Chernobyl revelations
Matthew DeLuca
>[...] Perhaps the crack scientific/publicity/activists
>of Greenpeace will favor us with an honest account (hopefully not
>bundled with a request for funding).
I do hope this was sarcastic...like any other group with an agenda,
Greenpeace will distort what it has to to try to make its point.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: cco...@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
Jim Hoffman
in Northern Europe. The radiation made its way to the ice cap, melted into
the streams and rivers, got to the fish, and then found its way to the deer.
Now, the herders can't use the deer for nothing. Their entire way of life
has been altered. Does anybody have more details on this????
Seems to me that we can throw our nuclear stockpile away
and aim our convectional missles right at their reactors. I know I would
not want to be in Baltimore if 3-mile Island, Peach Bottom, and Calvert Cliffs
got hit!
Jim
Beckman
>I recall from a PBS show that the fallout from the accident affected reindeer
>in Northern Europe. The radiation made its way to the ice cap, melted into
>the streams and rivers, got to the fish, and then found its way to the deer.
>Now, the herders can't use the deer for nothing. Their entire way of life
>has been altered. Does anybody have more details on this????
shortly after the Chernobyl accident the Swedish government set a limit on
the activity of reindeer meat per kg so low that the radon intake of some
8,000 Swedish houses would have delivered a dose equivalent to consuming
7.5 tonnes of "contaminated" reindeer meet per year (SIXTY 12-oz steaks a
day), and a group of Norwegian health physicists placed advertisements
offering to buy reindeer meet "contaminated" up to 20,000 Bq/kg, or
SIXTY-SEVEN times the Swedish standard, for their families' refrigerators.
The whole thing became so ridiculous that within weeks of the decree
the Swedish Radiation Protection Agency had to recommend raising the limit
by a factor of TEN, and to set a standard of absorbed dose per year rather
than activity per kg of reindeer meat.
Yet more than 4 years later I see the canard is still alive and well.
It OUGHT to teach one how much credence to give to PBS, but I am sure it
won't. So just keep on believing in the hoax of the reindeer, and maybe
in psychokinesis, UFOs, and a flat earth as well.
Petr Beckmann
Irving Chidsey
<In article <1991Apr16....@colorado.edu> beck...@csn.org (Beckman) writes:
<>In article <1991Apr16.1...@welch.jhu.edu> ji...@welchlab.welch.jhu.edu (Jim Hoffman) writes:
<>>I recall from a PBS show that the fallout from the accident affected reindeer
<>>in Northern Europe. The radiation made its way to the ice cap, melted into
<>>the streams and rivers, got to the fish, and then found its way to the deer.
<>>Now, the herders can't use the deer for nothing. Their entire way of life
<>>has been altered. Does anybody have more details on this????
<> Some reindeer did indeed have to be slaughtered, but only because
<>shortly after the Chernobyl accident the Swedish government set a limit on
<>the activity of reindeer meat per kg so low that the radon intake of some
<>8,000 Swedish houses would have delivered a dose equivalent to consuming
<>7.5 tonnes of "contaminated" reindeer meet per year (SIXTY 12-oz steaks a
<>day), and a group of Norwegian health physicists placed advertisements
<>offering to buy reindeer meet "contaminated" up to 20,000 Bq/kg, or
<>SIXTY-SEVEN times the Swedish standard, for their families' refrigerators.
<> The whole thing became so ridiculous that within weeks of the decree
<>the Swedish Radiation Protection Agency had to recommend raising the limit
<>by a factor of TEN, and to set a standard of absorbed dose per year rather
<>than activity per kg of reindeer meat.
<
<that accident managed to effect animals miles away, think of the local
<problems. Imanage what the worse case would of meant to the reindeer.
<If our country was dotted with nuclear power, think of the fun terrorists
<could have! Though I doubt Saddam has enough abiblity at the present, think
<of the other crazy people out that already give their lives for their leader.
<What would the global impact be if there were 4 or 5 Chernobyl here and there.
<The US has the best in nuclear organization, but do you think Saddam cares
<that much about his. I think Chernobyl proves that a nuclear accident
<is of global concern, even if the reindeer have no loooooong term damage.
<I know I don't want to drink "glowing" water.
<
<Jim
Chernobyl was not far from a worst case, mainly because it was
so poorly designed. Three-Mile-Island was in some ways comperable to a
worst case, about 1/3 of the core melted!
Both were due to operator error, deliberate for Chernobyl,
inadvertant for TMI. Things would have gone much better if the TMI
people had just gone home when the guages went off scale and the alarms
went off.
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
Perpetual Student
>In article <1991Apr16....@colorado.edu> beck...@csn.org (Beckman) writes:
>>>I recall from a PBS show that the fallout from the accident affected reindeer
>>>in Northern Europe. The radiation made its way to the ice cap, melted into
much deleted
>>SIXTY-SEVEN times the Swedish standard, for their families' refrigerators.
more deleted
>> Petr Beckmann
>
>First, what is 4 years. What genetic alterations will there be in 20 years?
>I don't know, maybe nothing. We will see, I hope.
>
>Second, you must think we don't have any environmental problems and that I
>shouldn't believe my own eyes when I walk pass the water way around Beth
>steel. Not a pretty sight. I quess I cough tooooo much and it ruins my
>eyesight due to the tears that the air puts in my eyes.
>
This is a good point. I like to ask people who live near coal fired power
plants how they like it. In Indiana, until recently, all that was required
on stacks was electrostatic precipitators. The engineers at Cayuga Power
Station told me this only attenuated about 70% of the flyash, not to mention
doing absolutly nothing for NOx and SO2. Anyone who lives near Gary or
hammond Indiana will attest to bad air from refineries and steel mills.
>Third, Chernobyl was still a small accident compared to the worse case. If
How much worse can it get? A reactivity explosion (a bomb essentially)
is about the worst case for the RBMK style reactor. This is impossible in
this country. You must realize that domestic power reactors are not
built on this design, and our operators do not do tests at 7% power
(was intended to be 25%, the operators screwed up. Reactors are not
intended to run at such low power.) where all of the safety and
backup safety systems are disabled.
>If our country was dotted with nuclear power, think of the fun terrorists
>could have!
A terrorist could do many things to any operating power plant. However,
nuclear steam supply systems are designed to cover all the possible
failure modes with redundant safety systems that require little or no
operator intervention. Even in the worst case, loss of offsite power,
which happens frequently in electrical storms, there have been no accidents.
I am not sure, but I think that is the worst thing a terrorist could
do. If anyone is interested, NRC and NUREG documentation available
through Freedom of Information Act, lists the vulnerabilities and
preventions for terrorist attacks.
Constructive flame: Jim, there is alot of reading material available
from reliable sources on the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power.
It is best in such an emotional issue as this to do some checking of
facts before making such declarations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
--
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
Matt Kennel;I11 CMRR;534-4511
>and aim our convectional missles right at their reactors. I know I would
>not want to be in Baltimore if 3-mile Island, Peach Bottom, and Calvert Cliffs
>got hit!
I'm not sure that anything short of a nuke itself could completely blow
through a real containment dome. I've heard it anecdotally from an engineer
who works at General Atomics that they're supposed to be able to withstand
the impact of a 747.
Militarily, what's the point of poisoning an enemy's country? It doesn't
inflict any real short-term harm, and only serves to make them really really
pissed off.
Before anybody says "Iraq", is there any evidence that their reactor
cores were blown apart, and that it had a full-strength containment dome?
One could easily put the whole facility out of commission without blowing
up the core; especially any refinement centrifuges that probably wouldn't
be inside the main dome.
>Jim
Matt Kennel
m...@inls1.ucsd.edu
Clayton Cramer
This sort of scenario was covered in Scientific American some years,
comparing:
1. nuclear bomb ground burst;
2. nuclear reactor has a melt-down;
3. nuclear bomb hits a shutdown reactor;
4. nuclear bomb hits an operating reactor.
#4 was the worst case.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms;" -- from New York's
request for a bill of Rights, July 26, 1788.
John Whitmore
Not true; Chernobyl is LARGER than the worst-case for any
American-design nuclear plants. The main damage at Chernobyl occurred
AFTER core meltdown (because the core had 'negative void coefficient',
the core damage INCREASED the reaction rate). For plants like the
ones in the US, the core is under-moderated (so has a 'positive
void coefficient'), and core meltdown is the LAST thing that could
possibly go wrong. Core meltdown STOPS a US-design reactor; it puts
a Chernobyl-type reactor into overdrive. And Chernobyl didn't have
a thick concrete containment building (until a week or so had
passed, and the Russians got one custom-built...).
Chernobyl-type reactors are scary. There is no comparable
reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
John Whitmore
Jure Marn
* Third, Chernobyl was still a small accident compared to the worse case. If
* that accident managed to effect animals miles away, think of the local
* problems. Imanage what the worse case would of meant to the reindeer.
* If our country was dotted with nuclear power, think of the fun terrorists
* could have! Though I doubt Saddam has enough abiblity at the present, think
* of the other crazy people out that already give their lives for their leader.
* What would the global impact be if there were 4 or 5 Chernobyl here and there.
* The US has the best in nuclear organization, but do you think Saddam cares
* that much about his. I think Chernobyl proves that a nuclear accident
* is of global concern, even if the reindeer have no loooooong term damage.
* I know I don't want to drink "glowing" water.
*
* Jim
Jim, could you help me understand which part of commercial operating
nuclear power stations in USA can be in fact penetrated by using
portable explosives (or did you have in mind terrorists using
laser bombs and stealth fighters)?
Also what makes you think terrorists wouldn't have much easier
time attacking some other vital centers of civilian life, such
as drinking water facilities which tend to be *far* less protected
as nuclear power station. It is my understanding that the
plants are using bio-sensors around perimeter but haven't heard
anythink like that used for SoCal water systems.
Lastly, I am sure you are aware of the fact that Chernobyl had
positive coefficient of reactivity in low power level and
that British have rejected proposals for similar design in
1947, and that most of USA commercial power generating
stations (and all of the new designs I am aware of) use
water as a moderator (and not graphite).
In light of all that I think people who are genuinely concerned
about environment should start with recycling programs
for batteries collection (did you know it it illegal in
Germany to dispose of a battery?), closing of fossil fuel power
plants, take greater care in choosing building material
which does not contain Radon etc.
--
Jure Marn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ma...@wright.seas.ucla.edu ! kdor visoko leta ...
Thank you for flowers, flames and fun ! ... ima dober razgled
Matthew DeLuca
> Chernobyl-type reactors are scary. There is no comparable
>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
Well, not quite. There are no commercial reactors in the U.S. of anything
like this type, but there is at least one military reactor (Hanford, I
believe) that is of a graphite-block type with no caontainment dome. It's
not so cluelessly designed as the Soviet type, with control rods that fall
out of the core when the power is cut, but it's by no means up to par on
safety.
Michael L Zerkle
|> The main damage at Chernobyl occurred
|> AFTER core meltdown (because the core had 'negative void coefficient',
|> the core damage INCREASED the reaction rate). For plants like the
|> ones in the US, the core is under-moderated (so has a 'positive
|> void coefficient'), and core meltdown is the LAST thing that could
|> possibly go wrong.
John,
I believe you have your void coefficients backwards. The RBMK reactors have
a 'positive void coefficient of reactivity' at low power, however has a negative
void coefficient of reactivity at full power. The consequence of this is that
startup and shutdown of this type of reactor is pretty dicey. At the time
of the accident Chernobyl was operating in a regime where a fairly hefty
'positive void coefficient of reactivity' was present.
In the West all power reactors have a 'negative void coefficient of reactivity'
at all power regimes. This makes Western reactors much easier to operate, and
ensures 'desirable' [serious understatement] safety characteristics.
Finally, for thermal reactors, the reactor is shutdown during a core meltdown.
More accurately, the reactors are design to shut themselves down during a
core meltdown (even Soviet RBMK's). Therefore, the discussion of void coefficients of reactivity is moot! Incidently, during severe accidents the
chain reaction is shutdown, then the problem is removing the decay heat before
the fuel melts.
Mike Zerkle
Doug Mohney
>
>4. nuclear bomb hits an operating reactor.
>
>#4 was the worst case.
A high-ranking Cuban defector revealed that Castro had contemplated and planned
a MiG strike on certain Florida facilities in the '80s. Go get someone to dig
up the details, but since MiGs have *twice* flown unmolested into Florida
airspace....well...I'll leave the nightmares to someone in air defense :)
Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
-- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Barry Shein
> Not true; Chernobyl is LARGER than the worst-case for any
>American-design nuclear plants. The main damage at Chernobyl occurred
>AFTER core meltdown (because the core had 'negative void coefficient',
>the core damage INCREASED the reaction rate). For plants like the
>ones in the US, the core is under-moderated (so has a 'positive
>void coefficient'), and core meltdown is the LAST thing that could
>possibly go wrong. Core meltdown STOPS a US-design reactor; it puts
>a Chernobyl-type reactor into overdrive. And Chernobyl didn't have
>a thick concrete containment building (until a week or so had
>passed, and the Russians got one custom-built...).
> Chernobyl-type reactors are scary. There is no comparable
>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
exceptions.
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Van Snyder
>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
I heard there was a dinky one in Idaho that was built in the 40's or 50's,
but that DOE was still operating.
> John Whitmore
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp
Perpetual Student
>In article <62...@optilink.UUCP>, cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>
>>4. nuclear bomb hits an operating reactor.
>
>a MiG strike on certain Florida facilities in the '80s. Go get someone to dig
>up the details, but since MiGs have *twice* flown unmolested into Florida
>airspace....well...I'll leave the nightmares to someone in air defense :)
>
Will you guys please stop and think for a minute? A nuclear bomb hits
a certain Florida facility. So what? If Castro, or anyone for that
matter, were to pull a ludicrous stunt like that, would it make a difference
where it hit? I think not. If there is any change in the yield of the
warhead, it will be nominal compared to the destruction already
produced by the original device. A fine justification for the beginning
of the END.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
West Lafayette, IN 47907
Quigley
>> Chernobyl-type reactors are scary. There is no comparable
>>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
>
>Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
>are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
>recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
>regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
>and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
>exceptions.
A close friend, just out of college with a degree in nuclear
engineering, went to work for Westinghouse-Hanford. Six months
later he quit and moved out of the area. In his words, ``That place
is a time bomb just waitin' to go off.''
He quickly discovered that the ``safe, clean, efficient''
propaganda about nuclear energy that they fed to him in college is
about 180 degrees from reality.
He got out of nuclear engineering and became a pump designer.
John P. Hannon
>Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
>are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
>recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
>regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
>and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
>exceptions.
>--
> -Barry Shein
>
>Software Tool & Die | b...@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Sorry, but the *only* resemblance between the Hanford reactor
and the one at Chernobyl is the use of graphite as a moderator.
The operating characteristics, moderator coefficients, etc. put
these reactors in a totally different class.
-jh-
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Hannon, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics
University of Virginia | Internet: han...@virginia.edu
Any opinions expressed are mine, and I take full responsibility for them.
Matthew DeLuca
> Sorry, but the *only* resemblance between the Hanford reactor
> and the one at Chernobyl is the use of graphite as a moderator.
> The operating characteristics, moderator coefficients, etc. put
> these reactors in a totally different class.
Which is in itself a terrible flaw; the fire that spread the radiation
over such a large part of Europe was fed by the graphite fire at the core
of the reactor.
In addition to this, however, the reactor at Hanford lacks another very
important safety feature: a containment dome. There is absolutely nothing
at all that will stop an accident at the core from contaminating the
surrounding countryside. For this reason alone, the Hanford reactor should
be decommissioned and new ones (which have been proposed) should be built.
Incidentally, from looking at photos in today's Atlanta Constitution, the
reactors at Savannah River don't seem to have any kind of caontainment
structure; anyone out there care to confirm this impression?
Chuck Henkel
DeLuca) writes:
> Incidentally, from looking at photos in today's Atlanta Constitution, the
> reactors at Savannah River don't seem to have any kind of caontainment
> structure; anyone out there care to confirm this impression?
The SRL reactors are not highly pressurized (only about 100 psi). The
consequences of a loss of coolant accident (pressure buildup due to
flashing coolant) are not nearly as bad as in a commercial reactor,
where the coolant is at 2000 psi, 600 F.
--
| Chuck Henkel | There are currently 111 operating |
| Department of Nuclear Engineering | nuclear power plants in the US, |
| N.C. State University | generating nearly 100,000 Megawatts |
| henkel%ne...@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu | of electricity. |
Christopher Damour
>Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
>are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
>recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
>regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
>and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
>exceptions.
I had to respond to the above. I am an Environmental Protection
Specialist who works for the US Army. First, the Department of Energy runs the
reactors, not the Department of Defense. Hanford, Savannah River Site, and Oak
Ridge are all DOE not military. Second, all Executive Branch Agencies MUST
comply with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations. In certain
circumstances the compliance process can suspended or bypassed, but this happens
VERY rarely. It usually takes a Presidential Order. The EPA has personnel who
have security clearences to go on sites if that is necessary.
I apologise if it seems that I am over reacting but this is a pet peeve
of mine. If my installation improperly disposes of Hazardous Waste then I
potentially have PERSONAL Criminal Liability. I get real tired of reading in
the news how terrible the military (I) am in hiding the toxins and killing the
local populace. Here is a clue, I LIVE HERE TOO! I have the State Department
of Natural Resources conduct inspections, the US EPA conducts inspections, OSHA
etc. We are very proud of our record of compliance.
Yes, the Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest single polluter in
the US. But that is because we are the Army, Air Force, Navy, & Marine Corps.
It is like taxonomy, are you a lumper or a splitter? Yes, there have been
problems in the past. Yes, there are still problems. There are people that are
going to break the law. However, they are prosecuted. The Aberdeen Proving
Ground and Rocky Flats cases proved that. You are going to have people that
break the law. (Oftimes in ignorance) We are trying.
A few years back, Congress was really hammering on EPA for the poor
air quality in the DC area. EPA prepared a special report for the sub-commitee
(sp?) and reported that the worst air polluter in the Metro area was the office
of the Architect of the Capitol. This is a legislative branch office, is not
regulated by EPA, and therefor did not need an air quality permit! (Does
anyone else remember this and is able to give references. I saw it on the news
and never hunted down a print copy.)
Getting off my soapbox and donning an Asbestos suit. (So that I may
die of mesothelioma in 20 years.)
Chris
*****************************************************************************
dam...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu | Christopher D. Damour
| 348 Parkway Court East
| Martinez, GA 30907-1555
| (404) 791-2397 (Work) (404) 855-1169 (Home)
|-------------------------------------------
| Instant person, just add Coffee!
|
|
*********************Wheew! I'm glad that's done!**************************
Doug Mohney
>In article <0094750A...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sys...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>In article <62...@optilink.UUCP>, cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>
>>>4. nuclear bomb hits an operating reactor.
>>
>>A high-ranking Cuban defector revealed that Castro had contemplated and planned
>>a MiG strike on certain Florida facilities in the '80s. Go get someone to dig
>>up the details, but since MiGs have *twice* flown unmolested into Florida
>>airspace....well...I'll leave the nightmares to someone in air defense :)
>>
>
>Will you guys please stop and think for a minute? A nuclear bomb hits
>a certain Florida facility. So what? If Castro, or anyone for that
>matter, were to pull a ludicrous stunt like that, would it make a difference
>where it hit?
Castro does not have nuclear weapons. He does have lots of conventional
weapons, lots of MiGs, and a certain incentive to rail against the Capitalist
Pigs to the North.
In the Cuban Missile Crisis, Castro wanted the Soviets to go to war.
> Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
>Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
>West Lafayette, IN 47907
>--
> Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
>Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
Jere, Your Signature is stuttering
Russ Brown
>In article <1991Apr18.0...@milton.u.washington.edu> wh...@milton.u.washington.edu (John Whitmore) writes:
>>>Third, Chernobyl was still a small accident compared to the worse case.
>>
>>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I heard there was a dinky one in Idaho that was built in the 40's or 50's,
>but that DOE was still operating.
>
>vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
>ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
>vsn...@jato.uucp
Not in Idaho. In Washington and with different reactivity
characteristics than the RBMK reactor in USSR.
Gary Coffman
>shouldn't believe my own eyes when I walk pass the water way around Beth
>steel. Not a pretty sight. I quess I cough tooooo much and it ruins my
>eyesight due to the tears that the air puts in my eyes.
More nuclear plants would reduce the reliance on the coal and oil that pollutes
your water and burns your eyes.
>Third, Chernobyl was still a small accident compared to the worse case. If
>that accident managed to effect animals miles away, think of the local
>problems. Imanage what the worse case would of meant to the reindeer.
My God, man, what could be worse than a core meltdown, a core fire(!),
and a core thermal explosion in a reactor with *no* containment structure.
This *is* as bad as it can get.
>If our country was dotted with nuclear power, think of the fun terrorists
>could have! Though I doubt Saddam has enough abiblity at the present, think
>of the other crazy people out that already give their lives for their leader.
>What would the global impact be if there were 4 or 5 Chernobyl here and there.
Well our reactor designs aren't optimum, but Three Mile Island is about as
bad as it gets. The operators did *everything* wrong including shutting off
the cooling water for 24 hours. The core slagged down but containment held.
Negligible radiation escaped off site. Terrorists would have to carry boxcars
full of explosives to breach primary *and* secondary containment, and they
couldn't do it overnight. Certainly not before the military went in and cleaned
their clocks. The publicity would be great, but the damage they could do would
be small compared to dumping a quart of botulism toxin in a upstate NY water
reservoir feeding NYC. Now *that* would kill a bunch of people. Cheap and easy
too.
Nuclear reactors can be made failsafe, the Candu design comes to mind
among others, but due to the torturous licensing process in this country,
no power company will deviate from the designs that have been licensed
before. Candu uses heavy water as a moderator and as primary coolant.
If the water is withdrawn, the reaction stops. It can't proceed without
the moderator. The core can't melt. The core can't burn. The core can't
explode. It's so idiot proof they let college students play with them.
Gary
Barry Shein
From: dam...@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Christopher Damour)
>b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
>>are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
>>recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
>>regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
>>and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
>>exceptions.
>
> I had to respond to the above. I am an Environmental Protection
>Specialist who works for the US Army. First, the Department of Energy runs the
>reactors, not the Department of Defense. Hanford, Savannah River Site, and Oak
>Ridge are all DOE not military. Second, all Executive Branch Agencies MUST
>comply with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations. In certain
>circumstances the compliance process can suspended or bypassed, but this happens
>VERY rarely. It usually takes a Presidential Order. The EPA has personnel who
>have security clearences to go on sites if that is necessary.
I don't think it's much of a rebuttal to point out that Hanford is run
by the DOE. It's a weapons reactor (as I said), so the blanket
description of "US Military" is hardly misleading. Yes, nuclear
weapons development and research is largely administered by the DOE.
But I don't think anyone's confused who this function is performed
for. I don't remember DOE running SAC or NORAD.
You say non-compliance is rare? What is the current situation in the
Savannah River area in regards to radiocative pollution? Last I heard
they were estimating in the hundreds of billions to clean it up. Do
you mean any civilian could have gotten away with that and it occurred
well within the regulations? I tend to doubt it.
Look, the public is not half as stupid as a lot of people supporting
nuclear power etc would like to paint them. The proponents keep trying
to raise the strawman of "reactors can't blow up" and similar
objections. Although you can no doubt find anyone with any opinion,
that's not the issue.
The issue is really quite simple, when something goes wrong as it did
in Chernobyl, and Savannah River and elsewhere we have only the
vaguest idea how to clean it up or even deal with it. By and large,
intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever. And the
waste being produced is a similar, perhaps worse, problem being
generated even with the best operating conditions.
The public understands the simple concept of a "stain you can't get
rid of". And it scares the hell out of them, for good reason.
We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible. Friends who
have worked in that area at MIT and elsewhere tell a very depressing
story of coming darn close to breakthru on this technology when the
budgets get slashed and the groups disbanded. This is myopic, even if
it will take 50 years, let's fund it for 50 years. We've funded wilder
goose chases, there are plenty of responsible folks who will speak for
the promise of fusion.
I don't think apologizing for past and present failures of fission
helps us proceed.
Matthew DeLuca
>You say non-compliance is rare? What is the current situation in the
>Savannah River area in regards to radiocative pollution? Last I heard
>they were estimating in the hundreds of billions to clean it up. Do
The number tossed around in the paper here last week was something like
nine billion to clean up. Not good, but not quite hundreds of billions.
>The issue is really quite simple, when something goes wrong as it did
>in Chernobyl, and Savannah River and elsewhere we have only the
>vaguest idea how to clean it up or even deal with it. By and large,
>intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever. And the
>waste being produced is a similar, perhaps worse, problem being
>generated even with the best operating conditions.
But, are there instances of contamination at *commercial* power plants
of a signifigant nature? There's a big difference...what goes on at
the military reactors is generally kept quiet...but commercial reactors
are a completely different story. You can't mix the two.
Waste disposal is a tricky problem, to be sure. But it's not unsolvable.
>We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible.
Hear hear!
Kenneth Ng
: First, what is 4 years. What genetic alterations will there be in 20 years?
: I don't know, maybe nothing. We will see, I hope.
I'd look at two studies, Herioshima and Navaski (yeah I know I can't spell).
Forty years afterwards, NO DETECTABLE INCREASE has been found in the offspring.
Cavot: there were genetic defect increases in those that were in the woom
during the blasts, but that is to be expected. And this study was done by
the University of Herioshima, so I think they would have a vested interest
in locating any increases in genetic defects.
: Third, Chernobyl was still a small accident compared to the worse case. If
: that accident managed to effect animals miles away, think of the local
: problems. Imanage what the worse case would of meant to the reindeer.
: If our country was dotted with nuclear power, think of the fun terrorists
: could have! Though I doubt Saddam has enough abiblity at the present, think
: of the other crazy people out that already give their lives for their leader.
: What would the global impact be if there were 4 or 5 Chernobyl here and there.
Small accident? Because of its positive feedback it litterally blew itself
apart. And due to the lack of containment domes it got into the regional
atmosphere. (BTW: does anyone know if an American containment dome would
have contained such an explosion?) Judging by a program on Nova, the
operators violated several cardinal rules of operations, among them the
minumum number of control rods to always be present in the core. Frankly,
I'm not too sure how much more someone could have done ON PURPOSE to create
more fallout (besides blow out the other reactor units).
As far as terrorists go, if they had the explosives to blow apart a nuclear
power plant, there are so many far better ways of terrorising people. Frankly
I don't think that threatening people with cancer in 30 years is nearly as
frightening as blowing your head off right now. There are bridges, airports,
damns, communications facilities, sports stadiums, water and food supplies,
etc, etc, etc. And most of these are far less guarded than nuclear facilities.
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to k...@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail.
"No problem, this is how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Russ Brown
>>b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>>Stop feeling so safe, the reactors at Hanford, WA (weapons reactors)
>>>are quite similar to Chernobyl. Unless they were decommissioned
>>>recently. The US military is quite immune to most regulations
>>>regarding these things so long as they can point to national security,
>>>and continuing to run old, flawed reactors is well within those
>>>exceptions.
>>
>> I had to respond to the above. I am an Environmental Protection
>>Specialist who works for the US Army. First, the Department of Energy runs the
>>reactors, not the Department of Defense. Hanford, Savannah River Site, and Oak
>>Ridge are all DOE not military. Second, all Executive Branch Agencies MUST
>>comply with Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations. In certain
>>circumstances the compliance process can suspended or bypassed, but this happens
>>VERY rarely. It usually takes a Presidential Order. The EPA has personnel who
>>have security clearences to go on sites if that is necessary.
>
>You say non-compliance is rare? What is the current situation in the
>Savannah River area in regards to radiocative pollution? Last I heard
>they were estimating in the hundreds of billions to clean it up. Do
>you mean any civilian could have gotten away with that and it occurred
>well within the regulations? I tend to doubt it.
The problem at SR is not so much pollution as it is accumulated
neutralized waste; if the original waste treatment decision had been to
solidify the acidified wastes, the problem would be much smaller. This
has been done for 30 years at another location.
>
>Look, the public is not half as stupid as a lot of people supporting
>nuclear power etc would like to paint them. The proponents keep trying
>to raise the strawman of "reactors can't blow up" and similar
>objections. Although you can no doubt find anyone with any opinion,
>that's not the issue.
>
>By and large, intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is
forever.
Not so. Radioactivity diminishes; heavy metals such as lead and mercury
are forever. Each of us transports and discards many fatal body burdens
of lead in our car. That contamination is *forever*.
>The public understands the simple concept of a "stain you can't get
>rid of". And it scares the hell out of them, for good reason.
>
>We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible. Friends who
>have worked in that area at MIT and elsewhere tell a very depressing
>story of coming darn close to breakthru on this technology when the
>budgets get slashed and the groups disbanded. This is myopic, even if
>it will take 50 years, let's fund it for 50 years. We've funded wilder
>goose chases, there are plenty of responsible folks who will speak for
>the promise of fusion.
>
> -Barry Shein
>
Don't believe everything you hear. Although fusion systems would be
great if they ever become practical, the inventory of tritium and
activation products in such system will be very large. Sorry, no free
lunch anywhere.
Gary Coffman
[stuff about commercial power reactors that I agree with deleted]
> Chernobyl-type reactors are scary. There is no comparable
>reactor anywhere in North America, so I'm relatively safe.
Both Hanover and Savannah River operated Chernobyl-type reactors until
recently for nuclear weapons material production. Both have been shut
down and neither is to be restarted. They *did* have good containment
facilities that were missing from the Soviet reactor, but they still
had the potential for core runaway if operated improperly. No currently
operating, or under construction, or planned, US reactor has the
capability of uncontrollable runaway that was present in these older
reactors.
Gary
ken ng cccc
:nuclear power etc would like to paint them. The proponents keep trying
:to raise the strawman of "reactors can't blow up" and similar
:objections. Although you can no doubt find anyone with any opinion,
:that's not the issue.
Believe me, they ARE that stupid. To this day when I talk about nuclear
power plants I get questions about accidental nuclear explosion possibilities
"because they both have the word nuclear in it, so they must be related".
And just like the standard "Chicken Little" type press, the accusation will
far outlast any boring rebutal.
:intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever. And the
:waste being produced is a similar, perhaps worse, problem being
:generated even with the best operating conditions.
Radioactive waste by definition has a limited half live. Arsenic, lead,
mercury, and most of the heavy metals are are going to be around forever
(minus effects from proton decay :-)).
Kenneth Ng
"No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Blaine E. Johnston
Carbon moderated reactors have the problem that the carbon atoms,
when bobmbarded by radiation, gradually shift to a higher energy
configuration. This stored energy is released when the carbon becomes
hot. This further heats the carbon, possibly resulting in a small
explosion.
While it was in operation, the Hanford reactor used to periodicly (I
don't remember how often) heat the carbon beyond the point at which
this occurs, in order to release the stored energy. The carbon would
then be lowered to a normal operating temperature again.
I have no idea weather this process was public knowledge before the
Chernobyl disaster, and it is highly posible that the Soviets failed
to remove this energy, and that it eventually caused a small
explosion. After this explosion, the carbon would burn, resulting in
the disaster. The Chernobyl plant clearly did have a containment dome
of sorts, but it clearly was not in place after the disaster, and it
appears to never have been built to western standards.
The Chernobyl plant was apparently much larger than the Hanford
facilities, as it produced amounts of power comperable to a commercial
reactor (1000 MWatts per reactor) instead of the amount produced by a
reasearch facility. About a month before the disater, Soviet Life (the
official propaganda magazine for foreigners) published a large article
about how wonderful the new (~1 year old) Chernobyl plant was. It
included claims that the plant
had the largest power producing turbines in the world (I believe 3 for
each reactor). Designing for size instead of efficiency appears
to be a standard Soviet technique, and this could have contributed to
whatever caused the accident.
The Three Mile Island disaster does appear to have been nearly as
bad as it could have been. In particular, it did result in at least
partial core meltdown, even though claims made at the time of the
accident indicated that this was not the case. I believe that this
accident may be considered a reasonable test of what happens when
you completely screw up and let the core melt down. The result was
that some slightly radioactive water was released, but the core
remained in place, if melted, and was not even sprayed all over the
containment dome. When the water in a conventional reactor leaves,
the reaction stops. The fuel rods may melt as the radioative products
decay, but the chain reaction remains stopped. The Chernobyl reactor
remained on fire (at least chemically) until a significant portion of
the core was spread over the surrounding countryside.
Where nuclear power in the United States has really released
signficant amounts of radiation is at the government plants. In
particular, the releases from Hanford and Savannah river are far above
those form other sites. Recently published federal estimates for releases from
Hanford indicate that they should case significant increases in cancer
rates for the whole region around the plant. I can't remember the
details of this. The Savannah river plant has had turtles wandering
off the property which are legally classified as radioactive waste.
Apparently, enormous radioatictive pollution is legal on site,
because the radioactivity is measured at the site boundary, and the
Savannah river site is truly huge. By the
time signficant concentrations wander off site, it is really to late
to do anything about them.
The releases appear to have been mostly caused by terrible waste
control practices, although Savannah river is reported to have
suffered several meltdowns, causing detectable plumes of
plutionium in New Jersey. At one time in the 50's, in accordance with the
adage "Dilution is the Solution to Pollution," the DOE was actively
rototiling plutonium into the soil at the Savannah river site. Much
of the time, waste disposal seems to have been accomplished by
allowing the waste to leach into the soil. At many of these nuclear
reasearch sites, the chemical pollution problems are actually worse
than the radioactive pollution problems, because the chemicals were
disposed of in a similar way.
The big waste problem at Hanford is large tanks containing, at low
concentrations, a mix of just about anything produced by fission.
These tanks are quite old and in
bad condition, and are probably leaking slowly. In an effort to reduce
the volume of this waste, at some time in the past people added
chemicals, which caused a sludge to precipitate at the bottom of the
tanks. These chemicals were later found to slowly degrade, producing hydrogen.
This was not noticed until the tanks had been sitting for some years
with explosive concentrations of hydrogen in them. One of the biggest
problems now is that the waste cannot legally be moved from the old,
probably leaking containers to new containers, because that would be
disposing of radioative waste and there is site legally authorized to
take this waste. Also, the waste would continue to produce hydrogen
in the new containers, and would have to be vented regularly,
producing small releases of radiation. I hope these releases are not
made illegal, causing the tanks to explode.
Global radation increase still appears to be largely the result of
atomospheric bomb tests, and possibly the Chernobyl accident.
My favorite ancedotes regarding this are the
use of tritium by oceanologists to determine which water has been up
to the surface in modern times, (if there's easily measurable tritium,
it's been to the surface) and the measurment of the radiation spectrum of
Eskimos in the 60s. Eskimos were chosen because they eat a lot of
reindeer, which eat lichen, which concentrate some radioactive
elements. In the radiation measurement experiment, an Alaskan
Eskimo was placed inside a concrete box, to avoid interferance from
radioactivity from other sources. The gamma ray spectrum was then
measured. The result was a step graph, with the number of counts
declining at identifiable energy levels. About half of these points
were identifyable as natural sources, and about a third to a half were manmade.
I can't remember all the sources, but I believe the manmade ones
included cesium and stronium, and the natural ones included potassium.
Michael L Zerkle
|>
|> We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible. Friends who
|> have worked in that area at MIT and elsewhere tell a very depressing
|> story of coming darn close to breakthru on this technology when the
|> budgets get slashed and the groups disbanded. This is myopic, even if
|> it will take 50 years, let's fund it for 50 years. We've funded wilder
|> goose chases, there are plenty of responsible folks who will speak for
|> the promise of fusion.
|>
No it is not! The current direction of the magnetic fusion program is
D-T fusion. The problem with D-T fusion is that the reaction produces a
14.1 MeV neutron. At the power densities necessary for an economic fusion
power reactor the fast neutron fluence that is produced will destroy all
structural materials (metal alloys) known to man on the order of a few
months to a few years. As a result one would need to completely replace
the fusion reactor every few years (maximum lifetime of ~3 years). This
would make the D-T power reactors simply to expensive to operate.
As far as the physics go, D-T fusion is a really cool problem to work on.
But don't kid yourself, no body is going to build a D-T fusion power reactor.
They will simply be too expensive.
If we really want to develop a realistic fusion power reactor, we need to
shift most of our funding from D-T fusion to aneutronic fusion. For more
on this I would suggent reading:
Lawrence M. Lidsky, "The Trouble with Fusion," Technology Review, pp. 32--44
(October 1983).
Mike Zerkle
Robert L. Howard
>I recall from a PBS show that the fallout from the accident affected reindeer
>in Northern Europe. The radiation made its way to the ice cap, melted into
>the streams and rivers, got to the fish, and then found its way to the deer.
I don't recall the actual mechanism for the radiation migration...
>Now, the herders can't use the deer for nothing. Their entire way of life
>has been altered. Does anybody have more details on this????
My understanding was that the government (was it Sweden or Norway?)
*required* the herders to destroy all the reindeer because of the
"radioactive pollution". Furthermore, I recall that the actual
measured amount of radioactivity in the reindeer meat itself was
significantly *lower* than the amount of radiation in all types of food
products in the US. Maybe the US (the FDA) is less worried about
radiation than the corresponding European governments. The conclusion
I drew from it was that they overreacted...
(I know that the regions near Chernobyl were hard hit, but all this
stuff about a radioactive Europe because of it is just wild exageration.)
Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard | Georgia Tech Research Institute |
| rho...@msd.gatech.edu | MATD Laboratory |
| (404) 528-7165 | Atlanta, Georgia 30332 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Reality is showing us that perhaps we should do with nuclear |
| power the same thing Keloggs is advocating for Corn Flakes - |
| Discover it again for the first time." -- John De Armond |
Jym Dyer
__ This rather long and virulent discussion has been cross-
_ posted to/from alt.activism, which is not a group for such
discussion. If what you have to say is relevant to
activism, it should be (cross-)posted to alt.activism.d,
but not to alt.activism. If whay you have to say is not
relevant to activism at all, please remove alt.activism
from the Newsgroups field altogether.
Thanks,
<_Jym_>
Perpetual Student
>In article <1991Apr18.2...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, je...@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Perpetual Student) writes:
>>In article <0094750A...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sys...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>>In article <62...@optilink.UUCP>, cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>>>>
>>>>4. nuclear bomb hits an operating reactor.
>>>
>>>A high-ranking Cuban defector revealed that Castro had contemplated and planned
>>>a MiG strike on certain Florida facilities in the '80s. Go get someone to dig
>>>up the details, but since MiGs have *twice* flown unmolested into Florida
>>>airspace....well...I'll leave the nightmares to someone in air defense :)
>>>
>>
>>Will you guys please stop and think for a minute? A nuclear bomb hits
>>a certain Florida facility. So what? If Castro, or anyone for that
>>matter, were to pull a ludicrous stunt like that, would it make a difference
>>where it hit?
>
>Castro does not have nuclear weapons. He does have lots of conventional
I think you are missing the point. It really doesn't matter who does the
job, and I really didn't say it had to be Castro. Clayton's article
listed the four worst things... and number four was a NUCLEAR bomb
hitting an operating reactor. My point is this, it isn't going to matter.
I will quote Dr. Craig Sawyer, Senior VP for GE, he was here speaking to
the nuke students on the ABWR and the SBWR in our seminar series. He
told us about the seismic tolerance of the two new systems, and the
problems they had with the NRC when they asked why GE didn't design
for 1.0-1.5g seismic activity. "If there is a earthquake worth 1.5g,
there isn't going to be anyone alive within 10 miles of the plant anyway,
so what difference does it make." (Apologies to GE employees, Mr.
Sawyer if he's listening, etc. for any discrepancies.) If a nuke
impacts anywhere around, or on top of etc., an operating or shut down
reactor, there will be more problems from the bomb itself than anything
the reactor could add.
As for a conventional attack, the French had a missle launched at the
containment for SuperPhenix. It didn't make much more than a black
mark on the concrete. Sandia National Labs rocketted a F-4 Phantom
into a reinforced concrete barrier in 1989. The plane, rocket propelled,
impacted a wall that is similar to a containment building at 210 m/s
(480 mph). The wall remianed intact, and the jet, which disintegrated,
only penetrated 2.4 inches. With these demonstrations, it is clear
that there is not going to be any easy penetration of the containment.
True, the operating systems of the plant could be destroyed (disable
offsite power, (i.e. insane EarthFirsters) etc,) but the plants have
safety systems designed to be activated without operator action, or
any electronic command at all.
>
>Jere, Your Signature is stuttering
Thanks for the advice. I blame it all on stress corrosion cracking
and fretting fatigue ==> brain rot <== end of semester
Jere Jenkins (I will try not to st-stutter any m-more)
Tony Wesley
>................ Sandia National Labs rocketted a F-4 Phantom
>into a reinforced concrete barrier in 1989. The plane, rocket propelled,
>impacted a wall that is similar to a containment building at 210 m/s
>(480 mph). The wall remianed intact, and the jet, which disintegrated,
>only penetrated 2.4 inches.
The pilot of that F-4, Super Dave Osborne, was quoted after the test flight as
saying:
"Ouch. That really hurts. Ow. Get me out of here. Ouch."
--
You feelin' alright? Tony Wesley/RPT Software
awe...@unix.secs.oakland.edu voice: (313) 274-2080
Compu$pend: 72770,2053 data: (313) 278-9146
Robert Dinse
<lots of stuff about the evils of fission reactors deleted>
> We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible. Friends who
> have worked in that area at MIT and elsewhere tell a very depressing
> story of coming darn close to breakthru on this technology when the
> budgets get slashed and the groups disbanded. This is myopic, even if
> it will take 50 years, let's fund it for 50 years. We've funded wilder
> goose chases, there are plenty of responsible folks who will speak for
> the promise of fusion.
I agree 500% !!!
It seems amazing to me that the funding is less now that we're within
50% of scientific break-even, and there are even plans on the drawing board
that are believed to be capable of achieving scientific break-even, that
funding is less than 10% of what it was in the mid-70's when we were more
than six orders of magnitude away from scientific break-even.
In my view, the survival of the human race and our planets ecology
depend on it. Even though one can argue that there are other clean sources
of energy, the natural fusion reactor in the sky comes to mind, as long as
they aren't economical we'll never use them to a large degree.
Irving Chidsey
And the more intense the radiation, the shorter the half life.
Most species do decay thru chains, but the chains are short. But no
contamination due to radioactive decay is forever.
The heavyweights tend to end up as lead, which isn't good either.
It is stable, except perhaps for some heavy leads that appear near the ends
of the decay chains. ( Memory sometimes unreliable, books with decay
chains not here. )
Irv
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
((((C.Irby))))
>
> Carbon moderated reactors have the problem that the carbon atoms,
> when bobmbarded by radiation, gradually shift to a higher energy
> configuration. This stored energy is released when the carbon becomes
> hot. This further heats the carbon, possibly resulting in a small
> explosion.
Maybe not an explosion, but it can sure set the carbon on fire...
(It's called Wigner energy (I think)).
>
> While it was in operation, the Hanford reactor used to periodicly (I
> don't remember how often) heat the carbon beyond the point at which
> this occurs, in order to release the stored energy. The carbon would
> then be lowered to a normal operating temperature again.
Wigner energy needs to be dumped off from time to time. The common
procedure for this is to heat the carbon while the reactor is shut
down. This lets the energy bleed off relatively safely.
Note: *relatively* safe...
>
> I have no idea weather this process was public knowledge before the
> Chernobyl disaster, and it is highly posible that the Soviets failed
> to remove this energy, and that it eventually caused a small
> explosion. After this explosion, the carbon would burn, resulting in
> the disaster. The Chernobyl plant clearly did have a containment dome
> of sorts, but it clearly was not in place after the disaster, and it
> appears to never have been built to western standards.
The process is certainly public knowledge, and had been used for years
in some reactors. One notable failure of this process is the Windscale
accident in Britain. They were doing a controlled Wigner release,
and the graphite moderator caught fire.
Up until the Three Mile Island accident, Windscale was the most
famous nuclear plant accident in history.
This happened before the Chernobyl plant was even designed, so I would
guess that the Soviets knew of this technique... :-)
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++ C Irby ci...@vaxb.acs.unt.edu cirby@untvax ++
++ Someday, I'll know all of the answers. Of course, by ++
++ then I won't understand the questions any more... ++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Doug Mohney
>>>Will you guys please stop and think for a minute? A nuclear bomb hits
>>>a certain Florida facility. So what? If Castro, or anyone for that
>>>matter, were to pull a ludicrous stunt like that, would it make a difference
>>>where it hit?
>>
>>Castro does not have nuclear weapons. He does have lots of conventional
>As for a conventional attack, the French had a missle launched at the
>containment for SuperPhenix. It didn't make much more than a black
>mark on the concrete. Sandia National Labs rocketted a F-4 Phantom
>into a reinforced concrete barrier in 1989. The plane, rocket propelled,
>impacted a wall that is similar to a containment building at 210 m/s
>(480 mph). The wall remianed intact, and the jet, which disintegrated,
>only penetrated 2.4 inches. With these demonstrations, it is clear
>that there is not going to be any easy penetration of the containment.
>True, the operating systems of the plant could be destroyed (disable
>offsite power, (i.e. insane EarthFirsters) etc,) but the plants have
>safety systems designed to be activated without operator action, or
>any electronic command at all.
Osriak reactor, Iraq. It was well guarded, with sand berms, SAM launchers, and
other goodies.
The Israelis used 2,000lbs bombs to crack the concrete containment dome (the
best French construction money could buy). If you take the recent example of
the 2,000lb penetrators which got dumped into an Iraqi command bunker...it's
not that difficult to crack even hardened structures.
ken ng cccc
:the nuke students on the ABWR and the SBWR in our seminar series. He
:told us about the seismic tolerance of the two new systems, and the
:problems they had with the NRC when they asked why GE didn't design
:for 1.0-1.5g seismic activity. "If there is a earthquake worth 1.5g,
:there isn't going to be anyone alive within 10 miles of the plant anyway,
:so what difference does it make." (Apologies to GE employees, Mr.
Just for curiosity, anyone know what number on the Rictor scale is needed
to generate a 1.5g seismic activity? Or am I mixing apples and orranges?
Barry Shein
>In article <BZS.91Ap...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>:Look, the public is not half as stupid as a lot of people supporting
>:nuclear power etc would like to paint them. The proponents keep trying
>:to raise the strawman of "reactors can't blow up" and similar
>:objections. Although you can no doubt find anyone with any opinion,
>:that's not the issue.
>
>Believe me, they ARE that stupid. To this day when I talk about nuclear
>power plants I get questions about accidental nuclear explosion possibilities
>"because they both have the word nuclear in it, so they must be related".
As I said, you can find anyone with any opinion in a country of a
quarter billion. But jumping from the specific to the general is a bit
of leap.
I once met an old guy who otherwise seemed pretty normal (for an
American), but didn't know that hearts pumped blood. No conception of
it. I didn't generalize tho.
>And just like the standard "Chicken Little" type press, the accusation will
>far outlast any boring rebutal.
When was the last time you saw a hint in the press that nuclear power
plants will blow up? I must say in my almost 40 years on this earth I
don't remember seeing it even once, tho I suppose it's possible.
>:intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever. And the
>:waste being produced is a similar, perhaps worse, problem being
>:generated even with the best operating conditions.
>
>Radioactive waste by definition has a limited half live. Arsenic, lead,
>mercury, and most of the heavy metals are are going to be around forever
>(minus effects from proton decay :-)).
Well, half lives in hundreds or thousands of years is not that
comforting.
And I agree there are other bad things getting into the environment.
Tho I'm not sure what it excuses.
John Whitmore
>The Israelis used 2,000lbs bombs to crack the concrete containment dome (the
>best French construction money could buy). If you take the recent example of
>the 2,000lb penetrators which got dumped into an Iraqi command bunker...it's
>not that difficult to crack even hardened structures.
Huh? This paragraph doesn't parse. If it takes multiples of
tons of accurately-delivered explosives to crack the containment,
it's VERY DIFFICULT to crack. The likelihood is that any such attempt
to open a containment dome would succeed only after the reactor
had been shut down by the operators (who would want to leave the
vicinity pronto!).
John Whitmore
Barry Shein
From: mlze...@athena.mit.edu (Michael L Zerkle)
>No it is not! The current direction of the magnetic fusion program is
>D-T fusion. The problem with D-T fusion is that the reaction produces a
>14.1 MeV neutron. At the power densities necessary for an economic fusion
>power reactor the fast neutron fluence that is produced will destroy all
>structural materials (metal alloys) known to man on the order of a few
>months to a few years. As a result one would need to completely replace
>the fusion reactor every few years (maximum lifetime of ~3 years). This
>would make the D-T power reactors simply to expensive to operate.
I certainly was aware of this problem and have heard more optimistic
prognoses from materials and other scientists involved with the
tokamak (note: not speculators, principal scientists in the project.)
But it was generally conceded to be one of the more vexing current
(pardon the pun) problems. It came up quickly as a salient point in
any conversation.
I suppose it comes down to that very difficult area of science wherein
we try to guess whether putting significant effort into the problem
would cause it to yield. Hasn't worked entirely with common colds or
cancer, but we might be able to get a better guess with a problem like
this.
In the end these are hard calls. My main point was we can't afford to
stop trying to follow whatever paths are most promising. Complacency
(with fission power) is probably foolish, we can do better.
Perpetual Student
>In article <1991Apr22....@athena.mit.edu>, bla...@athena.mit.edu (Blaine E. Johnston) writes:
>>
>> Carbon moderated reactors have the problem that the carbon atoms,
>> when bobmbarded by radiation, gradually shift to a higher energy
>
>
>(It's called Wigner energy (I think)).
It is Wigner Energy. Given enough carbon, it can release enough energy
to cause a mighty steam explosion, which, if I am not mistaken, is what
the world thought happened at Chernobyl. But, again if I am not mistaken,
I think the Russian report of the accident to IAEA cleared things up a bit.
The test that was scheduled, removal of a heat sink by cutting off one of
the turbines from the steam supply, was supposed to be run at 25% power.
In the process of taking the reactor down to 25%, the operators overshot
their mark and ended up at 7%. This low power is a dangerous configuration
for any reactor, because it isn't as controllable. The operators, knowing
they had a problem because they had disabled every redundant and primary
safety system, needed to get the power back up to 25% quickly. They
proceeded to pull out nearly all of the control rods. As soon as they did
this, it was too late, the reactivity insertion was on the order of a
power increase of 1 E+6 MW, enough to blow the top of the reactor off,
letting plenty of oxygen get to the hot graphite. The rest was the result
of burning graphite and fuel.
Jere Jenkins
Nick Szabo
>You say non-compliance is rare? What is the current situation in the
>Savannah River area in regards to radiocative pollution? Last I heard
>they were estimating in the hundreds of billions to clean it up.
Who is "they" and why should it cost anywhere near this much?
>By and large, intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever.
How much is "forever" in seconds, minutes, days, or years? :-)
>The public understands the simple concept of a "stain you can't get
>rid of".
No, people like you try to spread the misunderstanding that radioactive
waste as being "forever", when by and large it is not.
> And it scares the hell out of them, for good reason.
You are trying to scare them, for no good reason.
>We need to push towards fusion as quickly as possible.
Why do you think this will be safer or cleaner than fission?
>Friends who
>have worked in that area at MIT and elsewhere tell a very depressing
>story of coming darn close to breakthru on this technology when the
>budgets get slashed and the groups disbanded.
This same sad story gets told by every technology group that fails, and
as a consequence, gets their budget cut. Or was $10's of billions
just supposed to be a warm-up? "Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you
the Space Station is going to cost $37 billion, not $8 billion. Silly
me!"
Nuclear fission works, it is safe and clean relative to current sources,
and can be made even safer and cleaner. Let's use it. And improve it.
>This is myopic, even if
>it will take 50 years, let's fund it for 50 years.
How do you know what our needs will be in 50 years?
--
Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
"Those who complain do a lot more for the process than idle wall flowers."
-- Scott Simpson. The above opinions are my own and not related to those
of any organization I may be affiliated with.
Blair P. Houghton
>14.1 MeV neutron. At the power densities necessary for an economic fusion
>power reactor the fast neutron fluence that is produced will destroy all
>structural materials (metal alloys) known to man
What form does this destruction take? Is it decimation of the
total structure, or just erosion from the inside-out of the
containment vessel? Do you expect that volume production
of fusion plants would not reduce the costs (both economies
of scale and the learning-curve effect would do so naturally,
but scarcity of limited resources could reverse that effect).
You got my enginerding juices going. Sounds like a plant
problem, not a process one. Would easily replaceable,
containment-vessel liners do the trick? Plug-in SHIVA
installations? Annual scrubbing with vinegar (hey, it
saves my automatic-drip coffee maker :-) )?
--Blair
"Heck. I can't weave brake-pads,
either, but we use something like
$500M of them every year in this land."
Blair P. Houghton
>:Look, the public is not half as stupid as a lot of people supporting
>
>Radioactive waste by definition has a limited half live.
~10Kyears isn't "limited", to me...
>Arsenic, lead, mercury, and most of the heavy metals are
>are going to be around forever (minus effects from proton
>decay :-)).
I. And leaching; radioactive waste could just be buried in
your backyard if all you need do is put up signs saying
"keep out." Fifty feet of dirt is one hell of a shield
against decay products. The problem is the stuff gets into
the water supply. This is exactly the contamination path
for non-radioactive heavy metals.
II. Decay of radioactive material --> heavy metal material + radiation.
Evenutally, Plutonium becomes uranium and uranium becomes
lead and then we finally have some Federal Laws to control
the stuff ( :-( ).
--Blair
"Heavy metal doesn't decay; MTV
is proof of that sad fact."
Michael L Zerkle
|> In article <1991Apr22....@athena.mit.edu> mlze...@athena.mit.edu (Michael L Zerkle) writes:
|> >14.1 MeV neutron. At the power densities necessary for an economic fusion
|> >power reactor the fast neutron fluence that is produced will destroy all
|> >structural materials (metal alloys) known to man
|>
|> What form does this destruction take? Is it decimation of the
|> total structure, or just erosion from the inside-out of the
|> containment vessel? Do you expect that volume production
|> of fusion plants would not reduce the costs (both economies
|> of scale and the learning-curve effect would do so naturally,
|> but scarcity of limited resources could reverse that effect).
|>
The process is known as neutron embrittlement. What happens is that the
high energy neutron displaces atoms in the metal lattice (creating Frankel
pairs I believe). After extended exposure to a large fast neutron flux the
material actually becomes brittle. Another, problem is Helium embrittlement.
Most metal alloys contain some elements that undergo an (n,alpha) reaction,
they are transmutted and produce helium. This introduction of Helium in the
metals lattice also results in the embrittlement of the material.
The result is that after a few months or years, depending on the material
the metallic components of a magnetic fusion reactor will have become
embrittled to the point where they must be replaced. If they are not replace
the fusion reactor will ultimately undergo a catastrophic structural failure,
it will literally blow apart under the stress and strains induced by the
magnetic field. One interesting design consequence of this is that magnetic
fusion reactors/devices have a much larger containment that fission reactors,
they must be able to withstand an impact of a 100 ton chunck of the reactor!
As far as the economics of fusion reactors go, let's use a little common sense.
If you have the completely replace the reactor every three years it does not
seem very likely that the reactor will be competive with other methods of
generating electricity. You need to remember that a fusion reactor is very
capital intensive, more so that a fission reactor, and has virtually no fuel
costs. In addition, for some of the current fusion reactor design only 2-3
reactors would be required to exaust the world supply of some the the strategic
metal (Vanadium, Niobium, etc.) required for the alloys that are more neutron
embrittlement resistant and for the superconducting magnets. This is no way
to do business!
From the scientific point of view, D-T fusion is an increadibly interesting
problem to work on. But even if they get it to work and design a plant, no
utility in the US or any other country is going to build one. They will be
simply too expensive! Don't expect D-T fusion to be the solution of our
energy problem.
I agree with a comment someone else made earlier, it makes much more sense
to rely on safer nuclear fisson reactor designs. The Gas Turbine MGR design
and Argonne's LMR design look the most promising from the safety and waste
problem point of view. For the long-term I personally believe we should be funding research in aneutronic fusion. The one of the problems with D-T
fusion is that most of the technology developed can not be applied to
aneutronic fusion.
Mike Zerkle
James W. Meritt
}In article <BZS.91Ap...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
}>By and large, intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever.
}
}How much is "forever" in seconds, minutes, days, or years? :-)
I want to know two things:
1. What is "intense radioactive contamination"?
2. How long is forever?
Specifically, I want Barry Shein to list three of these "intense radioactive
contaminants" that "last forever"? I think of "intense" as "cannot hold it
in my hand" and "forever" as "over a thousand years"...
Since I've asked this three times in the last week, and I've seen Barry post
AFTER me on the topic, and not once supporting his statement, I suspect him
of manufacturing "facts" as he goes. I'm awaiting illumination.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
j...@sun4.jhuapl.edu or j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Patrick Haggood
Does anyone know Argonne's usenet address?
--
Patrick B. Haggood
Wayne STate University
Detroit, MI
Physics - Class of 1991 (-2?)
Barry Shein
From: j...@sun4.uucp (James W. Meritt)
>Since I've asked this three times in the last week, and I've seen Barry post
>AFTER me on the topic, and not once supporting his statement, I suspect him
>of manufacturing "facts" as he goes. I'm awaiting illumination.
Meritt, put simply, you're a clown.
In the last week? Since my posting was Sunday or Monday evening and
it's now Wednesday afternoon I am having a little trouble
understanding this babble.
I suppose "the last week" includes "the past 24 hours or so", is that
what you mean?
What's your plan here? To post a message every hour that you *STILL*
are awaiting an answer?
The implication of course being that somehow I am avoiding this? Well,
tough luck, it's been answered, and I think quite well.
However, I suspect you've typed in several more of your "demands" in
the few minutes I spent replying...
Just so long as everyone now knows...
What a character.
Russ Brown
>OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
>I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
>to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
>my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
>
>Element Atomic Mass Half life Emitting( energy Mev).
> no. No
>Plutonium 94 241 13.2 years 0.02 Mev Beta
>Americum 95 241 458 years 5.49 Mev Alpha
>Neptunium 93 237 2,120,000 years 4.78 Mev alpha
>Protactinium 91 233 27.4 days 0.57 Mev Beta
>Uranium 92 233 162,000 years 4.82 MeV alpha
>Thorium 90 229 7340 years 5.05 Mev alpha
>Radium 88 225 148 days 0.36 Mev beta
>Actinium 89 225 10 days 5.8 Mev alpha
>Francium 87 221 4.8 Minutes 6.34 Mev alpha
>Astatine 85 217 0.0323 seconds 7.07 Mev alpha
>Bismuth 83 213 47 minutes 5.89 Mev alpha
>Thallium 81 209 2.2 minutes 1.99 Mev beta
>Lead 82 209 3.3 Hours 0.64 Mev beta
>Bismuth 83 209 Stable
>My data book says this series does not occur in nature, the precursors are
>formed in nuclear reactors. The products become stable(I.e non radioactive)
>after about
>*************2.4 milion years.****************************************
>Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
>stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
>elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
>added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
>(time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
>as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some stuff deleted above.
Last things first. It is a comfort to us that you have a degree in
Physics and "I know what I'm talking about in this case". However,
given that enthusiasm, you may want to consider the technical merits of
claiming that the "radiation does not decay away as fast as" phrase.
The "radiation" is a function of type, energy level, medium, and
distance, to name a few relevant factors. The ***radioactivity*** is
the thing that declines as a function of time. If that distinction
escapes you, a return to the books is in order.
The question of half-lives is rather off-the-point. Pu-241 is formed
during fission process; but what is the significance of its contribution
to dose compared to the other radionuclides? The decay chain goes on
forever on any human scale, but is the contribution of the Pu-241 decay
chain to human dose levels significant compared to the primordial
(naturally occurring) radionuclide, potassium-40? Potassium-40 has a
half-life of 1,280,000,000 years. It contribution to annual human dose
is about 19 mrem (0.19 millisieverts). It is found in all foods; if you
have an urge to increase your uptake, try bananas; beer, nuts, and some
salad oils, and milk also have significant concentrations.
If you are concerned about waste disposal, try to avoid urination. The
concentration of potassium-40 in human urine is about 2 nanocuries per
litre (if alarmed by units, that is equivalent to 2,000,000,000
attocuries per litre).
Chernobyl was a disaster. It killed people. Long-term health effects
will occur. It also created a substantial cottage industry for
silliness.
James W. Meritt
}OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
}I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
}to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
}my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
Now, why not take this SAME list and add how "intense" the radiation is.
For those with halflives in the kiloyears, centuries of observation
of similar materials by scientists couldn't even tell that anything
was happening. You can, for instance, hold uranium and plutonium in
your hand. Doesn't strike me as a very big risk if it wasn't even
noticable...
John P. Hannon
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
>you get.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brevan,
With all due respect, merely listing decay chains says nothing about
their relative danger. There is something called activity, or specific
activity, which must be dealt with. If you aren't familiar with these
terms, then you *don't* know what you are talking about. If you don't,
email me and I'll send you an explanation.
I'm one of those who believes nuclear power is "safe", if one uses the
word safe in comparison to other forms of generating power. The burning of
fossil fuels results in much more contamination than from any nuclear plant,
and the ash from a coal powered plant is radioactive as well. The coal
plants produce tons of this stuff every year, and the high level waste from
a nuclear plant is miniscule by comparison.
Finally, a question regarding that lit of decay products you listed.
How do they present a danger? What is the path for their releae into the
environment?
-jh-
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Hannon, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics
University of Virginia | Internet: han...@virginia.edu
Any opinions expressed are mine, and I take full responsibility for them.
Clayton Cramer
# #AFTER me on the topic, and not once supporting his statement, I suspect him
# #of manufacturing "facts" as he goes. I'm awaiting illumination.
#
# Meritt, put simply, you're a clown.
#
# In the last week? Since my posting was Sunday or Monday evening and
# it's now Wednesday afternoon I am having a little trouble
# understanding this babble.
#
# I suppose "the last week" includes "the past 24 hours or so", is that
# what you mean?
#
# What's your plan here? To post a message every hour that you *STILL*
# are awaiting an answer?
#
# The implication of course being that somehow I am avoiding this? Well,
# tough luck, it's been answered, and I think quite well.
#
# However, I suspect you've typed in several more of your "demands" in
# the few minutes I spent replying...
#
# Just so long as everyone now knows...
#
# What a character.
# --
# -Barry Shein
It would have been simpler to have responded to his request, wouldn't
it have?
Of course, Barry was, only three years ago, posting that the Berlin
Wall was intended to protected the East Germans from West Germans.
Facts never get in the way of a liberal.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
Article X, "Sec. 23. That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence
of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." KY State Const. 1799
Van Snyder
>In article <!'0&?-_@cck.cov.ac.uk> esx...@uk.ac.cov.cck (Brevan Miles (esx070)) writes:
>
>>stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
>
>>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>naturally occuring radioactive isotopes as well. What difference does it
>make if the alpha, beta, or gamma radiation at a give level came from
>reactor ash, where we might be able to concentrate and isolate it, or from
>a widely distributed naturally occuring isotope? Clearly, by Mr Miles
>standards, any radiation is extremely hazardous and since he is a student
>of the Physics of solid state electronics, he is obviously an authority.
>
>Now, what do we do with this vast quantity of material once we get it?
>After all, we are talking a significant fraction of the Earth's mass here.
>
>Hmmm, wonder what this thread will lead to?
>
> mike
>--
>Michael Fischbein, Technical Consultant, Sun Professional Services
>Sun Albany, NY 518-783-9613 michael....@east.sun.com
>These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person
>or organization. Save the skeet!
We ought also to be worried about the 4000 train cars of slightly radioactive
ash that comes out of a typical 3 GWE coal-fired power plant every year.
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp
Brevan Miles (esx070)
I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
Element Atomic Mass Half life Emitting( energy Mev).
no. No
Plutonium 94 241 13.2 years 0.02 Mev Beta
Americum 95 241 458 years 5.49 Mev Alpha
Neptunium 93 237 2,120,000 years 4.78 Mev alpha
Protactinium 91 233 27.4 days 0.57 Mev Beta
Uranium 92 233 162,000 years 4.82 MeV alpha
Thorium 90 229 7340 years 5.05 Mev alpha
Radium 88 225 148 days 0.36 Mev beta
Actinium 89 225 10 days 5.8 Mev alpha
Francium 87 221 4.8 Minutes 6.34 Mev alpha
Astatine 85 217 0.0323 seconds 7.07 Mev alpha
Bismuth 83 213 47 minutes 5.89 Mev alpha
Thallium 81 209 2.2 minutes 1.99 Mev beta
Lead 82 209 3.3 Hours 0.64 Mev beta
Bismuth 83 209 Stable
My data book says this series does not occur in nature, the precursors are
formed in nuclear reactors. The products become stable(I.e non radioactive)
after about
*************2.4 milion years.****************************************
Gamma radiation is emitted after the majority of decays. The alpha and beta
are usually only dangerous if the elements find their way into the body through
inhalation or the food chain. (Through radiactive dust or water table
contamination such as occured at Chernobyl.) Unfortunatley there is lttle
you can do about this once an accident has occured.
Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
(time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
you get.
Chris Phoenix
>In article <!'0&?-_@cck.cov.ac.uk> esx...@uk.ac.cov.cck (Brevan Miles (esx070)) writes:
>>are stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe.
>If Mr Miles is correct we should immediately go and gather up all the
>naturally occuring radioactive isotopes as well. What difference does it
>make if the alpha, beta, or gamma radiation at a give level came from
>reactor ash, where we might be able to concentrate and isolate it, or from
>a widely distributed naturally occuring isotope?
The series given started with plutonium, yes? Isn't plutonium made in
breeder reactors? Yes, I know it also occurs in nature, but that's not
the point--the point is we're making more of it. I don't know the
specifics, but my understanding was that in at least some nuclear
reactors we are creating radioactive things that wouldn't otherwise exist,
and that are sometimes more dangerous than "naturally occurring
radioactivity". In other words, we're starting whole new decay chains
that don't exist in nature.
And please, let's not get facetious here. Most radioactive isotopes in
nature are either benign or well-buried. They are usually diluted enough
that even with minor leaching they aren't a serious problem. Blatant
straw-man arguments don't help your case--I'd much rather hear a rational
discussion.
Chris Phoenix
>The nuclear waste problem is a _done_deal_. We know exactly how to deal with
>it in such a way that statistically no loss of life will occur. Period. It is
>the politicians who won't allow reprocessing facilities to separate the inert
>long-lived stuff from the bomb grade stuff, and who compound the problem by
>letting inferior reactor designs get built and run by incompetent people that
>is the problem.
This is assuming that there is no accident, theft, dumping, or
incompetence between the reactor and the storage. We can't keep track
of our non-radioactive toxic waste. In theory, sure we can keep the
stuff buried. But there's also the problem of handling it while it's
above ground.
Disclaimer: I don't know enough about the issue to know if nuclear power
is safe, though I'm sure politics have added a large scare factor. I'm
just playing devil's advocate.
Van Snyder
>I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
>to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
>my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
>
>Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
>stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
>elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
>added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
>(time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
>as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
>you get.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
going to get loose until they are stable." It should be enough to guarantee
that they are not going to get loose at a rate that significantly raises the
background. If you're too paranoid for that, I recommend living at sea
level, far away from any granite or other volcanic rock. Don't get a
dental X-ray. Throw away your smoke detector...
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp
Mike Fischbein
>Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
>stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Mr Miles is correct we should immediately go and gather up all the
naturally occuring radioactive isotopes as well. What difference does it
make if the alpha, beta, or gamma radiation at a give level came from
reactor ash, where we might be able to concentrate and isolate it, or from
Johnny Zweig
>OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
>I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
>to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
>my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
[table deleted]
>*************2.4 milion years.****************************************
>Gamma radiation is emitted after the majority of decays. The alpha and beta
>are usually only dangerous if the elements find their way into the body through
>inhalation or the food chain. (Through radiactive dust or water table
>contamination such as occured at Chernobyl.) Unfortunatley there is lttle
>you can do about this once an accident has occured.
>
>Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
>stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
>elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
>added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
>(time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
>as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
>you get.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
>I know what I'm talking about in this case.
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sad to see that a physicist would fail to mention the _intensity_ of radiation
emitted -- something that takes a zillion years to emit all its gamma rays
emits them verrrrry slowwwwwwly compared to something that shoots its wad in a
microsecond. We know that plutonium is a deadly chemical poison that will
kill anyone who ingests it for about a million years. But it is as inert as
lead, in terms of heat production, though it is of course terribly reactive.
Aha! If we make a glass out of it, the Pu atoms will be chemically bound to
the substrate, and we can toss the thing is a geologically inactive location
where all the evidence suggests that (a) it will rest undisturbed during its
million year sleep and (b) there won't be anything down in the hole for it to
kill if it does get jostled, as long as we keep it far enough away from the
water supply.
The nuclear waste problem is a _done_deal_. We know exactly how to deal with
it in such a way that statistically no loss of life will occur. Period. It is
the politicians who won't allow reprocessing facilities to separate the inert
long-lived stuff from the bomb grade stuff, and who compound the problem by
letting inferior reactor designs get built and run by incompetent people that
is the problem.
If I had a choice between living next to a Chernobyl-style reactor and, say,
a landfill, coal-fired power plant, solar panel production facility (the
manufacturing of solar panels involves unimaginably scary chemicals), or an LA
freeway, I'd take the reactor any day of the week.
Being concerned about something is not the same as being paranoid. This
mumbo-jumbo about "it'll be radioactve for 2.4 million years" is bullshit that
is used by misguided people to mislead schoolchildren who don't know their
physics and engineering. (I guess since most adults don't know theirs either,
schoolchildren was a poor choice of words...) The only problems that need
still to be addressed are political, not technical or scientific ones.
-Johnny Nuke
Mike Smith
>In article <009478E7...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sys...@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>The Israelis used 2,000lbs bombs to crack the concrete containment dome (the
>>best French construction money could buy). If you take the recent example of
>>the 2,000lb penetrators which got dumped into an Iraqi command bunker...it's
>>not that difficult to crack even hardened structures.
>
> Huh? This paragraph doesn't parse. If it takes multiples of
>tons of accurately-delivered explosives to crack the containment,
>it's VERY DIFFICULT to crack.
So far, so good. Yes, hard to crack. (BTW, it's ONE ton per 2000lb.
and the drill is for one 2000lb bomb to make the hole that the
next one enters, not multiples of tons to crack it. One cracks, one in.)
Where were we? Oh yes: Yes, hard to crack; but not for a
high tech airforce with the equipment designed for it.
>The likelihood is that any such attempt
>to open a containment dome would succeed only after the reactor
>had been shut down by the operators (who would want to leave the
>vicinity pronto!).
Nope. Remember the films of how Iraqi bunkers were hit? Remember
the Stealth aircraft and complete lack of warning on the bomb drop?
Maybe you missed them. Picture shows bunker from point of
view of plane painting it with laser beam. As the plane
pulls away, you see: Two bombs hitting in rapid succession at
several hundred miles per hour. Both homing on the same laser
spot. Both in flight just seconds apart on the same path.
If the US Air Force is going to hit a dome, at least, there will
be NO warning to the operators other than the first bomb cracking
the containment 2 SECONDS before the second one goes into the hole ...
The operators may want to leave pronto, but it will be after
the second bomb has gone in. Will a reactor scram in 2 seconds
in response to a bomb rocking the containment with NO operator action?
Will it matter?
For what it's worth; I personally think this is a moot point,
since any military _should_ (IMHO) want to disable the plant
as quickly, cleanly, and easily as possible. That would be
to hit the structures outside the containment. Why crack a
hard egg if you can make an omlette from the soft ones?
--
E. Michael Smith e...@apple.COM
We all agreed that reducing the deficit was important.
Unfortunately the Republican congress critters thought this meant
'Soak the Middle Class' and the Democrats thought it meant to
'Soak the Rich' while what the people wanted was less spending ...
Barry Shein
From: cra...@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
>It would have been simpler to have responded to his request, wouldn't
>it have?
That was in response to his third "demand" to be responded to (in a
few hours), I did respond to it, he just seemed to keep typing in "but
Barry chooses not to respond to me..." every few hours. It was silly.
>Of course, Barry was, only three years ago, posting that the Berlin
>Wall was intended to protected the East Germans from West Germans.
What are you talking about? Quote? (of course not.)
>Facts never get in the way of a liberal.
phhhfffft (to answer in kind.)
Blair P. Houghton
>>The Israelis used 2,000lbs bombs to crack the concrete containment dome (the
>>best French construction money could buy). If you take the recent example of
>>the 2,000lb penetrators which got dumped into an Iraqi command bunker...it's
>>not that difficult to crack even hardened structures.
> Huh? This paragraph doesn't parse. If it takes multiples of
>tons of accurately-delivered explosives to crack the containment,
>it's VERY DIFFICULT to crack.
He meant two, 2000lb bombs, laser-guided, dropped from 1000-10000 ft.,
by an F-15, 16, or 117, all fighter/bombers.
The picture of the inside of the bunker included holes ~5ft across
in the lid and two floors, and much twisted re-bar. It's not necessary
that one bomb detonate to open up the structure; reinforced concrete
is not useful against direct hits from a ton of speeding projectile,
only against the lighter shrapnel of a near-miss.
Basically, a containment dome is designed to hold in a few hundred
PSI of hot gas, not hold out enormous, well-targeted explosive devices
travelling at MACH 3.
As to your "time to shut down the reactor" comment, if the weather
is clear, the second bomb will hit the dome maybe 10ms after the
first one does. If the weather isn't clear, maybe they'll miss.
--Blair
"It's a loong fly ball to center..."
Doug Mohney
>Where were we? Oh yes: Yes, hard to crack; but not for a
>high tech airforce with the equipment designed for it.
Fortunately, my example (Castro) has only the best of Soviet military
hardware. If he had French mil-tech, his probability of a successful pinata
<sp> attack would be much more likely.
>For what it's worth; I personally think this is a moot point,
>since any military _should_ (IMHO) want to disable the plant
>as quickly, cleanly, and easily as possible. That would be
>to hit the structures outside the containment. Why crack a
>hard egg if you can make an omlette from the soft ones?
You assume a rational train of thought. Castro, S. Hussein, and various other
"leaders" do not share our same ideals on what is proper in the world.
Signature envy: quality of some people to put 24+ lines in their .sigs
-- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Jonathan M. Strang
|> OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
|> I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
|> to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
|> my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
|>
|> Element Atomic Mass Half life Emitting( energy Mev).
|> no. No
|> Plutonium 94 241 13.2 years 0.02 Mev Beta
|> Americum 95 241 458 years 5.49 Mev Alpha
|> Neptunium 93 237 2,120,000 years 4.78 Mev alpha
|> Protactinium 91 233 27.4 days 0.57 Mev Beta
|> Uranium 92 233 162,000 years 4.82 MeV alpha
|> Thorium 90 229 7340 years 5.05 Mev alpha
|> Radium 88 225 148 days 0.36 Mev beta
|> Actinium 89 225 10 days 5.8 Mev alpha
|> Francium 87 221 4.8 Minutes 6.34 Mev alpha
|> Astatine 85 217 0.0323 seconds 7.07 Mev alpha
|> Bismuth 83 213 47 minutes 5.89 Mev alpha
|> Thallium 81 209 2.2 minutes 1.99 Mev beta
|> Lead 82 209 3.3 Hours 0.64 Mev beta
|> Bismuth 83 209 Stable
|> My data book says this series does not occur in nature, the precursors are
|> formed in nuclear reactors. The products become stable(I.e non radioactive)
Neptunium's half life of 2*10**6 years means that it is so close to stable,
that I wouldn't worry too much about it being radioactive. Likewise for the
U-233 -- most of it hanging around has been here since the earth was
created. There *used* to be alot more of it.
Also, your chart debunks the famous "Plutonium is the most dangerous
substance known to man" myth. That wimpy beta won't pentrate even
much air (what, maybe a ten-fold attenuation after a couple feet of
air?). Most of it (if you swallowed a chunk of it) would be eliminated
from your system before it was Americum, anyway. Inhaling a fine dust
would be a problem, but any decent reactor design (non-Chernobyl) won't
spew Plutonium dust.
|> after about
|> *************2.4 milion years.****************************************
|> Gamma radiation is emitted after the majority of decays.
What are the energies of the gammas emmitted during these decays? I honestly
don't remember, but I seem to remember that plutonium sitting in a room with
you and no shielding is no cause for alarm (for the short term).
|> The alpha and beta
|> are usually only dangerous if the elements find their way into the body through
|> inhalation or the food chain. (Through radiactive dust or water table
|> contamination such as occured at Chernobyl.) Unfortunatley there is lttle
|> you can do about this once an accident has occured.
|>
|> Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
|> stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe.
But, the one of the points is that no energy source currently in use to
a great extent (==> not solar, wind, etc) also release radioativity, and
much more of it.
|> The main problem is each new
|> elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
|> added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
|> (time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
|> as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
|> you get.
|> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you still think energy in any form is going to be safe and "good" for
the enviroment, you deserve all of the soot in the air, greenhouse effect,etc
that we got now from coal, oil, nat gas. Solar and wind will not provide
us with the energy we need (Gigawatts) in our lifetimes. Maybe if we
built (cleaner than fossil fuel) fission nuclear plants to get us by for the
next 50 -100 years, then the other sources could mature to produce energy in
amounts close to the order of magnitude that we need.
|> Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
|> I know what I'm talking about in this case.
|> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--jon
Jonathan M. Strang
|> Most of it (if you swallowed a chunk of it) would be eliminated
|>from your system before it was Americum, anyway
This is not entirely true--I was assuming that the Plutonium was in an
inert compound (not affecting it's radioactivity, just in chemical
reactivity with your body)
Sorry about the mis-information
--jon
Richard Bell
>He meant two, 2000lb bombs, laser-guided, dropped from 1000-10000 ft.,
>by an F-15, 16, or 117, all fighter/bombers.
>
>Basically, a containment dome is designed to hold in a few hundred
>PSI of hot gas, not hold out enormous, well-targeted explosive devices
>travelling at MACH 3.
>
> "It's a loong fly ball to center..."
Where will a terrorist get a mach 2 capable, all-weather strike aircraft?
Any country that breached the containment of a reactor would be inviting
a strategic nuclear strike, or, at least, global sanctions. Terrorists
can get a much larger blast withmuch less resources if they attacked
a liquified natural gas storage facility. If all that they want to do
is kill people, they should pour botulin toxins into water supplies.
If they reactor was similar to a CANDU, where the coolant is also the
moderator, breaching the reactor vessel will cause a shutdown; although
there would be a release of radioactive steam.
Perpetual Student
>In article <rhoward.672352463@msd> rho...@msd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>>(I know that the regions near Chernobyl were hard hit, but all this
>> stuff about a radioactive Europe because of it is just wild exageration.)
>>
some things deleted.
> My God, Robert -- where have you spent your life?
> Last year at a place in western Russia, only 300 miles from where I lived,
>children ate some sort of mushrooms that they had found in the forest and
>died immediately. The funny thing was that they were edible mushrooms.
>They were not poisonous, only highly radioactively contaminated.
>In Berlin the situation was said to be not that bad, but people were
>warned not to eat mushrooms they found.
This is rediculous. It is impossible that these children ate these mushrooms
and died immediately. No contamination could have an activity that high
as to do that. Check your facts and stop spreading silly rumors.
If the activity was high enough that they would have died, it would have
taken a long time, at least several days. Not to mention the fact that
they would have been throwing up when they were close enough to eat it.
> The French think that the Germans' preoccupation with radioactive pollution
>is just another German mania, exaggerated, not to be taken seriously. They
>don't make as much fuss about their own nuclear power plants. And they
>*do* have higher cancer rates, especially in the areas close to the plants.
> The Germans think that the Americans' preoccupation with health and non-
>smoking is exaggerated, and they definitely have higher lung cancer rates.
>
> The issues are real. The death of three children is a reality. It is a
>different story what people are willing to take seriously, or, for that
>matter, what their media make them focus upon and what not.
>
>===============================================================================
I seriously doubt that informed, intelligent Germans would believe tripe
like this. Even if you are against nuclear power, or know for a fact
there was significant amount of contamination spread from the disaster,
which there was, you cannot fabricate statements lacking fact and expect
to maintain any credibility.
Jere
--
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jere H. Jenkins je...@ecn.purdue.edu
Purdue University Nuclear Engineering
Van Snyder
>In article <40...@inews.intel.com> bhou...@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>can get a much larger blast withmuch less resources if they attacked
>a liquified natural gas storage facility.
I thought that canard was debunked in the late 60's or early 70's, when PG&E
wanted to build a LNG transfer and storage facility at Point Concepcion,
near Santa Barbara, CA. Although LNG has lots of potential (chemical) energy,
it's really picky about the air/fuel ratio: must be between 48 & 52%, or
something like that. Not at all like H2, which will explode in proportions
between 4 and 96%, or something like that. The numbers may not be precisely
right, but the comparison is of about the correct magnitude. LNG is cleaner
and safer than coal or petroleum, more benign from a greenhouse p.o.v., and
doesn't leave radioactive ash. Considering ALL the costs (e.g. environmental
effects, injuries to miners, transportation ...) LMFBR and a good spent fuel
reprocessing system is probably the most benign.
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp
John Whitmore
>If the US Air Force is going to hit a dome, at least, there will
>be NO warning to the operators other than the first bomb cracking
>the containment 2 SECONDS before the second one goes into the hole ...
>The operators may want to leave pronto, but it will be after
>the second bomb has gone in. Will a reactor scram in 2 seconds
>in response to a bomb rocking the containment with NO operator action?
At a guess, yes. Two seconds is long enough time to start
motors, and the 'rocking the containment' will undoubtedly set off
the seismic alarms and start an abort. Not that it matters
much; the various military forces that could handle such a
project could ruin an immense chunk of the planet in several
other ways, as well. Pray that they don't want to.
John Whitmore
doug e humphrey
all of the control rods supported by electromagnets. SCRAM (MAX SCRAM
to be technical) meant, along with lots of other things, dropping the
current to the magnets and having all of the rods gravity drop into
their places. There was another procedure that was used in cases where
high power ops for long periods of time had been going on, which
inserted the rods in a more gradual way, but in case of emergency
(the Anti-Aircraft guns outside starting to fire maybe, or bad
crazyness in the outer security zone ;-)) you punched the SCRAM bar
on the control console (or several other locations around the
place) and you were sub-critical much less than a second later.
Emergency cooling and poisoning the coolant to make sure that the
reaction stays dead even after the control rods come out, should
that happen, are really engineering and operations issues.
Doug Humphrey
Crypto Systems Division (this week...)
Christopher Neufeld
>In article <1991Apr26.1...@sunee.waterloo.edu> rlb...@sunee.waterloo.edu (Richard Bell) writes:
>>... Terrorists
>>can get a much larger blast withmuch less resources if they attacked
>>a liquified natural gas storage facility.
>
>it's really picky about the air/fuel ratio: must be between 48 & 52%, or
>something like that. Not at all like H2, which will explode in proportions
>between 4 and 96%, or something like that.
>
15%, or hydrogen between 4% and 74.2% in air. The '4 to 96' percent
value looks right for hydrogen in pure oxygen, but then methane in pure
oxygen burns at concentrations between 5.4 and 59.2 percent.
These numbers are taken from the 1989-1990 CRC.
>LNG is cleaner
>and safer than coal or petroleum, more benign from a greenhouse p.o.v., and
>doesn't leave radioactive ash.
>
Late last year there were numerous article in the New Scientist which
suggested that, while natural gas may produce less CO2 per Joule of
energy liberated, leakage losses are a problem. Methane is a much better
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and an escape of 5-10% of the methane
distributed was said to be sufficient to defeat the advantage which
natural gas has. The articles went on to say that British Natural Gas
has leakages in that neighbourhood. BNG hotly denied this.
>vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
>ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
>vsn...@jato.uucp
--
Christopher Neufeld....Just a graduate student | Flash: morning star seen
neu...@aurora.physics.utoronto.ca Ad astra! | in evening! Baffled
cneufeld@{pnet91,pro-cco}.cts.com | astronomers: "could mean
"Don't edit reality for the sake of simplicity" | second coming of Elvis!"
Aephraim M. Steinberg
>I'm looking for an email address for the postmaster at Argonne Labs.
>Does anyone know Argonne's usenet address?
>
For physics, at least, try ANLPHY on bitnet.
--
Aephraim M. Steinberg | "Se fixer des buts dans la vie,
UCB Physics | c'est s'entortiller dans des
aeph...@garnet.berkeley.edu | chaines"
OR " @ocf " " | -- Philippe Djian
Barry Shein
>|> Most of it (if you swallowed a chunk of it) would be eliminated
>|>from your system before it was Americum, anyway
>
>This is not entirely true--I was assuming that the Plutonium was in an
>inert compound (not affecting it's radioactivity, just in chemical
>reactivity with your body)
Not "entirely" true? Plutonium is one of the most highly toxic
substances known. Period. What you said was utterly false.
But hey, it sounded good, and even supported the view you wanted to
tout...not entirely true...
Kenneth Jason Fair
There's a couple of points that I think have been overlooked in this
discussion of nuclear reactors:
First, in most nuclear reactors that I know of, the control rods are
pulled up vertically from the reactor pile. The rods are suspended by
an electromagnet over the core. If the containment building were to
be bombed, almost certainly power to the reactor would be disabled,
dropping the rods down into the core and HALTING the reaction.
Second, precision bombing (IF it penetrated the containment building,
which is unlikely; those things are made to last) might likely collapse the
containment dome onto the reactor, covering the spread of radioactivity.
Third, if radioactive products WERE to escape, they would most likely
be in the form of low-level radioactive dust that would settle in the
surrounding area and not go very far. The main reason for the
widespread distribution of contaminants at Chernobyl was the updrafts
created by the fire and explosions which propelled the contaminants
high into the atmosphere. Precision bombing would most likely not
produce fire or explosions (past the initial blast).
Fourth, the United States is the only country (with the exception of
France, Great Britain, and Germany) capable of bombing with the
precision seen in the recent war. The Soviet Union (and its client
states) does NOT have the laser and computer technology necessary to
bomb with that accuracy.
Fifth, Cuba does not have the top-of-the-line Soviet weaponry, but
rather a notch down.
Sixth, any attack such as described would be met with _strenuous_
resistance from the USAF and Navy Aviation from their bases in Mobile,
AL; Pensacola, FL; and Guantanamera Bay, Cuba. One plane on a solo
bombing run would not reach its target. A concerted bombing attack
would signify WWIII anyway, and we'd have a lot more to worry about
than one nuclear reactor.
Seventh, as mentioned earlier, they are many easier and more effective
ways of terrorizing a population than trying to crack a nuclear
reactor. Botulism, terrorism, the Barbarian Pentathalon (looting,
raping, burning, plundering, and pillaging), etc.
Eigth, ignoring startup costs, nuclear reactors are the cheapest form
of large-scale energy production available. The primary
cost-inhibition is the legal difficulties of startup (including
lawsuits by activists) and construction costs. Better streamlined
regulations would reduce these costs.
Ninth, nuclear reactors are FAR less polluting than natural gas, oil,
and certainly coal generators are. Compare a few pounds of high level
radioactive waste to millions of tons of carbon dioxide, soot, and sulfur
and nitrogen oxides (and that's just what's released into the
atmosphere!!).
Finally, nuclear reactors use NO FOSSIL FUELS. We're running out,
folks. We need to save irreplaceable fossil fuels for other uses like
plastics, medicines, clothing, cars, the computer keyboard I'm typing
on, .... We have enough uranium in Nevada and Utah to last us
thousands of years, and we're not depending on the Middle East for
them. We can deal with the waste disposal problems from nuclear
reactors. In the end, all arguments point towards nuclear reactors as
the best source of electricity currently available. Hopefully, fusion
research will prove fruitful soon, but until then, we must do the best
we can.
** Disclaimer: I never claimed I knew what I was talking about.
Rice University doesn't even want me to post anything, let alone
sanction my comments.
Kenneth J. Fair
--
+-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
"God does not play dice with the universe."- Einstein | ken...@owlnet.rice.edu
"God may play dice with the universe, but he does not | America Online:
collapse electron probability waveforms."- Fair | Mr Toaster
Irving Chidsey
<OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
<I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
<to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
<my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
<
This is important! Intense sources tend to be short lived, while
long lived sources tend not to be intense.
The intensity is determined by how many emissions there are
per unit time. If you double the half life, you halve the intensity.
Assuming you keep the number of atoms constant. Furthermore, in a decay
chain any long lived stage acts as a dam. It controls the flow of species
down the train, so that there is no build up of short lived species
down chain.
<Element Atomic Mass Half life Emitting( energy Mev).
< no. No
<Plutonium 94 241 13.2 years 0.02 Mev Beta
<Americum 95 241 458 years 5.49 Mev Alpha
<Neptunium 93 237 2,120,000 years 4.78 Mev alpha
This is the longest lived species, it controlls all the downchain
species. Plutonium is fairly intense, Americium is about 50 times as
long lived, so it is about 2% as intense, Neptunium as nearly 200,000
times as long lived, it is about 1/200,000th as intense as Plutonium.
None of the down chain species will ever be more intense than the
Neptunium unless someone concentrates them. Once the Plutonium and
Americium are gone the maximum intensity will be equal to the intensity
of Neptunium times the number of radioactive species below it in the
chain.
Assume we start with some ammount of plutonium, after 13.2 years,
half the plutonium will have decayed to Americium and the intensity will
have decreased to 1/2 the original intensity. After a little more than
5 half lives, the intensity due to the plutonium will have decreased
and that due to the americium will have increased untill they are about
equal, at roughly 1/50 of the original rate each. After another few
half lives, the plutonium will be gone, and the intensity will decay
from its new Americium baseline, 1/50 of the Plutonium baseline, with
the Americium half life. After about 500 years from the start, the
intensity will be down to 1% of the original value with a half life
of 458 years.
<Protactinium 91 233 27.4 days 0.57 Mev Beta
<Uranium 92 233 162,000 years 4.82 MeV alpha
<Thorium 90 229 7340 years 5.05 Mev alpha
<Radium 88 225 148 days 0.36 Mev beta
<Actinium 89 225 10 days 5.8 Mev alpha
<Francium 87 221 4.8 Minutes 6.34 Mev alpha
<Astatine 85 217 0.0323 seconds 7.07 Mev alpha
<Bismuth 83 213 47 minutes 5.89 Mev alpha
<Thallium 81 209 2.2 minutes 1.99 Mev beta
<Lead 82 209 3.3 Hours 0.64 Mev beta
<Bismuth 83 209 Stable
<My data book says this series does not occur in nature, the precursors are
<formed in nuclear reactors. The products become stable(I.e non radioactive)
<after about
<*************2.4 milion years.****************************************
At this time, the intensity has dropped to 1/40,000th of the original
intensity and has a half life equal to that of neptunium.
After another couple of million years, the intensity will have
halved again, but things now change very slowly. There is no time,
I repeat, NO TIME, when all the products will have become stable, but
there will be a time when you will be unable to detect them because
of stray background radiation. They will have become non-intense many
eons before this.
<Gamma radiation is emitted after the majority of decays. The alpha and beta
<are usually only dangerous if the elements find their way into the body through
<inhalation or the food chain. (Through radiactive dust or water table
<contamination such as occured at Chernobyl.) Unfortunatley there is lttle
<you can do about this once an accident has occured.
<
This is correct.
<Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
<stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
<elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
<added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
<(time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
<as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<If you still think nuclear power is safe then you deserve all the contamination
<you get.
<-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
<I know what I'm talking about in this case.
But do you understand it?
Irv
<--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything.
I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government
to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy
is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chi...@brl.mil>
Ivan Maldonado
> Regarding breach of a nuclear reactor:
> There's a couple of points that I think have been overlooked in this
> discussion of nuclear reactors:
> First, in most nuclear reactors that I know of, the control rods are
> pulled up vertically from the reactor pile. The rods are suspended by
> an electromagnet over the core. If the containment building were to
> be bombed, almost certainly power to the reactor would be disabled,
> dropping the rods down into the core and HALTING the reaction.
Just to complete the statement. PWR's can certainly rely on gravity
for the insertion of the control rods. In fact, that's exactly
what they do, and for a "unscheduled" shutdown (SCRAM), the juice
(electricity) is cut to the electromagnets and the rods drop down
by gravity only. In the case of BWR's (~25% of the US reactors and
most of the Japanese's reactors), the control rods enter the core
from below. And their scram is controlled by a hydraulically
actuated locking piston-type drive mechanism which pushes the rods
upward into the core.
-Ivan
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Guillermo Ivan Maldonado | Internet: iv...@nepjt.ncsu.edu |
| Dept. of Nuclear Engineering | BITNET : maldonado@ncsune |
| North Carolina State University |-------------------------------------
| NCSU Box # 7909 | ... que viva el ECUADOR!! |
| Raleigh. NC 27695-7909 | ..How many jobs ya' got MON!? |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ng
: OK here are some radioactive decay chains with how long the half lives are.
: I particularly want those of you who say radiation dies away pretty quickly
: to look, because several thousand years seems like forever as far as me and
: my immeadiate descendants are concerned (10 generations at least)
I've got a book that describes the grand bulk of them, so what? Compared to
non radioactive arsenic, lead, and mercury, all these elements are short lived.
Besides, how did you pick Pu241 as the starting point? My research indicates
that the major components of high level nuclear waste are Sr90, I131, I129,
Pu239 and Pu240. During the first hundred to thousand years, Sr90 is by far
capable of the most cancer doses (by ingestion). If you want I can post
some references that have more exact ratios.
: Gamma radiation is emitted after the majority of decays. The alpha and beta
:are usually only dangerous if the elements find their way into the body through
: inhalation or the food chain. (Through radiactive dust or water table
: contamination such as occured at Chernobyl.) Unfortunatley there is lttle
: you can do about this once an accident has occured.
One of the ironies is that the hazards of gamma and (alpha and beta) flip
themselves in reguard to internal exposure. And there is PLENTY you can do
between an accident and absorption. For starters, flooding the environment
with non radioactive versions of the elements that would be absorbed. Second,
good nutrition, believe it or not. Often these substances are absorbed by
the body because the body is lacking in another substance, and these substances
look chemically similar. For example: calcium and Sr90. In other cases,
simple delay in usage will greatly reduce effects. For example: I131 has
a half life of 8 days, after which it decays to Xenon 131, which is stable.
(I think it is, I'm not sure I'm reading the chart right on Xe131. There
is an entry for 12 days, but the element is also marked as stable). For
what to do once the substance is in the body, refer to "The Handbook of
Inorganic Toxicology" or another book by Ellenhorn (I forgot the title,
"Human Toxicology" maybe?). Specifically the chapters on chleating agents.
: Until you can guarantee the products are not going to get loose until they are
: stable, nuclear power is going to be unsafe. The main problem is each new
: elemnet has it's own half life and radiation, all of which has to be
:added together. The total radiation does not decay away as fast as the 1 over
: (time/half life) suggests it would. As far as humans are concerned this may
: as well be forever. I could give you a few more decay chains.
And I can give you a multitude of mechanisms for hazards from coal and oil,
the only viable alternatives for at least the next 10 years. And these
substances stay in the environment FOREVER, not just a very long time.
Furthermore, the emission standards for these substances are a lot more
lax than those for nuclear emissions. Everything involves risks, even
doing nothing.
BTW: let it be known that just because I defend nuclear power in this instance
does by no mean I think nuclear power has no problems. Anyone who designs a
reactor with a positive thermal coeffient without a *DAMN* GOOD reason should
be shot, in my opinion.
: Brevan Miles: Graduate in Physics with solid state electronics......
: I know what I'm talking about in this case.
Oh really?
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to k...@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Kenneth Ng
: The question of half-lives is rather off-the-point. Pu-241 is formed
: during fission process;
Um, indirectly yes. The fission process liberates neutrons, some of which
get absorbed by either uranium or plutonium, which bounces the atomic
weight up to 241 (I'm not familar with the exact mechanism, perhaps
someone else can clarify how it is done).
Kenneth Ng
: In article <1991Apr22....@njitgw.njit.edu> k...@hertz.njit.edu (ken ng cccc) writes:
: >In article <BZS.91Ap...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
: >:Look, the public is not half as stupid as a lot of people supporting
: >Believe me, they ARE that stupid. To this day when I talk about nuclear
: >Radioactive waste by definition has a limited half live.
: ~10Kyears isn't "limited", to me...
Still, 10K years is a lot less than forever. And where do you get this value
of 10K years? Within 600 to 1200 years the waste will be less toxic than
the ore it came from.
: I. And leaching; radioactive waste could just be buried in
: your backyard if all you need do is put up signs saying
: "keep out." Fifty feet of dirt is one hell of a shield
: against decay products. The problem is the stuff gets into
: the water supply. This is exactly the contamination path
: for non-radioactive heavy metals.
Ok, lets just do what mother nature did in the natural nuclear reactors in
Africa, bury it between 2 granite slabs, with a source of running water
going through it (ok, so it was more of a guyser, its still moving water).
In over a BILLION years, the waste products hardly moved. Think we can
do a bit better?
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to k...@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail.
"No problem, this is how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Kenneth Ng
: When was the last time you saw a hint in the press that nuclear power
: plants will blow up? I must say in my almost 40 years on this earth I
: don't remember seeing it even once, tho I suppose it's possible.
"How many atomic explosions in our cities would you accept before deciding
that nuclear power is not safe - no complexities, just a number!"
Reference: "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear" by Petr Beckmann, page 1.
Original reference: question posed to AEC Commissioner Doub at Ralph Nader's
"Critical Mass" meeeting, November 1974.
: >:intense radioactive contamination of the ecosystem is forever. And the
: >:waste being produced is a similar, perhaps worse, problem being
: >:generated even with the best operating conditions.
: >Radioactive waste by definition has a limited half live. Arsenic, lead,
: >mercury, and most of the heavy metals are are going to be around forever
: >(minus effects from proton decay :-)).
: Well, half lives in hundreds or thousands of years is not that
: comforting.
Still, a thousand years is a far cry from forever. Also I have seen a
series of studies that indicate that the waste is less toxic than the
ore it came from in between 600 and 1200 years, depending on your
definition of toxic (I used to think this would be easy to figure out,
boy was I wrong).
BTW: I am in favor of fusion R&D. I believe that within 20-40 years it will
come into being. But in the mean time, I'd rather my power come from fission
than from oil or coal.
Barry Shein
From: k...@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
>Still, 10K years is a lot less than forever. And where do you get this value
>of 10K years? Within 600 to 1200 years the waste will be less toxic than
>the ore it came from.
Isn't this a bit misleading since the ore it came from was rather
dispersed and underground etc as it has been for billions of years
while the waste etc is being concentrated in specific areas. And
accidental releases occur in very inconvenient areas (like Savannah
River), water tables etc.
I suspect what you say is factually true, but it may not be very
comforting.
Jym Dyer
> before deciding that nuclear power is not safe - no
> complexities, just a number!"
__ Bad phrase, that, "atomic explostions." I'd love to see the
_ context, who said it, etc. I can't imagine that this was
said by somebody in Nader's group which was, after all,
named after the very reason a power plant can't become an
A-bomb.
> I am in favor of fusion R&D. I believe that within 20-40 years
> it will come into being. But in the mean time, I'd rather my
> power come from fission than from oil or coal.
___
__ Nuclear power plant cannot and will not supplant oil and coal
_ in the next 20-40 years. The capital required for such would
exceed our GNP.
<_Jym_>
Matthew DeLuca
>> I am in favor of fusion R&D. I believe that within 20-40 years
>> it will come into being. But in the mean time, I'd rather my
>> power come from fission than from oil or coal.
>__ Nuclear power plant cannot and will not supplant oil and coal
>_ in the next 20-40 years. The capital required for such would
> exceed our GNP.
> <_Jym_>
Really? I assume we're just talking about electrical generation, correct?
Let's see...we generate approximately 20% of our electrical power from
nuclear sources, this being comprised of about 100 nuclear plants. To replace
the remaining 80% (I'm negecting the fraction provided by hydro, wind, solar,
etc.) would take another 400 plants. At a cost of $9 billion (assuming the
currnet expensive procedures, due in signifigant part to know-nothing
environmental groups) per plant, this is $3.6 trillion. The U.S. GNP is
roughly $5 trillion, so your estimate is inaccurate. Spread out over 40
years, of course, the cost is $90 billion a year...far less than we spend on
several government programs that return less value. Of course, the original
poster never stated that nukes were going to replace all conventional power
sources, but that's another story.
--
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their
Office of Information Technology P.O. box." - Zebadiah Carter,
Internet: cco...@prism.gatech.edu _The Number of the Beast_
James W. Meritt
}>Still, 10K years is a lot less than forever. And where do you get this value
}>of 10K years? Within 600 to 1200 years the waste will be less toxic than
}>the ore it came from.
}
}Isn't this a bit misleading since the ore it came from was rather
}dispersed and underground etc as it has been for billions of years
}while the waste etc is being concentrated in specific areas. And
}accidental releases occur in very inconvenient areas (like Savannah
}River), water tables etc.
Are you suggesting, then, that we use nature's way? We can just cut
open all those sealed drums and bury the uncontained materials randomly.
Opinions expressed are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily
represent those opinions of this or any other organization. The facts,
however, simply are and do not "belong" to anyone.
j...@sun4.jhuapl.edu or j...@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu or meritt%aplvm.BITNET
Kenneth B. Kirksey
>>|>from your system before it was Americum, anyway
>>
>>This is not entirely true--I was assuming that the Plutonium was in an
>>inert compound (not affecting it's radioactivity, just in chemical
>>reactivity with your body)
>
>Not "entirely" true? Plutonium is one of the most highly toxic
>substances known. Period. What you said was utterly false.
>
>But hey, it sounded good, and even supported the view you wanted to
>tout...not entirely true...
>--
> -Barry Shein
>
Oh, I don't know about that. He said "swallow" the plutonium. So lets take
a look at what happens in THAT instance.
_Poisoning_ by Jay M. Arena (a Toxicology Textbook) has this to say on p.642:
"There is far less contamination of plant and animal tissues with
plutonium than with many fission products. This is the corollary
of POOR GASTROINTESTINAL ABSORPTION".
137CS However, is readily absorbed.
(Ballou 1962) found that 239 Pu absorption, thought small, varied with age,
with higher absorption rates in the young.
The only problem you'd have with swallowing a chunk of Pu would be if you
didn't get it out as quickly as possible. Arena says on p.642 "For the person
who has ingested radioactive substances, a purgative is the best single agent
avialable to speed elimination of the material from the body."
Your major problem of Pu then would be allowing it to pass through and
irradiate the GI tract. But, the material would only stay in the GI tract
for 24 - 42 hours which, given 239 Pu's half life of 2 x 10**4 years, or
even 238 Pu's half life of 84 years, isn't going to give you much decay
in the period of time it would stay in your gut. Mr. Strang was correct in
the fact that it would be eliminated from your system before it decayed to
anything else.
In fact, most Toxicology and Radiation Toxicology textbooks either ignore, or
only give a tiny amount of space to Pu INGESTION for two major reasons:
1) Other Radioactive isotopes, such as 137 CS, 45 Ca, and 90 Sr are
more readily absorbed in the GI tract, and thus present a much
greater problem.
2) The danger of plutonium INGESTION is negligible compared to the
danger of plutonium INHALATION.
from _Casarett & Doull's Toxicology_ 2nd ed. :
"When inhaled, plutonium is retained in the lung with an effective
half life that varies from hundreds of days for plutonim oxides
to tens of days for more soluble forms. A significant portion of
the plutonium oxide that leaves the lund is translocated to the
tracheobronchial lymph nodes. Plutonium apparently solubilized
within the lungs is tranlocated to the liver and the skeleton where
it is very tenaciously retained."
References:
Ballou, J.E.; George, L.A., and Thompson, R.C.: "The combined toxic effects
of plutonium plus x-ray in rats. _Health Physics_ 8:581-87, 1962.
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Ken Kirksey | "I stay driven 'cause there's nowhere to park, |
| | I can't shut my eyes, I'm afraid of the dark, |
| Computer Engineering | I lie awake, that stone left me chilled to |
| | the bone, |
| Auburn University | Sound the alarm before it's done, |
| | Find Jim Morrison!" |
| kkir...@eng.auburn.edu | - Steve Taylor |
+---------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Robert J. McArthur
>
>There's a couple of points that I think have been overlooked in this
>discussion of nuclear reactors:
>Eigth, ignoring startup costs, nuclear reactors are the cheapest form
>of large-scale energy production available. The primary
>cost-inhibition is the legal difficulties of startup (including
>lawsuits by activists) and construction costs. Better streamlined
>regulations would reduce these costs.
Firstly, you cannot just ignore the startup costs. A lot of industries
could be made better with different regulations/laws etc. but won't be
(yet). If the cost is there, and looks like staying there for the time
in question (the iminent creation of 400 new reactors almost immediately
in order to satisfy the removal of fossil fuel based electricity generation
according to one poster), add *all* the costs in.
Secondly, do you have the breakdown of the costs? I would be interested to
see whether they include the storage costs of the waste and the decommissioning
costs... (not facetious here, I really would like to see the costs compared
as I certainly don't know them...)
Thirdly, there is no third point..
Robert
--
Robert McArthur Centre for Resource and Environment Studies
Australian National University
ACSNet r...@arp.anu.oz.au ACT Australia 2601
Pegasus|PeaceNet|EcoNet peg:robert (06) 249 4760
Doug Mohney
>Regarding breach of a nuclear reactor:
>
>which is unlikely; those things are made to last) might likely collapse the
>containment dome onto the reactor, covering the spread of radioactivity.
Maybe. Maybe not. Do you feel lucky?
>Fourth, the United States is the only country (with the exception of
>France, Great Britain, and Germany) capable of bombing with the
>precision seen in the recent war. The Soviet Union (and its client
>states) does NOT have the laser and computer technology necessary to
>bomb with that accuracy.
You're incorrect. The Su-24 does, as do some models of the MiG-23, and various
other planes. The Su-24 has the best shot, with the best avionics and a
nice big bomb load.
Besides, you left out Israel, Egypt, India, and other countries which have
bought/purchased U.S., British, or French technology.
>Fifth, Cuba does not have the top-of-the-line Soviet weaponry, but
>rather a notch down.
They have some capable MiG-23s.
>Sixth, any attack such as described would be met with _strenuous_
>resistance from the USAF and Navy Aviation from their bases in Mobile,
>AL; Pensacola, FL; and Guantanamera Bay, Cuba. One plane on a solo
>bombing run would not reach its target.
Two MiGs recently defected to the U.S. and were not detected until they
got into the air traffic patterns to land at military air bases. One of these
incidents took place during desert storm.
> A concerted bombing attack
>would signify WWIII anyway, and we'd have a lot more to worry about
>than one nuclear reactor.
War with the Cubans? Some world war. Try again, friend.
>Seventh, as mentioned earlier, they are many easier and more effective
>ways of terrorizing a population than trying to crack a nuclear
>reactor. Botulism, terrorism, the Barbarian Pentathalon (looting,
>raping, burning, plundering, and pillaging), etc.
Easier, yes. Dramatic, no. That fear factor comes into play bigtime.
>Ninth, nuclear reactors are FAR less polluting than natural gas, oil,
>and certainly coal generators are. Compare a few pounds of high level
>radioactive waste to millions of tons of carbon dioxide, soot, and sulfur
>and nitrogen oxides (and that's just what's released into the
>atmosphere!!).
How about those nice piles of tilings from uranium mining? Not radioactive, no,
but toxic heavy metal very nasty to get into the water supply. Yumyum. Low
level pollutant and an alpha emitter.
>Finally, nuclear reactors use NO FOSSIL FUELS. We're running out,
>folks. We need to save irreplaceable fossil fuels for other uses like
>plastics, medicines, clothing, cars, the computer keyboard I'm typing
>on, .... We have enough uranium in Nevada and Utah to last us
>thousands of years, and we're not depending on the Middle East for
>them.
Naw, we just screw the Native Americans again to get to them. Besides, going
nuclear doesn't solve the problem(s) of fuel for the automobile. Unless you
want to embark on an expensive quest to generate more electrictity to produce
and run electric cars.
> We can deal with the waste disposal problems from nuclear
>reactors. In the end, all arguments point towards nuclear reactors as
>the best source of electricity currently available.
At least from the viewpoint of Nuclear Engineers :-)
Barry Shein
From: j...@sun4.uucp (James W. Meritt)
>}If you could find a way to safely return the elements to their
>}original distribution (within reason) I guess that would be fine by
>}me.
>
>Can you do better with "original distribution" tna you did with "intense"
>and "forever"? What does this mean? In the ground? On earth? In the
>same mine?
Nope. I'm bored with this specific thread Jim, but I wanted to save
everyone else a slew of "Hour 2, and Shein still refuses to answer me".
Barry Shein
me...
>Not "entirely" true? Plutonium is one of the most highly toxic
>substances known. Period. What you said was utterly false.
(response on radiological toxicity elided)
My comment about plutonimum being highly toxic meant *chemically*
toxic, not radiologically toxic (in fact, it wouldn't occur to me to
even use the phrase "radiologically toxic" although I suppose it's
proper enough.)
Is it not highly toxic, chemically? I would imagine that at least it
has the toxicity associated with heavy metals in general. I understood
it to be very (chemically) toxic if ingested.
(Being as references were being used specifically citing toxicology
I'd like to forestall the amateur chemist explanations that it's not
very soluble, so cannot be very toxic. A lot of things that aren't
very soluble, in water, are very toxic, try swallowing some mercury or
lead, try dissolving some in water. LD50's or similar perhaps with
some familiar comparisons might be useful, although I realize that
this doesn't tell the entire story.)
If I'm wrong I have no problem with being corrected, but let's make
sure we're talking about the same thing.
Blair P. Houghton
actually live under a rock, and then you, too, might
be dim enough to need this lecture...)
In article <1991Apr27....@rice.edu> ken...@flammulated.rice.edu (Kenneth Jason Fair) writes:
>Regarding breach of a nuclear reactor:
>
>There's a couple of points that I think have been overlooked in this
>discussion of nuclear reactors:
In the way that caloric and space-ether have been
"overlooked" in quantum mechanics...
>First, in most nuclear reactors that I know of, the control rods are
>pulled up vertically from the reactor pile. The rods are suspended by
>an electromagnet over the core. If the containment building were to
>be bombed, almost certainly power to the reactor would be disabled,
>dropping the rods down into the core and HALTING the reaction.
Most nuclear reactors that you know of are old enough that
a sneezing skink might bust the power system and snap the
cable on the electromagnet, causing the entire structure
to slam into the core, scramming it but good.
>Second, precision bombing (IF it penetrated the containment building,
>which is unlikely; those things are made to last) might likely collapse the
We've established that there's no structure you can build that
we can't stuff with high explosives at will.
>containment dome onto the reactor, covering the spread of radioactivity.
The containment structure at Chernobyl mostly collapsed onto
the reactor (it wasn't blown into the sky).
>Third, if radioactive products WERE to escape, they would most likely
>be in the form of low-level radioactive dust that would settle in the
>surrounding area and not go very far.
The radioactive products of Chernobyl spread thousands of miles,
and even managed to propagate in the direction against the
prevailing winds.
>The main reason for the
>widespread distribution of contaminants at Chernobyl was the updrafts
>created by the fire and explosions which propelled the contaminants
>high into the atmosphere. Precision bombing would most likely not
>produce fire or explosions (past the initial blast).
The initial blast would be plenty, especially if, as usually
happens, the bomb explodes _after_ penetrating the structure.
>Fourth, the United States is the only country (with the exception of
>France, Great Britain, and Germany) capable of bombing with the
>precision seen in the recent war. The Soviet Union (and its client
>states) does NOT have the laser and computer technology necessary to
>bomb with that accuracy.
Uh, wanna bet? We had this technology in the early part of
the Viet Nam War. We used laser-guided bombs to hit two-lane
bridges from 10,000 feet when we were incapable of hitting
them with purely ballistic technologies.
What the Soviet Union lacks is probably the television
technology, infrastructure, and insipidness to transmit
videos of the bombings to the world via satellite for
our rapt infotainment.
>Fifth, Cuba does not have the top-of-the-line Soviet weaponry, but
>rather a notch down.
Cuba has a lot of cigars, late-fifties automobiles, and
hedonistic memories, but is lacking as a threat to US
security.
>Sixth, any attack such as described would be met with _strenuous_
>resistance from the USAF and Navy Aviation from their bases in Mobile,
>AL; Pensacola, FL; and Guantanamera Bay, Cuba. One plane on a solo
>bombing run would not reach its target. A concerted bombing attack
>would signify WWIII anyway, and we'd have a lot more to worry about
>than one nuclear reactor.
Yeah, like fifty of them...
>Seventh, as mentioned earlier, they are many easier and more effective
>ways of terrorizing a population than trying to crack a nuclear
>reactor. Botulism, terrorism, the Barbarian Pentathalon (looting,
>raping, burning, plundering, and pillaging), etc.
Threatening to create another newsgroup is a good
one as well (you ought to see the weenies in news.groups
scurry for the foxholes :-).
>Eigth, ignoring startup costs, nuclear reactors are the cheapest form
>of large-scale energy production available. The primary
Don't ignore startup costs. Ignoring any costs is, well,
ignorant.
>cost-inhibition is the legal difficulties of startup (including
>lawsuits by activists) and construction costs. Better streamlined
>regulations would reduce these costs.
And increase the risks. The regulations are crap, anyway.
The NRC had no business allowing Seabrook (NH) online with
its local geography and demography. If that thing goes,
millions will die, and there's no way to implement _any_ of
the evacuation plans included in the licensing package.
The NRC is a vestpocket rubberstamp for the Nuclear Industry,
and whether the physics is safe the politics is murderous.
>Ninth, nuclear reactors are FAR less polluting than natural gas, oil,
>and certainly coal generators are. Compare a few pounds of high level
>radioactive waste to millions of tons of carbon dioxide, soot, and sulfur
>and nitrogen oxides (and that's just what's released into the
>atmosphere!!).
I think stupidity has killed more people than all those
things, combined.
>Finally, nuclear reactors use NO FOSSIL FUELS. We're running out,
>folks. We need to save irreplaceable fossil fuels for other uses like
>plastics, medicines, clothing, cars, the computer keyboard I'm typing
>on, .... We have enough uranium in Nevada and Utah to last us
>thousands of years
That is, until we stop using fossil fuels and begin using
Uranium in a manner consistent with consumer-style
consumption: i.e., put it in an inefficient process that
runs at about 10% efficiency, then throw the majority of
the energy content away with the expensive packaging...
>and we're not depending on the Middle East for them.
We're not depending on the ME for Oil, either. We've
got Prudhoe Bay and the North Sea, as well as those
savvy Soviets, who're hoarding the stuff until the
Arabs run out of it.
>We can deal with the waste disposal problems from nuclear
>reactors. In the end, all arguments point towards nuclear reactors as
>the best source of electricity currently available. Hopefully, fusion
>research will prove fruitful soon, but until then, we must do the best
>we can.
So far, from what people have been saying on the net,
it's as likely we'll get "clean" fission as it is
we'll get "clean" fusion. I'd no sooner stand next
to a fusion reactor spitting out 1.4MeV neutrons
than I'd lick a Plutonium button.
>** Disclaimer: I never claimed I knew what I was talking about.
> Rice University doesn't even want me to post anything, let alone
> sanction my comments.
Tell Snap, Crackle, and Pop to mind their Student Affairs
and leave the Usenet to us.
>Kenneth J. Fair
>
>--
>+-----------------------------------------------------+-----------------------+
>"God does not play dice with the universe."- Einstein | ken...@owlnet.rice.edu
>"God may play dice with the universe, but he does not | America Online:
> collapse electron probability waveforms."- Fair | Mr Toaster
--Blair
"1. God doesn't exist, and if Einstein
wasn't being facetious, he was being stupid.
2. If god did exist, and he wouldn't play
dice with the universe, then why would there
be dice, and why would they work?
Ergo, Einstein was just being stupid
all-'round."
James W. Meritt
}>}If you could find a way to safely return the elements to their
}>}original distribution (within reason) I guess that would be fine by
}>}me.
}>
}>Can you do better with "original distribution" tna you did with "intense"
}>and "forever"? What does this mean? In the ground? On earth? In the
}>same mine?
}
}Nope. I'm bored with this specific thread Jim, but I wanted to save
}everyone else a slew of "Hour 2, and Shein still refuses to answer me".
Ah. I understand. That's why the very next post is on the same thread and
is by you. Another "political wish definition". Once again, I hoped that
you knew something I didn't, and again you show that you were talking and
not thinking. I see what you mean by "bored". It is what everyone else
means when they use "caught".
James W. Meritt
}sure we're talking about the same thing.
That would be terrific, except you seem to use unique meanings for "intense",
"forever", "original distribution", "bored" and, it appears,"with this thread".
Richard Bell
was that the core was enclosed at the sides and the bottom, but not
at the top, with reinorced concrete. The explosion that started the
graphite fire happened at the bottom of the core. The concrete sides
and bottom tamped the explosion, such that all of the energy was directed
upwards, heaving the core out of its containment which allowed it to burn
better. [I got this second hand from my nuclear physics prof]
Mike Van Pelt
In article <BZS.91Ap...@world.std.com> b...@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>Most [plutonium] would be eliminated
>>from your system before it was Americum, anyway
>
>Plutonium is one of the most highly toxic
>substances known. Period. What you said was utterly false.
Plutonium in what chemical compound? And administered how? It makes a
big difference. The 50% lethal dose for ingested plutonium oxide (the
usual form) is about half a teaspoon. There are *lots* of things more
toxic than that. Some compounds are more toxic than others, but even
the soluble ones are rather poorly absorbed by the small intestine.
Inhaled fine dust is another matter. Very bad news. But still, it's
far from the "most highly toxic substance known" unless you (1) believe
the "hot particle theory" which has little or no support in actual
cancers in actual Rocky Flats workers with lungs chock-full of
plutonium since the 40's, and (2) you equate possible lung cancer 30+
years down the road with certain immediate death.
--
"Ain't nothin' in the middle Mike Van Pelt
o' the road, 'cept a yellow Headland Technology/Video 7
line and dead 'possums." ...ames!vsi1!hsv3!mvp
Van Snyder
Barry may be on to a wonderful idea here: Disperse the waste in the original
mine, as uniformly and in as unconcentrated form as was the ore. That is,
don't put 100 tons of waste in the center of an enormous chamber from which
100000 tons of ore was extracted: spread it out uniformly. Then pour the
crud mixed with the original fuel (do miners call this dross?) back on top
of it. Since the total energy available by radioactive decay is now less
than before, and the stuff is back where it started ...
--
vsn...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder
vsn...@jato.uucp
ken ng cccc
:>Seventh, as mentioned earlier, they are many easier and more effective
:>ways of terrorizing a population than trying to crack a nuclear
:>reactor. Botulism, terrorism, the Barbarian Pentathalon (looting,
:>raping, burning, plundering, and pillaging), etc.
:Easier, yes. Dramatic, no. That fear factor comes into play bigtime.
Unfortunately, due to the badmouthing by anti-nuke folks there will probably
be more panic from a strike on a nuclear installation than strikes on
other things that can kill 10 times as many people (and in minutes as
opposed to decades). A few years ago, I read an article that said that
several terrorism experts hope that terrorist groups do get into nuclear
weapons because that would soak up great amounts of financial and technical
resources that could otherwise go to far more lethal, easier, and harder
to detect terrorist activities.
:How about those nice piles of tilings from uranium mining? Not radioactive, no,
:but toxic heavy metal very nasty to get into the water supply. Yumyum. Low
:level pollutant and an alpha emitter.
One: tailing are radioactive, I believe in some cases they even have high
amounts of radium, which is a real concern (as opposed to the bulk of the
whooplaw). Two: proper disposal of the tailings is radiologically a minor
concern compared to high level radwaste. Three: coal ash also has tons
of heavy metal compounds.
:Naw, we just screw the Native Americans again to get to them. Besides, going
:nuclear doesn't solve the problem(s) of fuel for the automobile. Unless you
:want to embark on an expensive quest to generate more electrictity to produce
:and run electric cars.
I do not know about the original poster, but I never said that nuclear power
will solve automobile pollution. This is like saying we should not invest
in cancer research because it does not cure heart disease! But, if you
insist, there are several avenues: trains could easily be electrified,
thus reducing oil consumption in that area. A lot of inner cities areas
could greatly benefit from switching to electric cars. This would not only
have the benefit of reducing urban air pollution, but also it uses electric
cars where they do the most good, in the stop and go environment in the
inner city. Furthermore, even if the electric cars are fed via a
conventional power plant, it is far easier to keep one megaplant running
at peak effiency than 5K individual automobiles.
Kenneth Ng
"No problem, this is how you make it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
ken ng cccc
:I know where to buy an F-15; where can I get a mason jar of
:Botulism? Isn't botulism sensitive to chlorine? Wouldn't
:it be cheaper and easier simply to say you'd poured the
:toxin into the water supply?
I've never actually tried to find some, but looking for cans of spoiled
food would be a start. Botulism is sensitive to oxygen, I'm not sure
about chlorine. The toxin released by botulism is probably not sensitive
to chlorine, but I'm not sure on this one. Against water, I'd probably
try to use Cholera, but I think the chlorine will kill it.
:It should be obvious by now that nuclear reactors have
:never been the target of organized terrorism.
Um, I think the French Super-Pheonix was once hit by a terrorist missile.
Supposedly the missile just bounced off the containment wall, but I can't
yet find an article on it.