On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 22:01:58 +0000, 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.

Of course.

Wind turbines, for example, being built out
of exotic composites.

AS would a nuclear power station?

But how much damage has this pollution done?

The 'issue' is 'how much damage *could* it do'.

Letting a child play with a live grenade *could* be safe, especially
if you have instructed and trained them on the risks of doing so and
with some extra safety features in place ... till one day that
butterfly ...

Cheers, T i m

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

More people have been killed in motorcycle accidents than by nuclear
power generation, but that didn't stop your biking years, did it?

--
Spike

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:38:54 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

The same processes apply to aeroplanes and space rockets yet they
still hit the ground and other planets pretty hard?

Dams are also built:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

Or don't 230,000 deaths from a dam bursting matter? Would you advocate
the banning of new dams and the decommissioning of old ones?

You won't want to see this link:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

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

I'm sure it has, in some countries. Maybe I'll be happier when all the
'old' systems have been turned of and fully decommissioned.

Would that include dams and mines?

I know you won't reply be3cause you hate facts that don't further your
myopic views.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:58:35 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

snip Spuke puke

More people are killed on our roads in any one year than have died from
whatever illegal drugs you care to include in the "war on drugs" since
the 1960s.

And?

Best not to try and introduce facts to arguments sometimes. You always
come off worse ....

Oh the irony (or maybe this is the best I should expect when trying to
discuss things with trolls, left brainers or people who obviously have
a vested interest / bias). ;-(

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do
with anything?

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of
nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of
electricity generation that I was talking about here.

But hey, I guess if you don't have any argument / defence for that
they *of course* you would try all sorts of distractions ... ;-(

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very
dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete
idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us
/ the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the
first place. This would still be the case, *even if* they were
typically used for good reasons.

Cheers, T i m

On 25 Feb 2021 10:10:30 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

Best not to try and introduce facts to arguments sometimes. You always
come off worse ....

Especially where T r o l l is concerned.

Aww, bless, the sad old Goblin jumping on yet another bandwagon over a
cliff. ;-(

He's already been told,

I love it, I love the way these left brainers think they know it all
and so can / should_be_able_to simply 'tell' someone something and
they then *must* believe / agree / do what they say!

Bwhahahahaha!!!! (No, I shouldn't laugh, they really can't help
themselves).

yet chooses to ignore,

Bwhahaha ... yes, I choice I have every right to make, *especially*
when the information is irrelevant and coming from a Goblin!

that although the Chernobyl
reactor was a bad design,

And? WTF difference does that make to *anything*?

it took a lot of deliberate actions on the part of
the plant operators to render it unsafe,

And? WTF difference does that make to *anything*?

and that three other reactors (of the
same design) ran for some years after 1986 without incident.

Wow, that makes everything ok then!

It really must be easy for you and your kind, being able to get solace
from focusing on some specific sub-set of the information and use that
for the entire basis for your thoughts / decisions. But no more that
I'm used to from some here ... voting for Brexit just for 'sovereignty
even though it could cost many people their livelihoods.

Cheers, T i m

On 19 Feb 2021 17:16:09 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

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...

Well you have to spell it out in words of one syllable for some who would
otherwise mistake the overheard fart made by a plant operator for a nuclear
explosion.

Aww bless, the left brainers slowly catching up and explaining what
I've been saying all along to each other. Awwwww. ;-)

Now you seem to have got that bit, let's try moving the idea on a bit
(I appreciate ideas' aren't your thing, just black / white facts (as
you see them) etc ...).

Now, if a(traditional) explosion happens of power 'x', then anyone
within 'y' meters could be perfectly safe.

Have that same explosion but this time wrap the explosives with nails
and bolts, the people standing at 'y' meters could now be at risk.

(Don't worry, those people aren't you and it wouldn't matter if it was
someone else etc).

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Now, when that's Sahara sand or volcanic ash or even frogs, the
chances are few are doing to suffer much from it. If it's (say)
radioactive, a few hundred farmers may not be allowed to sell a few
thousand sheep or worse.

Now ... not that any left brainer would GAF about anything like that,
but the fact that they don't, doesn't impact the scenario *at all*.

But credit where credit's due, in spite of the headaches and
frustrations you must have been suffering trying to understand
anything so straightforward, you did hang in there (al be it for the
wrong (trolling) reasons).


Cheers, T i m

On 25/02/2021 10:10, Tim Streater wrote:
On 25 Feb 2021 at 09:58:35 GMT, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:31:29 +0000, Spike wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

More people have been killed in motorcycle accidents than by nuclear
power generation, but that didn't stop your biking years, did it?

More people are killed on our roads in any one year than have died from
whatever illegal drugs you care to include in the "war on drugs" since
the 1960s.

Best not to try and introduce facts to arguments sometimes. You always
come off worse ....

Especially where T r o l l is concerned.

He's already been told, yet chooses to ignore, that although the Chernobyl
reactor was a bad design, it took a lot of deliberate actions on the part of
the plant operators to render it unsafe, and that three other reactors (of the
same design) ran for some years after 1986 without incident.



9 are *still running*, albeit somewhat modified

Kursk 1-4
Leningrad 3 and 4
Smolensk 1-3



--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 25/02/2021 14:41, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 09:58:35 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

snip Spuke puke

Do you find it difficult to justify your opposition to nuclear power
when being reminded of the risks you were willing to take in your biking
years?

More people are killed on our roads in any one year than have died from
whatever illegal drugs you care to include in the "war on drugs" since
the 1960s.

And?

Best not to try and introduce facts to arguments sometimes. You always
come off worse ....

Oh the irony (or maybe this is the best I should expect when trying to
discuss things with trolls, left brainers or people who obviously have
a vested interest / bias). ;-(

Is that your way of saying you have nothing substantive to say?

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do
with anything?

If we are talking about energy production, it is useful to consider the
risks and deaths with the alternatives to nuclear energy.

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of
nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of
electricity generation that I was talking about here.

Quite, then lets look at these risks. This is starting point:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

But hey, I guess if you don't have any argument / defence for that
they *of course* you would try all sorts of distractions ... ;-(

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very
dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete
idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us
/ the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the
first place. This would still be the case, *even if* they were
typically used for good reasons.

Only a complete idiot would dismiss nuclear power out of hand whilst not
considering all the risks, plus I would like to leave reserves of
minerals and oil for my children, and my children's children.

You seem to advocate the mining of the rare element lithium so there is
none left for future generations.


I know you won't reply be3cause you hate facts that don't further your
myopic views.

On 25/02/2021 14:50, T i m wrote:


snip abuse consistent with a failing argument

It really must be easy for you and your kind, being able to get solace
from focusing on some specific sub-set of the information and use that
for the entire basis for your thoughts / decisions. But no more that
I'm used to from some here ... voting for Brexit just for 'sovereignty
even though it could cost many people their livelihoods.

What has Brexit got to do with nuclear power? There is a connection, you
initially sit on the fence claiming an open mind where in reality it's
made up and myopic.

It is a common theme to abuse those who have different subset beliefs
than yours, especially when you're told fact you don't like to hear.

On 25/02/2021 16:04, T i m wrote:
On 19 Feb 2021 17:16:09 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip

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...

Well you have to spell it out in words of one syllable for some who would
otherwise mistake the overheard fart made by a plant operator for a nuclear
explosion.

Aww bless, the left brainers slowly catching up and explaining what
I've been saying all along to each other. Awwwww. ;-)

Now you seem to have got that bit, let's try moving the idea on a bit
(I appreciate ideas' aren't your thing, just black / white facts (as
you see them) etc ...).

Now, if a(traditional) explosion happens of power 'x', then anyone
within 'y' meters could be perfectly safe.

Have that same explosion but this time wrap the explosives with nails
and bolts, the people standing at 'y' meters could now be at risk.

(Don't worry, those people aren't you and it wouldn't matter if it was
someone else etc).

That 'damage radius' could be extended to say a couple of thousand
miles or more, if any toxin / pollutant could be carried by the wind
and then settles or washed down onto the ground below.

Which will decay naturally.

Now this is what I call pollution as an alterntaive to nuclear power:

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...gest-coal-mine

The issue is having a balanced view on sourcing energy, a bit like
natural balanced diets.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 14:51:29 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
wrote:

snip

You appear to be trying to reply to more than one person with the same
tripe.

Or responding to the same tripe from different people?

Or alternatively you are replying to one person with multi purpose
tripe.

See above.

I can't tell at this distance.

I know.

You appear to have missed the point I as making about 100% support for
all and any initiatives to develop nuclear power in the UK.

Yes, I know, so *I* have missed nothing?

The more the
merrier.

Yup, I know, you said.

Bring it on.

Yup, I know, you said (vested interest / bias etc).

So, exactly what of what I was saying were you bothering to reply to
if you weren't replying to what I was talking about.

Or are you admitting you are stating that 'You love nuclear' as a
reply to my 'It's ok as long as it doesn't go wrong'?

Cheers, T i m

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:38:54 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

The same processes apply to aeroplanes and space rockets yet they
still hit the ground and other planets pretty hard?

Both planes and rockets have the same problems: control system failure,
pilot error, mechanical fault can all lead to loss of control, which
tends to mean plummeting from the sky (or with rockets, exploding). They
also tend to have everything under software control (albeit multiple
systems).

Nuclear power plants have hard-wired, mechanical or passive safety
systems, that continue to work, even if the control systems go wrong or
operators do things that they should not (similar would be too bulky and
heavy for aircraft).

Modern nuclear power plants can have have everything fail (loss of
power, plus backup power) and will remain sitting there passively cooled
- unlike aircraft and rockets where gravity has other ideas.

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

I'm sure it has, in some countries. Maybe I'll be happier when all the
'old' systems have been turned of and fully decommissioned.

So you are beginning to accept that *NEW* reactors are not the risk that
*some* old ones were?

On 25 Feb 2021 17:14:02 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

On 25 Feb 2021 at 14:41:22 GMT, T i m wrote:

WTF has the number of people who have died in other ways got to do
with anything?

The 'issue' wasn't the number of deaths, it was the *total risk(s)* of
nuclear versus (and only generally in comparisons with) other forms of
electricity generation that I was talking about here.

Yes. But what you overlook

Here we go again with a left brainers perception of what 'I might
overlook'. Are you really so thick / left brained that you might think
I'd overlook such?

is that the total number of deaths is a good
measure of the riskiness of a technology.

Of course?

Which is why these figures are put
forward for your consideration.

But there aren't *relevant* re my point.

Just because you have facts that state that to date, there have been
no alien related deaths, doesn't go any way towards negating the fact
that their could be (well, until we can accurately rule out the
existence of any other species).

There are loads of things out in the big wide world that are *very
dangerous* and have to be handled very carefully. Only a complete
idiot would deny their mere existence *could* post a large risk to us
/ the environment, a greater risk than if they didn't exist in the
first place.

The danger comes from the poor use of whatever it is.

Yes ... with the key words there being 'the danger'. You have conceded
the existence of such and so confirmed my point. The end.

So enriched uranium and
plutonium, f'rinstance, will be dangerous if you let the wrong people play
with it. Or if you design a reactor which can be unsafe and don't train its
operators properly. If OTOH you design it to be inherently safe, which is what
happens these days, then you're much better off.

'Much better' not 'completely safe' I notice? It's not 'completely
safe' because you are unable to guarantee that (of course).

Chernobyl happend because of
a poor design AND bad luck AND poorly trained operators.

I know.

Remove any one of
these and the reactor operates safely.

'Safer'. But, so?

Of course it "could" still be a problem.

Quite.

But with a good design and properly
trained operators the risk is now very low,

'Of course', 'no question'. However, the 'point' is 'the risk' ...
compared with say 'the risk' of a windmill falling over or a solar
panel shorting out, (as far as the 'in use' risk is concerned). All of
them will cause pollution and consume materials in their construction,
nuclear probably more in it's decommissioning and loads more if stuff
goes wrong).

and I don't lose any sleep over
it.
Nor do I.

Just as we "could" be hit by another 8-mile-diameter asteroid, but I don't
lose any sleep over that, either.

Nor do I, but not the point (... as far as I know, we aren't building
/ launching asteroids).

You need to learn to assess risk.

And you need to understand how to communicate with humans (or Vegans).

Cheers, T i m

On 25/02/2021 17:39, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:36:22 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Both planes and rockets have the same problems: control system failure,
pilot error, mechanical fault can all lead to loss of control, which
tends to mean plummeting from the sky (or with rockets, exploding). They
also tend to have everything under software control (albeit multiple
systems).

There's no failsafe for those



Nuclear power plants have hard-wired, mechanical or passive safety
systems, that continue to work, even if the control systems go wrong or
operators do things that they should not (similar would be too bulky and
heavy for aircraft).

There is for power stations, and railways ...


I rather think that those were the points that I was making -
particularly as I also mentioned the effect of gravity when things go wrong.

On 18/02/2021 13:06, jon wrote:
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.


I don't like the term "bad design". I'm not sure it is possible to
design and build anything useful that does not have some limitations.
The operators got confused and took it outside its clearly defined
permissible envelope. Rather like putting a 747 into a vertical dive,
and then trying to pull out at 600 knots. When our experts looked at the
RBMK in the 1970's they decided it would not have been licensable in the
UK presumably because of the lack of interlocks to prevent it being
taken beyond the safe envelope. But as we have seen recently with the
Max 8, safety system design can be cocked up too.

Also, it wasn't an unauthorised test; but it had not been reviewed as
carefully as it would have been in the UK.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 17:36:22 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 14:37, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:38:54 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

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.

Yet 'accidents' have happened?

The same processes apply to aeroplanes and space rockets yet they
still hit the ground and other planets pretty hard?

Both planes and rockets have the same problems: control system failure,
pilot error, mechanical fault can all lead to loss of control, which
tends to mean plummeting from the sky (or with rockets, exploding). They
also tend to have everything under software control (albeit multiple
systems).

Ok.

Nuclear power plants have hard-wired, mechanical or passive safety
systems, that continue to work, even if the control systems go wrong or
operators do things that they should not (similar would be too bulky and
heavy for aircraft).

Understood, but it was the concept of being 'pored over by the
Nuclear, Process, Mechanical and Control Engineers' I was really
reflecting ... yet they have *still* gone wrong.

Modern nuclear power plants can have have everything fail (loss of
power, plus backup power) and will remain sitting there passively cooled
- unlike aircraft and rockets where gravity has other ideas.

Sure, it's pretty obvious they weren't all directly equivalent (but
see my point above). And they have still gone wrong.

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

I'm sure it has, in some countries. Maybe I'll be happier when all the
'old' systems have been turned of and fully decommissioned.

So you are beginning to accept that *NEW* reactors are not the risk that
*some* old ones were?

What do you mean 'beginning to'?

Please don't be like the others by 1) putting words into my mouth and
2) assuming that I wouldn't realise that such things are likely to get
safeR as time goes on.

It seems like you are trying to prove black is white and so will
obviously fail.

Where the risks are high, of course the systems to minimise the risks
should be commensurate but history has proved (so I don't need to)
that that's not always been the case.

If you are saying that now days there is no risk what_so_ever of the
latest design nukes ever 1) going wrong and 2) that then becoming more
of an issue than say a windmill falling over or a solar panel inverter
exploding then fair enough.

If you aren't saying that, but are saying that 'the real world chances
of a modern nuke ever causing any 'nuclear' problems are extremely
low' ... then we are in likely in agreement.

Cheers, T i m

On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

Andy
--
OK, I accept that in some circles that would be seen as a good thing...

On 24/02/2021 13:43, Fredxx wrote:
It's helpful to put risk into context:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

It does help to consider man made radiation in context with natural. It
all depends on whether you are open or closed to nuclear power.

he death rate from nuclear in there includes "574 deaths from Fukushima
(one worker death, and 573 indirect deaths from the stress of
evacuation)" - they are including people who died running away from
something that wouldn't have killed them.

Andy

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/02/2021 13:06, jon wrote:
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.

I don't like the term "bad design".

I think its the most accurate succinct description.

I'm not sure it is possible to design and build anything useful that does
not have some limitations.

Correct, but thats a different issue entirely.

The operators got confused and took it outside its clearly defined
permissible envelope.

But a better design stops that from happening quite a bit of the time.

Rather like putting a 747 into a vertical dive, and then trying to pull
out at 600 knots.

But the best design stops you from putting it into
a vertical dive, because it is never necessary to do
that with a passenger or freighter aircraft.

When our experts looked at the RBMK in the 1970's they decided it would
not have been licensable in the UK presumably because of the lack of
interlocks to prevent it being taken beyond the safe envelope. But as we
have seen recently with the Max 8, safety system design can be cocked up
too.

Yes, thats obvious with airbus that deliberately ploughed
a forest due to a bad design of that system.

Also, it wasn't an unauthorised test; but it had not been reviewed as
carefully as it would have been in the UK.

But the best designs cant be deliberately put into a situation
which can result in the destruction of the reactor.

On 25/02/2021 21:00, newshound wrote:
On 18/02/2021 13:06, jon wrote:
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:

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


I don't like the term "bad design". I'm not sure it is possible to
design and build anything useful that does not have some limitation The operators got confused and took it outside its clearly defined
permissible envelope. Rather like putting a 747 into a vertical dive,
and then trying to pull out at 600 knots. When our experts looked at the
RBMK in the 1970's they decided it would not have been licensable in the
UK presumably because of the lack of interlocks to prevent it being
taken beyond the safe envelope. But as we have seen recently with the
Max 8, safety system design can be cocked up too.

No. It was not the lack of interlocks. It was the basic design of the
reactor. It is nothing like Western reactors - part of it being designed
to use hundreds and hundreds of small pipes, able to be welded by pretty
well any old welder, instead of properly coded welders for the job. The
design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods were
inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and c) a single failure
could cause damage to nearby channels, defeating the concept of being
safe with two failures (Western licensing would have required more anyway).

Plus the Soviet Union did not even require any containment around the
reactor.

They knew it was unsafe, but did nothing about it. After Chernobyl, they
did make some changes to improve safety - making the basic design safer.
Changes that they could have done years earlier, but no-one dared to
speak out against higher power.

UK companies in the nuclear industry have a policy that anyone - no
matter if they a Nuclear Safety Engineer or a humble labourer, can stop
any job at any time if they think that there is danger ... even if that
job is nothing to do with them, but they are just passing by and see
something.

Also, it wasn't an unauthorised test; but it had not been reviewed as
carefully as it would have been in the UK.

At the time it took place, it was not authorised at higher levels IIRC,
only locally and the test began despite being far outside the parameters
stated as required for the test and well into the danger zone - so it
*was* unauthorised.

As an example of the differences here. To change a single set-point
requires access via a password or key protected control; which in turn
requires documentation declaring what change is proposed, the reason for
it, potential consequences, etc., which is then assessed by multiple
disciplines onsite, in offsite design offices and possibly by the ONR to
ascertain the effects of the change. Only then would it be authorised
and actioned - with a full update of all the existing, relevant
documentation. Then when changed, the change would need to be observed,
checked and recorded.

60 years ago, things would have been different, but these days
everything is *very* tightly controlled.

On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:47 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

Cheers, T i m

On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:17:47 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Given that is very unlikely with western safety procedures and methods,
you're more likely to have a number of Manchesters or even a few Banqiao
Dam failures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure

It's going to take a lot of radioactive contamination to match the man
years lost in that disaster. Or do you think life lost in this type of
disaster trivial in comparison to the few that might be lost in a
nuclear accident?

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

If you looked hard you would check on the contaminated site in the UK
from various oil and other spills.

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

There is no viable alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

That'll be good, the same as soon as we have a viable alternative to
fossil fuels there will be an eventual switch, or the green manufacture
of these fuels.

We have seen such promises before ...

I haven't? If so, only by fools where only fools are taken in.

On 26 Feb 2021 08:54:40 GMT, Tim Streater
wrote:

snip troll ****

How about fixing 'what can go wrong' so that it 'cant go wrong'. Which is what
is done with modern designs.

So, you are stating that

1) There is *no possible way* a modern nuke could be compromised
(now).

and

2) The is a solution (now) for the waste?

and

3) Can you decommission a nuke (now) that allows the site to be
re-used (say for housing) quickly after it's reached EOL?


Cheers, T i m

On 25/02/2021 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever? - no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.
That's why we have never heard of it.

/sarc

Andy


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2021 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever? - no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.
That's why we have never heard of it.

I looked - nothing to do with 'green' - it was due to the thoughts of
Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, long before 'green' had been
invented.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 26/02/2021 08:54, Tim Streater wrote:
On 26 Feb 2021 at 02:02:36 GMT, Fredxx wrote:

On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis, *anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

If you looked hard you would check on the contaminated site in the UK
from various oil and other spills.

How about fixing 'what can go wrong' so that it 'cant go wrong'. Which is what
is done with modern designs.

Well of course "*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way that it
can't be inhabited for a very long time" is not nuclear power.

Christ on a bike they even dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, never 'cleaned
it up' and people have been living there ever since with no ill effects.

All this paranoia comes from the fact that

(a) Fear of nuclear was a cold war weapon in is own right, and
governments tacitly encouraged it - especially the Soviet Union, who
were backing CND and the Labour party covertly. CND became the Greens to
all intents and purposes after nuclear fear 'went away'

(b) No one actually knew. The effects of total high single dose exposure
were known, as were the effects of chronic medium dose exposure. Both
caused cancers. There was no evidence whatsoever on the effects of
chronic low dose exposure, and they needed some kind of metric.
So they picked 'lifetime dose' as a metric. It was as wrong as saying
that if drinking a gallon of vodka has a 50% chance of killing you,
drinking a gallon of vodka over a lifetime has a 50% chance of killing you.

(c) So they adopted the LNT model of total dosage as a metric for health
and safety regulations. The power station companies said they could meet
extremely low emissions regulations and did.

(d) LNT was a gift to the greens, because it allowed them to model
disasters from even minor spills of radioactivity and led to such
statements as 'contaminated for thousands of years' 'no such thing as a
safe dose ' 'that is what your *own government* says' . Out of LNT came
all the predictions of MegaDeath post Chernobyl that simply never
happened. My dear Vegan Green sister still believes that 'it was based
on government models, therefore it was correct' and 'the government
covered it up, because the government cannot be trusted'

She thinks she is intelligent....but I digress.

The fact is that huge areas of the earth have been contaminated for
millions of years by ....sea water! You cant grow any crops foir vegans
in the middle of the oceans!

The total amount of long term radioactivity in the sea is also ****ing
ginormous. 4 billion tonnes of 'nuclear waste' dissolved in it before we
even built the first atomic bomb.

Dartmoor is, according to the LNT model, 'uninhabitable' as is much of
Cornwall. It is many times the radioactivity of FUKU exclusion zone or
Pripyat near Chernobyl.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...h-effects.aspx

is a good read if you *can* read Long Words and Do Simple Sums, so not
suitable for T i m sadly.

--
"First, find out who are the people you can not criticise. They are your
oppressors."
- George Orwell

On 25/02/2021 22:55, Steve Walker wrote:
Plus the Soviet Union did not even require any containment around the
reactor.

Gotta lurve these Left leaning systems of gubberment

They knew it was unsafe, but did nothing about it. After Chernobyl, they
did make some changes to improve safety - making the basic design safer.
Changes that they could have done years earlier, but no-one dared to
speak out against higher power.

'Cancel' culture was invented by communists. The Party Is Right. End Of.
It Cannot Make Mistakes.


UK companies in the nuclear industry have a policy that anyone - no
matter if they a Nuclear Safety Engineer or a humble labourer, can stop
any job at any time if they think that there is danger ... even if that
job is nothing to do with them, but they are just passing by and see
something.

Nose picking *******s


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

On 26/02/2021 10:54, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/02/2021 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/02/2021 09:29, T i m wrote:
On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 22:11:42 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 23/02/2021 10:30, T i m wrote:
Like, a collapsing dam could kill many but the damage / loss death
will be local and short lasting (as in 'ongoing damage').

Go and work out how many dams we'd have to build in order to supply the
UK with electricity.

Why would I / we do that?

Remember they'd have to be built high up in the major river valleys.

Of course?

And
they tend to have major cities downstream.

Of course?


And just how acceptable would hydro power be after it had destroyed
Manchester?

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever? - no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.
That's why we have never heard of it.

I looked - nothing to do with 'green' - it was due to the thoughts of
Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, long before 'green' had been
invented.

Well you are not correct about timing. Germans have been naturists for a
100 years or more.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/env...ental-movement

And its as true to say that Chernobyl was all about Communism and its
attitudes to authority, self reliance and human safety.

But today it would be classed as 'renewable energy' and its today that
we see the silence...

Greens don't want reminding that the only large scale *reliable*
'renewable' energy has the worst safety record of any form of energy



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On Fri, 19 Feb 2021 13:28:13 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

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,

Just as well. ;-)

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.

Why would you limit the concept of the risk to everyone one in the
world by restricting the conversation to the UK?

Remind me, did you vote for Brexit? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as well
just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although it
has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt. In theory you could probably
use the heat from the cooling system to power a still and collect the fresh
water and possibly the salt and other solids. Whether it would be economic
to process the solids further I dont know. Previously work was done on
extracting various this from sea water including gold but it wasnt
economic. Gibraltar has or had a desalination plant.

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:03:12 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip


Well of course "*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way that it
can't be inhabited for a very long time" is not nuclear power.

Except when it is.

Christ on a bike they even dropped a nuke on Hiroshima, never 'cleaned
it up' and people have been living there ever since with no ill effects.

You really are disgusting aren't you how low you will stoop to try to
make your bogus points. Considering you put yourself up as an 'expert'
on all this, it makes it particularly so.

The Hiroshima nuke was *NOT* a ground blast and was detonated as an
air blast to *specifically* limit the radioactive contamination of the
ground and reduce airborne debris.

snip the rest unread as it's bound to be more lies and bull****

Cheers, T i m

In article ,
Radio Man wrote:
Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:24:42 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Jethro_uk wrote:

Especially the possibility for desalination - plonk a few of these
around the parts of the world that need water and consider the
electricity a handy by product

Isn't the electricity /used/ to do the desalination?

Humour fail

Although, come to think of it, no. Well, not necessarily.

Nuclear reactor. Shedloads of serious heat (i.e. 100C) might as well
just distil the seawater. Unless you want to extract metals by
electrolysis I guess ?

It is possible to reclaim desert (or so I have been told) if you can
irrigate and foliate enough area to start releasing water. Although it
has to be *very* big.


The original way salt was extracted from sea water was by natural
evaporation but that was to collect the salt.

In general, it relied on heat from wood or coal fires.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:37:05 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

snip

Looking at Banqiao - I mean who has even heard of the greatest ever
power generation loss of life ever?

Anyone who kept their eyes on the news.

But why isn't the damage to some dams because of a typhoon as
acceptable as the damage to a nuke because if a tsunami (given you
dgaf about people)?

no one would bat an eyelid.
It's *green* you see.

You really are childish / ignorant / disgusting aren't you. You are so
keen to push your own agenda and diss everything else (like the good
left brainer you are), you stoop to such low levels.

Green deaths are not immoral. They are martyrs to the One True Cause.

Stupid ****. Deaths are deaths ... but the bit you don't seem able to
even start to consider (because of how left brained you are) is how
long any issue might carry on killing / polluting things.

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.

Irrelevant.

Q. Why when they banned legally held firearms in the UK were you still
allowed to own / use a six shot pistol?

A. Because it had to be 'black powder' and the chances are no one
would use a black powder firearm for any criminal activity. However, a
black powder six shot revolver could be used to kill 6 people, just
that the risks of it being used for such was very very low.

That's why we have never heard of it.

Ignorance of world wide wind events is nothing to do with any
'policy'.

Cheers, T i m

On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 10:54:00 +0000 (GMT), charles
wrote:

snip

Only a thousand times more people died at Banqiao, than Chernobyl.
That's why we have never heard of it.

I looked - nothing to do with 'green' - it was due to the thoughts of
Chairman Mao and the Cultural Revolution, long before 'green' had been
invented.

Of course, but that wouldn't appear to help Turnips anti people FUD.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/02/2021 22:55, Steve Walker wrote:
On 25/02/2021 21:00, newshound wrote:


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.


I don't like the term "bad design". I'm not sure it is possible to
design and build anything useful that does not have some limitation
The operators got confused and took it outside its clearly defined
permissible envelope. Rather like putting a 747 into a vertical dive,
and then trying to pull out at 600 knots. When our experts looked at
the RBMK in the 1970's they decided it would not have been licensable
in the UK presumably because of the lack of interlocks to prevent it
being taken beyond the safe envelope. But as we have seen recently
with the Max 8, safety system design can be cocked up too.

No. It was not the lack of interlocks. It was the basic design of the
reactor. It is nothing like Western reactors - part of it being designed
to use hundreds and hundreds of small pipes, able to be welded by pretty
well any old welder, instead of properly coded welders for the job.

That's an example of *good* design, in the context of the former soviet
union and their shortage of electrical power. That let them build the
complicated bits in a factory and assemble them on-site with
"shipbuilding" technology. And also to "scale" the plant. Welds didn't
fail either, until they were massively overstressed by the power
transient from getting the physics wrong.


The
design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods were
inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope

c) a single failure
could cause damage to nearby channels, defeating the concept of being
safe with two failures (Western licensing would have required more anyway).

I've already pointed out that it would not be licenced in the UK. But
then neither are some Russian aircraft.


Plus the Soviet Union did not even require any containment around the
reactor.

Rather like Magnox and AGR plant, in fact.


They knew it was unsafe, but did nothing about it. After Chernobyl, they
did make some changes to improve safety - making the basic design safer.
Changes that they could have done years earlier, but no-one dared to
speak out against higher power.

All technology is potentially unsafe. The issue is, getting the balance
of risk against benefit.

UK companies in the nuclear industry have a policy that anyone - no
matter if they a Nuclear Safety Engineer or a humble labourer, can stop
any job at any time if they think that there is danger ... even if that
job is nothing to do with them, but they are just passing by and see
something.

Sort of true. But I am not sure whether the standard western trope about
authority in the Communist block is quite right. Certainly the
*penalties* for, say, a factory manager if a worker dies there can be
much more severe in the west.

Also, it wasn't an unauthorised test; but it had not been reviewed as
carefully as it would have been in the UK.

At the time it took place, it was not authorised at higher levels IIRC,
only locally and the test began despite being far outside the parameters
stated as required for the test and well into the danger zone - so it
*was* unauthorised.

No, it *was* authorised; just implemented badly.

On 17/02/2021 14:59, Andrew wrote:
On 17/02/2021 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests, compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.

Oh there were. lamb was banned from some areas.



And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

Poured into the drains and hence ultimately to the sea, IIRC. Perfectly
sensible, for Iodine 131. Mainly from the Lake District, I think.

On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.

The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller: "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.
No, just confidence. Its only your complete lack of technical
understanding plus your total desire to remain irrationally scared of
'nuclear power' against all reason that spins that in your mind into
'overconfidence'


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Looking at your posts, one can only agree




--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 26/02/2021 14:06, newshound wrote:
On 17/02/2021 14:59, Andrew wrote:
On 17/02/2021 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 17/02/2021 09:08, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Vir Campestris
writes
On 16/02/2021 12:25, Andrew wrote:
Nobody was killed as a direct result of atmospheric testing of
nuclear weapons in the 50's and 60's but there is an identifyable
spike in the incidence in certain diseases, like childhood
leukaemia following those tests.

Do you have any data on the amount of radiation released by the
tests, compared with Fukushima (or indeed Chernobyl)

I think there was a plume of radiation from Chernobyl which led to
concerns about grazing animals in parts of Scotland and Wales but I
don't remember any actual restrictions on later meat sales.

Oh there were. lamb was banned from some areas.



And all milk in a huge area around windscale was collected
from the farms and destroyed to stop people drinking it.

Poured into the drains and hence ultimately to the sea, IIRC. Perfectly
sensible, for Iodine 131. Mainly from the Lake District, I think.

Perfectly sensible tat the time and lack of understanding
Today a complete waste of decent milk.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

On 26/02/2021 15:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:25, Pancho wrote:
On 26/02/2021 14:00, newshound wrote:

The design was known to a) increase power output as the control rods
were inserted, b) take too long to insert the rods and


It wasn't widely know, it was "noticed", in a "how strange" sort of way.

These points only apply IF you drive it outside the envelope


One of the impressions you get from Chernobyl is that the operators
behaved the way they did because they felt they had a sure fire fail
safe, scram, to shut down the reactor.

It is slightly concerning to see the same over confidence in safety
systems reflected in this thread.
No, just confidence. Its only your complete lack of technical
understandingÂ* plus your total desire to remain irrationallyÂ* scared of
'nuclear power' against all reason that spins that in your mind into
'overconfidence'


I'm 100% pro nuclear fission, 100% pro research into breeder reactors.
Pro SMR, would be also be happy with a massive reactor building program
like happened in France.

I'm even pro fission as opposed to fusion.

Unfortunately I'm also familiar with the kind of political idiocy that
infects big projects


The western systems are probably safer and better run, but to quote
Schiller:Â* "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."

Looking at your posts, one can only agree