, seeing off 439 souls.

http://www.dmm.org.uk/uknames/u1913-01.htm

And even in the mid 1960's there was the Horror of Aberfan youngest
victim 3 years old(

http://www.dmm.org.uk/uknames/u1966-01.htm
--
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 18/02/2021 12:21, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Feb 2021 at 12:03:48 GMT, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 17/02/2021 17:03, michael adams wrote:

In pointing out the "mistakes" that they made Tim Streater is merely reinforcing
the point - of how easy it is, without the benefit of hindsight for people who aren't
particularly stupid to make "mistakes".

Chernobyl was not a mistake, it was known bad design, there was reliance
on operators to avoid a particular operating regime due to that design
constraint, there was no safety system to prevent such operation and
someone chose to carry out an unauthorised test, within that regime,
outside even the test's pre-determined parameters.

My understanding (which is now a bit flaky as it's a while since I read up on
it) was that the operators actually didn't know that the regime they were
moving the reactor to was dangerous. To move it there they had to disable all
the kit designed to prevent them moving it there.

The kit to stop them working there was a chart recorder, at the opposite
end of the control room, no actual hard-wired safety system.

And that operating region would not have been a problem, except for the
physical reactor design, which was known to be defective.

In addition the design of the control rods was bad. The tips of the rods
actuallly did the opposite of what the rod is intended to do. It increased
reactor output instead of shutting it down. By the time they were scramming
the reactor, or trying to, the rod channels had distorted so the rods jammed
part-way-in. That just made it all worse.

Yes, the rods could not be inserted fast enough, so as they started to
go in, they slowed enough neutrons to the speeds required for a
sustained reaction and increased output, just when they had nowhere to
get rid of the heat. That did, as you say, result in distortion that
prevented them being pushed fully in and stopping the reaction.

Again a known problem with the design, that the Soviets simply ignored.

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 12:39:22 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 18/02/2021 12:21, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Feb 2021 at 12:03:48 GMT, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 17/02/2021 17:03, michael adams wrote:

In pointing out the "mistakes" that they made Tim Streater is
merely reinforcing the point - of how easy it is, without the
benefit of hindsight for people who aren't particularly stupid to
make "mistakes".

Chernobyl was not a mistake, it was known bad design, there was
reliance on operators to avoid a particular operating regime due to
that design constraint, there was no safety system to prevent such
operation and someone chose to carry out an unauthorised test, within
that regime, outside even the test's pre-determined parameters.

My understanding (which is now a bit flaky as it's a while since I read
up on it) was that the operators actually didn't know that the regime
they were moving the reactor to was dangerous. To move it there they
had to disable all the kit designed to prevent them moving it there.

The kit to stop them working there was a chart recorder, at the opposite
end of the control room, no actual hard-wired safety system.

And that operating region would not have been a problem, except for the
physical reactor design, which was known to be defective.

In addition the design of the control rods was bad. The tips of the
rods actuallly did the opposite of what the rod is intended to do. It
increased reactor output instead of shutting it down. By the time they
were scramming the reactor, or trying to, the rod channels had
distorted so the rods jammed part-way-in. That just made it all worse.

Yes, the rods could not be inserted fast enough, so as they started to
go in, they slowed enough neutrons to the speeds required for a
sustained reaction and increased output, just when they had nowhere to
get rid of the heat. That did, as you say, result in distortion that
prevented them being pushed fully in and stopping the reaction.

Again a known problem with the design, that the Soviets simply ignored.

The British AGR has 3 emergency shutdown stages, the last one is not
recoverable.

On 18/02/2021 12:03, Steve Walker wrote:
The point is that with removing the reliance on active safety systems
and relying upon passive ones, you don't have to worry if you've
predicted the highest tsunami correctly; got enough generator fuel on
site; kept the batteries charged for starting them; protected the
control system and cabling sufficiently; maintained access for
operators. They can all be swept away and it still remains safe.

That alone really does remove most of the risks.

Yes. In the three cases we have had weher a coire has melted down,.
there are two board issue.
Firtsly and mots importantly, how mm uvch damage did it do and how much
radiation essacped.

In et case of 3MI and Fukushima in both cases the reactor was a write
off, but little or no radiation - and certainly not dangerous levels of
radiation - escaped. The real worry at FUKU was the fuel ponds, not the
reactor.

In the case of Chernobyl the complete lack of secondary containment
resulted in a significant amount of radiation release.

So FUKU and 3MI worked as far as they went to confine and control the
'worst possible' scenario. A **** load of extra concrete to keep a
wrecded reactor isolated is ultimately the best form of protection. What
made. Chernobyl really bad, was the total lack of any such.
Even so it only killed the people trying to stop the open fires. The
massive release of radiation didn't do a lot for the thyroids of people
in Pripyat, who even so would have been OK if they had got emergency
tablets in time. But they didn't die, and no one has died since. And the
other reactor on sire kept on working for some yeras after te fiurst one
had destroyted itself

Chernbobyl is one of the best adverts for nuclear power there is,. The
absolute worst case scenario of an uncontrolled meltdown and criticality
on fire and open to the sky, and only 50 firefighters died, proves
beyond doubt that chronic radiation at a medium level is tolerated
pretty well by life in general. Wade Allison whose background is in
nuclear medicine and who has done studies on cell mutation under the
impact of various dose levels over long periods of time, maintains - and
his claim is supported by chernobyl - that radiation levels of between
100 and 1000 times the statutory limits are in fact tolerable and will
give rise to *no excess deaths at all* from radiation.

That alone places nuclear safety in a completely different frame of
reference,and absolutely refutes the 'disaster' tag applied to Fukushima.

The second issue is why the accidents happened at all. I'll look at Fuku
first. The real question is whether or not a 15 meter wave barrier
instead of a 7 meter wave barrier would have been worth building, given
the downside of the loss of a pair of reactors. That is the unemotional
engineering analysis that discounts febrile and emotional art student
hand waving, because frankly the radiation hazard at Fuku was and
remains zero apart from those involved in the clean up. Personally I
think they got the barrier about right and it was merely unfirtunate
that the diesel were in the basement, because te electric pumps and
batteries worked well enough to start with.
There is also the context - loss of a couple of reactors in the context
of 20,000 lives lost due to the earthquake and tsunami itself is almost
not even interesting.
Why as an analogy, would you build bombproof tunnels for the london
underground when the bomb would kill all the potential passengers
anyway...or walk the the bleeding remains of lLewis Hamilton in what was
once a formula one car and say "oh look, the gearbox is still intact"

So I claim that really Fuku was unfortunate, but not culpably flawed design.

As far as 3MI went, it was a mixture of mechanical failure and a bad
response by insufficiently trained staff. It is in fact typical of any
'air crash' type accident where there is usually a path out of the
disaster that starts with mechanical failure that isn't taken because of
human imperfections.Once again its hard to say the design was flawed -
better training and documentation and maintenance specifications and
perhaps a slight part redesign - that's how these things are handled in
the aviation business.

Chernobyl remains the one seriously bad design on two possible counts.
They started out with a reactor that could do very strange things and
didn't clearly document it or train staff for it and they didn't put
secondary containment on it.

Well that's Communism for you.

Only art students think that any event has but a single cause, and that
'perfectly safe' is attainable. In the RealWorld„¢ we have to grow up and
look at te statistical chances of failure, the statistical likelihood of
damage to property and human health, and optimise for the greatest
benefit at the lowest cost and then shut the **** up and not whinge...

Nuclear power is overall - and increasingly so given the decline in oil
production in the non fracked world, and te increase in prices on the
horizon - an extraordinarily good value for money and risk of injury
technology.

Asking it to be 'made safer' is ********. Its already more than safe
enough. Maybe 100-1000 times more than safe enough. No one died at Fuku,
no one needed evacuating at Fuku and the exclusion zone is no less safe
than e.g. Dartmoor.

No one builds reactors like Chernobyl any more anyway. They are
obsolescent designs and are all scheduled to close by at the latest
2034. All have had various safety issues addressed and some have had
partial secondary containment installed, And you may be sure no
operators is not aware of the danger of them

In the context of new nuclear really secondary containment is already
good enough., The advances of the SMR are to reduce the core size so
that core meltdown cannot happen on a scrammed reactor under only
passive cooling. Provided its still got water in, it doesn't need to be
pumped round - like a gravity fed CH system it just circulates vua
convection.

That already removes the need for a whole mass of safety circuits
designed to ensure pumps keep working. Lowering costs. And arguably
increasing safety

Of course loss of coolant is still an issue, and it is still conceivable
that meltdown could happen, but 3MI and FUKU show us that that is not
the end of the world. A puddle of molten fuel in a concrete chamber that
simply needs to be left for 50 years is ok as long as its sealed and
isolated.

Takes a lot of concrete, but not as much as an equivalent wind farm.....


--
€œProgress is precisely that which rules and regulations did not foresee,€�

€“ Ludwig von Mises

On 18/02/2021 12:39, Steve Walker wrote:
Yes, the rods could not be inserted fast enough, so as they started to
go in, they slowed enough neutrons to the speeds required for a
sustained reaction and increased output, just when they had nowhere to
get rid of the heat. That did, as you say, result in distortion that
prevented them being pushed fully in and stopping the reaction.

Again a known problem with the design, that the Soviets simply ignored.

....until after the event and the suicide of the man who tried to tell
them...

RDMBK reactors are still in use but all have been modified somewhat to
alleviate the issues

they are all scheduled to be closed by 2034

It is interesting to note that 3 other reactors at Chernobyl continued
working 14 years after the fire that destroyed reactor 4.

So much for the dangers of being within a million miles of the place


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 17/02/2021 13:29, Pancho wrote:


FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

But presumably approved by the expert independent regularity authorities
responsible for safety.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 12/02/2021 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations...

Art Students to Nuclear Engineer: "OK, smart guy, /you/ tell /us/ what
colour it should be!"

--
Spike

On 19/02/2021 08:26, alan_m wrote:
On 17/02/2021 13:29, Pancho wrote:


FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

But presumably approved by the expert independent regularity authorities
responsible for safety.


Yep, that was before they moved on to giving the thumbs up to: tower
block cladding, financial derivative markets based on mortgage backed
securities, etc.

I'm sure we can get the same guys back for new designs. We understand
these things so much better now, No more boom and bust, and what not.

But seriously, nuclear has been pretty safe so far, and, in general,
engineering experience tends to make things safer.

Unfortunately for nuclear, engineering experience is best learnt by
small mistakes, competition, evolution. The scale of huge nuclear
projects means that politics and dogma can be more important than actual
track record. With small reactors we may see competition drive the
market forward.

On 19/02/2021 09:06, Spike wrote:
On 12/02/2021 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations...

Art Students to Nuclear Engineer: "OK, smart guy, /you/ tell /us/ what
colour it should be!"

You've been reading Douglas Adams.

On 19/02/2021 08:26, alan_m wrote:
On 17/02/2021 13:29, Pancho wrote:


FOAD I'm 100% in favour of nuclear power, I just think that safety
concerns should be considered and addressed sensibly.

The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima were caused by unforgivable
design flaws.

But presumably approved by the expert independent regularity authorities
responsible for safety.

In the case of Chernobyl, approved by a communist state, when known
design shortcoming would never have permitted such a design to be built
in the West.

Fukushima is more relevant, however it was to old designs. Modern
reactors are specifically designed to be able to shut down and remain
safe with passive cooling, removing all reliance on outside supplies and
backup supplies. Which removes the risks of tsunami, storm, lightning
and other natural disasters causing failures by cutting off services.

On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:32:05 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

The feedback problem was known and the design would never have been
licensed in the West. IIRC existing RBMKs were retrofitted to correct
that, after Chernobyl.

snip

I'm not sure it matters where they exist re the risk to potentially
everyone in the world?

Cheers, T i m

On 19/02/2021 12:24, Steve Walker wrote:
On 19/02/2021 09:06, Spike wrote:
On 12/02/2021 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations...

Art Students to Nuclear Engineer: "OK, smart guy, /you/ tell /us/ what
colour it should be!"

You've been reading Douglas Adams.

Somewhat far-seeing, wasn't he!

--
Spike

On 19/02/2021 09:06, Spike wrote:
On 12/02/2021 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations...

Art Students to Nuclear Engineer: "OK, smart guy, /you/ tell /us/ what
colour it should be!"


"Oh, stick it up your nose"

"That's just it, do we need SMR that can be inserted nasally"

--
Adrian C

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking. If it's never happened or has happened
and killed a bunch of people, as long as it's not them personally (I'm
not even sure if it would extend to their closest family?), everything
is ok (with / by them). ;-(

Reactors are made to
generate electricity, and as such are built completely differently to atomic
bombs, which *are* intended to explode.

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

snip

Relying on humans (human error) or automation (black Friday) to have
total control of something very dangerous is a bad thing, and why I'm
guessing it takes two keys and the presence of some important people
to launch a nuke (not that Trump being involved makes that any less
safe for the rest of us).

Cheers, T i m

On 19/02/2021 12:56, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
On 19/02/2021 09:06, Spike wrote:
On 12/02/2021 08:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Rolls Royce, who uniquely do not employ Art Students to design power
stations...

Art Students to Nuclear Engineer: "OK, smart guy, /you/ tell /us/ what
colour it should be!"


"Oh, stick it up your nose"

"That's just it, do we need SMR that can be inserted nasally"

Excellent, a simple and unobtrusive way to keep your nose warm on a
winter's day!

No-one will notice and if they do, I'll just wrap a towel over my eyes
and no-one will see me.

On 19/02/2021 12:50, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:32:05 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

snip

The feedback problem was known and the design would never have been
licensed in the West. IIRC existing RBMKs were retrofitted to correct
that, after Chernobyl.

snip

I'm not sure it matters where they exist re the risk to potentially
everyone in the world?

I was not saying that there was no risk outside the Ukraine, but that
the West would not build such dangerous reactors, so it is irrelevant as
an example of the dangers and possible reasons not to build reactors in
the West.

On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:
On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking. If it's never happened or has happened
and killed a bunch of people, as long as it's not them personally (I'm
not even sure if it would extend to their closest family?), everything
is ok (with / by them). ;-(

Reactors are made to
generate electricity, and as such are built completely differently to atomic
bombs, which *are* intended to explode.

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

snip

Relying on humans (human error) or automation (black Friday) to have
total control of something very dangerous is a bad thing, and why I'm
guessing it takes two keys and the presence of some important people
to launch a nuke (not that Trump being involved makes that any less
safe for the rest of us).

Except of course that nuclear power plants have the normal, programmable
(and therefore fallible and hackable - despite being locked down)
control systems backed up (for the critical safety systems) by multiple,
dedicated, hard-wired safety systems, which in turn are backed up by
fail-safe mechanical systems. And the designs, calculations and
permutations are pored over by the Nuclear, Process, Mechanical and
Control Engineers that do the designs, the Safety Engineers that oversee
the documenting of the safety systems, their equivalents in multiple
companies working on the project and finally the Office for Nuclear
Regulation.

Safety has moved on massively from the early days where people could
operate the wrong valve.

On 19/02/2021 15:04, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking.

This is like me saying, I'm going to walk down the road, and you saying, What
if your legs fall off. Well, legs don't fall off *for* *no* *reason*. Just as
reactors don't explode *for* *no* *reason*.

Put forward a *reason* why a reactor might explode or yer legs might fall off,
and no doubt someone will comment.

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*. Actually, some here
have said that no reactor has ever exploded. I wouldn't perhaps go quite that
far in regard to Chernobyl, even if it was a steam and not a nuclear
explosion. Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

I entirely agree; the Chernobyl reactor was a steam explosion and there
was no true meltdown into the ground below. One design flaw to have was
no containment vessel. I haven't read any articles to suggest whether a
containment vessel would have saved the day.

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

It's a shame that the 15,899 deaths, 6,157 injured, and 2,529 people
missing in the tsunami are forgotten. It is simply ridiculous to place a
reactor by the ocean with a design to cope with a once in a 100 year
tsunami.

As someone who has worked in safety critical designs there is a mature
philosophy of the design process and testing. It is heavily based on
what if scenarios and points of failure. It is clear that some here have
made up their minds and make muddled attempts to put forward incoherent
arguments.

It is showing who are the ones who can think straight and logically and
the usual suspect who can't.

On 19/02/2021 15:04, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking.

This is like me saying, I'm going to walk down the road, and you saying, What
if your legs fall off. Well, legs don't fall off *for* *no* *reason*. Just as
reactors don't explode *for* *no* *reason*.

Put forward a *reason* why a reactor might explode or yer legs might fall off,
and no doubt someone will comment.

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*. Actually, some here
have said that no reactor has ever exploded. I wouldn't perhaps go quite that
far in regard to Chernobyl, even if it was a steam and not a nuclear
explosion. Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

All right : No reactor has ever suffered a *nuclear* explosion...nor
ever will...


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Rolls Royce SMR design is designed to be build on a concrete raft that
can be isolated from ground movement via any one of many different
earthquake proof methods.

It is of course a moot point as to whether you need to design a reactor
to survive a tsunami that kills all its customers...


--
€œIt is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.€�

Thomas Sowell

On 19/02/2021 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:05:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Rolls Royce SMR design is designed to be build on a concrete raft that
can be isolated from ground movement via any one of many different
earthquake proof methods.

It is of course a moot point as to whether you need to design a reactor
to survive a tsunami that kills all its customers...

And AIR the Fukushima reactor actually withstood a far bigger tsunami and
earthquake than even designed for ????


yep twice the size.

No design fault at all. Simply an event that had never been foreseen

--
€œPeople believe certain stories because everyone important tells them,
and people tell those stories because everyone important believes them.
Indeed, when a conventional wisdom is at its fullest strength, ones
agreement with that conventional wisdom becomes almost a litmus test of
ones suitability to be taken seriously.€�

Paul Krugman

On 19/02/2021 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:05:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Rolls Royce SMR design is designed to be build on a concrete raft that
can be isolated from ground movement via any one of many different
earthquake proof methods.

It is of course a moot point as to whether you need to design a reactor
to survive a tsunami that kills all its customers...

And AIR the Fukushima reactor actually withstood a far bigger tsunami and
earthquake than even designed for ????


After the 2011 earthquake that part of the entire coastline dropped by
over a metre, so the X metre high seawall would have protected the
site if this had not happened.

"Fredxx" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2021 15:04, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

On 17 Feb 2021 16:40:11 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:
snip

Well the concern would be that a reactor would explode releasing a
large
amount a radioactive material into the atmosphere.

You mean, just like that and for no apparent reason?

This is the funny thing about left brainers, they can't ever have
'what if' in their thinking.

This is like me saying, I'm going to walk down the road, and you saying,
What
if your legs fall off. Well, legs don't fall off *for* *no* *reason*.
Just as
reactors don't explode *for* *no* *reason*.

Put forward a *reason* why a reactor might explode or yer legs might fall
off,
and no doubt someone will comment.

FACT: no reactor has ever exploded *for* *no* *reason*. Actually, some
here
have said that no reactor has ever exploded. I wouldn't perhaps go quite
that
far in regard to Chernobyl, even if it was a steam and not a nuclear
explosion. Large amounts of energy were released in a small amount of
time,
and the effect that has is a good definition of an explosion.

I entirely agree; the Chernobyl reactor was a steam explosion and there
was no true meltdown into the ground below. One design flaw to have was no
containment vessel. I haven't read any articles to suggest whether a
containment vessel would have saved the day.

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with known
design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a history of
tsunamis.

You can still do that, just use a reactor design that can be shut
down and be entirely passively cooled. Its high enough so that
the tsunami cant wash it away.

It's a shame that the 15,899 deaths, 6,157 injured, and 2,529 people
missing in the tsunami are forgotten. It is simply ridiculous to place a
reactor by the ocean with a design to cope with a once in a 100 year
tsunami.

As someone who has worked in safety critical designs there is a mature
philosophy of the design process and testing. It is heavily based on what
if scenarios and points of failure. It is clear that some here have made
up their minds and make muddled attempts to put forward incoherent
arguments.

It is showing who are the ones who can think straight and logically and
the usual suspect who can't.

In message , Spike
writes
On 19/02/2021 12:24, Steve Walker wrote:
You've been reading Douglas Adams.

Somewhat far-seeing, wasn't he!


In so many ways.

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 05:20:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On 17/02/2021 23:36, T i m wrote:

'Of course' we would all hope that a mini-nuke-plant designed and
built in the UK by RR would be pretty indestructible, but the problem
is, if it isn't, the consequences are going to be suffered for many
many years to come.

I'm not saying that because I'm against NP, because I'm not, I was
just saying most people wouldn't want one in their back yard and you
don't need a complete meltdown (or it to 'Blow up' as such), for it to
be a massive problem.

Your knowledge of nuclear physics is matched by your knowledge of veganism.

--
Spike

On 19/02/2021 17:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:32:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:05:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with
known design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a
history of tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Rolls Royce SMR design is designed to be build on a concrete raft that
can be isolated from ground movement via any one of many different
earthquake proof methods.

It is of course a moot point as to whether you need to design a
reactor to survive a tsunami that kills all its customers...

And AIR the Fukushima reactor actually withstood a far bigger tsunami
and earthquake than even designed for ????


yep twice the size.

No design fault at all. Simply an event that had never been foreseen

I'd hope it *had* been foreseen, but discounted ... you have to draw the
line somewhere.

semantics. I do not foresee massed unicorns leaping off tower bridge. I
did foresee them in a delirium but have discounted them... What's the
difference?


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 20/02/2021 10:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Feb 2021 at 09:05:39 GMT, Spike wrote:

On 17/02/2021 23:36, T i m wrote:

'Of course' we would all hope that a mini-nuke-plant designed and
built in the UK by RR would be pretty indestructible, but the problem
is, if it isn't, the consequences are going to be suffered for many
many years to come.

I'm not saying that because I'm against NP, because I'm not, I was
just saying most people wouldn't want one in their back yard and you
don't need a complete meltdown (or it to 'Blow up' as such), for it to
be a massive problem.

Your knowledge of nuclear physics is matched by your knowledge of veganism.

He is still not getting it, I observe. I await with interest his reasons as to
why such an SMR might "blow-up" or otherwise be a danger.

He is also still wittering on about 'consequences...for many years to come'

That is also ignorance.
The only consequences are man made ones borne out of politics and panic,
Meltdown in a secondarily contained PWR that properly vents hydrogen
that may or may not be produced is a non-event environmentally.

you end up with a concrete structure that contains a wrecked reactor.
leave it 20-30 years and its just a safe lump of concrete that contains
a wrecked reactor

As I pointed out, Chernobyl reactors adjacent to the one that caught
fire carried on for many years afterwards, it cannot have been that
radioactive even there, and there have been no marked issues in the
exclusion zone. None of the people who decided to stay had any gross
effects on their health noted

As with any art student, his response - as with his veganism - is based
on emotions that he considers represent a valid interpretation of reality.

In short he is *scared* of nuclear power, and is attempting to
rationalise that fear into what he can then propose as a rational
response, rather than looking into why he is afraid in the first place.

As with most people who have been duped by emotional narratives in the
media and elsewhere, he is in complete denial of the fact that this has
actually taken place.



--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 20/02/2021 12:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short he is *scared* of nuclear power,

Looks up at sun.

(Well, this is England, so that part of the sky where the sun should
be ...)

the one nuclear reactor he SHOULD be scared of, as it is a radiation
emitting cancer causing killer


--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On Saturday, 20 February 2021 at 09:12:35 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/02/2021 17:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:32:30 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 17:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 17:05:02 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/02/2021 16:49, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:09:11 +0000, Fredxx wrote:

The two disasters, namely Chernobyl and Fukushima were two disasters
waiting to happen. The lessons are don't operate a reactor with
known design flaws and don't build a reactor by the ocean with a
history of tsunamis.

WEll that rather ****s Japan then ....

Rolls Royce SMR design is designed to be build on a concrete raft that
can be isolated from ground movement via any one of many different
earthquake proof methods.

It is of course a moot point as to whether you need to design a
reactor to survive a tsunami that kills all its customers...

And AIR the Fukushima reactor actually withstood a far bigger tsunami
and earthquake than even designed for ????


yep twice the size.

No design fault at all. Simply an event that had never been foreseen

I'd hope it *had* been foreseen, but discounted ... you have to draw the
line somewhere.

semantics. I do not foresee massed unicorns leaping off tower bridge. I
did foresee them in a delirium but have discounted them... What's the
difference?


--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

I found this quite interesting
https://youtu.be/YRPuO1RhbKo

On 20/02/2021 14:00, John J wrote:


I found this quite interesting
https://youtu.be/YRPuO1RhbKo

Thanks. He skips over the prompt critical bit, but maybe that is because
we aren't to sure about it.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2021 12:22:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 20/02/2021 10:44, Tim Streater wrote:
On 20 Feb 2021 at 09:05:39 GMT, Spike wrote:

On 17/02/2021 23:36, T i m wrote:

'Of course' we would all hope that a mini-nuke-plant designed and
built in the UK by RR would be pretty indestructible, but the problem
is, if it isn't, the consequences are going to be suffered for many
many years to come.

I'm not saying that because I'm against NP, because I'm not, I was
just saying most people wouldn't want one in their back yard and you
don't need a complete meltdown (or it to 'Blow up' as such), for it to
be a massive problem.

Your knowledge of nuclear physics is matched by your knowledge of veganism.

He is still not getting it, I observe. I await with interest his reasons as to
why such an SMR might "blow-up" or otherwise be a danger.

He is also still wittering on about 'consequences...for many years to come'

Sheep in Wales, how far away was that from the source of the 'non
problem'?

If a blade falls off a wind turbine or a transformer blows up life
isn't still being threatened around the world 30 years later.

The only people in complete denial of the completely different
magnitude of order of risk in Nukes are the trolls and left brainers
(who dgaf about anyone else).

And yes, 'of course' the 'cost' to all of us means everything has to
be considered, from the environmental impact in obtaining the
materials to make these generation sources, to the pollution they
create during their life spans to the pollution created during their
decommissioning ... including long it might be before that land could
be used for something else, like housing.

I'm still not saying I'm against nukes, just that as an energy
solution they are potentially like lighting a BBQ with petrol. If you
are very careful / lucky, you might get away with it ...

Cheers, T i m

On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:


Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

That's true of most things. Wind turbines, for example, being built out
of exotic composites. But how much damage has this pollution done?

snip
ditto.

Andy

On 21/02/2021 22:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:


Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

That's true of most things. Wind turbines, for example, being built out
of exotic composites. But how much damage has this pollution done?

square root of sweet fanny adams. Chronic Low level radiation just is
not an issue for cells.

The only tow radioisotopes that seem to be harmful in the broader
context are radon that decays to lead in the lungs, and highly
radioactive iodine 131 that gives people thyroid cancer if they are
within range of a reactor release .

Everything else injurious is confined to the reactor site


snip
ditto.

Andy


--
The biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 21/02/2021 22:40, Tim Streater wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 at 12:59:55 GMT, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

A certain amount of radioactive material has been spread, and that only by one
reactor. If it has a short half life, then it's already gone, years ago,
decayed to safer stuff. If it has a long half life, it's not that dangerous
anyway. Potassium-40, for example, causes 4300 radioactive decays in your body
every second.

You overlook that there is significant radioactive material all around us,
even more so in places like Dartmoor. You also overlook that life has been
dealing with radiation since the beginning of life on Earth, and has developed
mechanisms to mitigate the effects of it.

There are 4 billion tonnes of radioactive uranium in the sea. Even more
in the earths crust

Radio carbon and potassium are everywhere.
At my school we had a Geiger counter, The physics master switched it on.
'why is it clicking?' 'There is natural radiation everywhere'. We played
with it for a bit. Some people seemed to be slightly more radioactive
than others.,

Then the physics master unlocked a box and carefully lifted out two lead
pots put them on the bench and told us to gather round. He used tongs to
lift out one silvery disk and put it on the bench. The Geiger counter
perked up a bit. He took another silvery disk out of the other pot, the
Geiger counter got a bit more interested. He slowly and very carefully
slid one disk towards the other, stopping about 1/8" apart. The Geiger
counter went mad.

"I think that will do" he said. "That was a chain reaction, and those
disks were uranium , somewhat enriched with U235"

"What would have happened if they had touched sir?" "We would all have
been in the Royal Free" he said "And I would have been sacked".

They don't do physics like that any more.

Its a shame no one makes cheap Geiger counters on smart phones. Once
people realised how radioactive the world is compared to a nuclear power
station, they would clamour for nuclear power. I guess that's why no one
has put one in a phone. Project Fear needs its bogeymen to keep you
believing in windmills....


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 21/02/2021 22:01, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 19/02/2021 12:59, T i m wrote:

Except reactors 'built to generate electricity' *have* gone wrong or
been broken and have spewed very long living pollution across the
world.

That's true of most things. Wind turbines, for example, being built out
of exotic composites. But how much damage has this pollution done?

Let's not forget the pollution from spewed out from the mining,
refining, processing, etc of the rare-earth elements needed by all kinds
of generators, batteries, and control systems.

But that pollution is in far-off China and elsewhere, so the
virtue-signalling loonygreenies, vegans, and assorted Post-Truth
Marxists can pretend it doesn't exist. Nothing must get in the way of
the toxic green revolution!

--
Spike