Outrider Report -- Betting on Nuclear Courage
JimWils
Betting on Nuclear Courage
by
Jim Wilson
Should operators of nuclear reactors be asked to commit suicide to protect
company profits?
A few years ago the question seemed patently absurd.
Now, after a decade of denial, the Nuclear Regulator Commission (NRC) has
acknowledge it must soon decide whether utilities can adopt safety plans
that allow them to use their employees as the final line of defense should
peaceful atoms run amok.
The roots of the problem sink deep into the "Atoms for Peace" frenzy of
the 1950s. Despite having no idea of what to do with radioactive reactor
waste, the NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), pressed,
some historians say coerced, electric utilities into building nuclear
power stations.
To help sell utility executives on nuclear power, the AEC promised to
collect and dispose of the highly radioactive waste that needed to be
periodically purged from reactors to keep them operating at peak
efficiently.
The AEC got as far as designing the collection truck. And a truly
impressive truck it was. It could survive a collision with a speeding
locomotive. It had to. Despite its meek name, "spent fuel" is a killer.
The American Physical Society Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste
Management offers this comparison. To dilute to Safe Drinking Water
standards the radiation contained in the spent fuel created inside one
large reactor in one year would require as much water as flows down New
York's Hudson River in ten years.
After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
a dump.
If work progresses on schedule, the dump will open inside Yucca Mountain,
about a hundred miles from Los Vegas, Nevada, sometime early in the next
century.
Meanwhile, the spent fuel continues to collect. Each year a typical large
reactor produces about 30 tons of spent fuel. It is contained in about 60
half-ton "fuel assemblies," each about 14-feet long and eight-inches on
edge. In 1982 the Department of Energy (DOE) estimated there was already
eight times more radiation in spent fuel than in the waste created by the
nation's nuclear bomb program.
By the time Yucca Mountain opens DOE estimates there will be about 150,000
spent fuel assemblies awaiting disposal. Until then they will stay closer
to home.
"Nearly all spent fuel currently remains in pools at reactor sites, with
water providing both cooling and radiation shielding," explains Luther J.
Carter. He has studied the nuclear waste problem extensively for Resources
for the Future, a pro-nuclear Washington think tank.
Technically, utilities ran out of room ten years go. The NRC responded by
re-writing the rules. It allowed utilities to create space by "re-rack"
fuel assemblies, placing them 12-inches instead of 20-inches apart.
Re-racking solved the immediate storage problem. It also made water in
storage pools hotter, which is what brought the question of nuclear ethics
to the surface. In the more tightly packed pools continuous water
circulation now became critical. If some part of the system failed and
water boiled off, uncovered fuel assemblies could burn, melt, and possibly
even explode.
The NRC is most worried about the 35 power stations that use General
Electric (GE) boiling water reactors because their storage pools are
located above grade level. Engineers working for some of utilities that
own these systems say back-up generators and remote controls will solve
the problem. Utilities blanched at the expense and want the NRC to approve
another approach.
Utility executives argue that a chain of events that could cause water to
boil out of a spent-fuel pool is too improbably to justify adding safety
measures. In a worst case accident they plan to ask "heroic" reactor
operators to carry fire hoses to refill the pools.
It is this comment about heroism that moves the debate from technical to
ethical grounds. If lives hung in the balance it might be justified to ask
men to volunteer for such suicide missions, where in all likelihood they
will be cooked alive, so much raw meat in a microwave oven.
But will lives really hang in the balance?
The answer, as far as the 35 GE boiling water reactors currently under
discussion are concerned, is a resounding no. In these plants storage
pools are located inside the containment structure. If TMI demonstrated
anything, it is that these steel and concrete enclosures are not easily
breached.
All "heroic" reactor operators would buying with their lives would be the
safety of the reactor itself. Without their sacrifice it would be trapped
inside a radiation-filled tomb, untouchable for centuries.
No matter how much it might improve their balance sheets, utilities have
no moral right to ask the NRC to approve their plan to trade their workers
lives for property. # # #
C 1994 James Wilson. All rights reserved.
_The Outrider Report_ is distributed to more than 200 newspapers. If it
doesn't appear in your local paper let us know and we'll try to add them
to the list. E-mail your requests to: jim...@aol.com
John De Armond
Gee, where to start. Can't figure out whether this guy is a typical
reporter, egregiously dishonest, stupid or all the above. We'll see.
In any event, he writes pretty bad fiction.
>Should operators of nuclear reactors be asked to commit suicide to protect
>company profits?
>A few years ago the question seemed patently absurd.
In the context of this article, it still is.
>To help sell utility executives on nuclear power, the AEC promised to
>collect and dispose of the highly radioactive waste that needed to be
>periodically purged from reactors to keep them operating at peak
>efficiently.
>The AEC got as far as designing the collection truck. And a truly
>impressive truck it was. It could survive a collision with a speeding
>locomotive. It had to. Despite its meek name, "spent fuel" is a killer.
Gee Jim. I've touched spent fuel before. Why am I not dead? More
to the point, AEC didn't design a spent fuel cask (let's try to
get the name right). The major reactor vendors designed their own
casks and AEC/NRC tested them in spectacular fashion at various
points. Such publicity stunts included dropping the cask from
great heights, slamming it broadside with a locomotive and a semi
truck, blasting it with a rocket into a concrete barrier and
blasting it with an anti-tank round. All common stuff you run into
on the open highway, don't you know?
>The American Physical Society Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste
>Management offers this comparison. To dilute to Safe Drinking Water
>standards the radiation contained in the spent fuel created inside one
>large reactor in one year would require as much water as flows down New
>York's Hudson River in ten years.
Wow. And dilluting all the fecal matter emitted all the humans in
the country to drinking water standards would require all the water
in the oceans or something thereabouts. Solution: We generally
don't shit in our drinking water.
>Re-racking solved the immediate storage problem. It also made water in
>storage pools hotter, which is what brought the question of nuclear ethics
>to the surface. In the more tightly packed pools continuous water
>circulation now became critical. If some part of the system failed and
>water boiled off, uncovered fuel assemblies could burn, melt, and possibly
>even explode.
Spent fuel will not burn, melt or explode under any storage conditions
including exposure to air. Fresh spent fuel can reach temperatures
capable of melting the fuel pin cladding but the fuel, which is a
high temperature ceramic with a melting point above 5000 deg F, will not
melt. Fresh spent fuel is NOT placed directly in the high density
storage racks. It is allowed to cool is a separate area of the spent
fuel pit. Over 15 years ago Battelle Columbus proved that old (greater
than about a year old) fuel can be stored in DRY storage containers
with only air cooling. Since a third of a core is removed from
a reactor only every year to 18 months, almost all the fuel in
the spent fuel pit is old and capable of surviving dry conditions without
damage.
With regard to the water getting "hotter", perhaps the better word
would be warmer. Spent fuel pool water temperature is held to
below 100 to 110 degrees F during normal conditions. A nice temerature
range for a Jacuzzi, eh. And since the water is over 100 ft deep,
in the event of a total failure of the spent fuel cooling system
(a Class IA safety system), heatup to boiling would take days to
weeks and boiloff to the top of the fuel would take weeks more.
You would know this had you ever bothered to read the relevant
section of any plant's FSAR or Tech Specs, documents available at the
NRC's public documents room and at the media center of any utility.
Guess it's so much easier just to make up this tripe, eh?
>The NRC is most worried about the 35 power stations that use General
>Electric (GE) boiling water reactors because their storage pools are
>located above grade level. Engineers working for some of utilities that
>own these systems say back-up generators and remote controls will solve
>the problem. Utilities blanched at the expense and want the NRC to approve
>another approach.
Which problem is that?
>Utility executives argue that a chain of events that could cause water to
>boil out of a spent-fuel pool is too improbably to justify adding safety
>measures. In a worst case accident they plan to ask "heroic" reactor
>operators to carry fire hoses to refill the pools.
>It is this comment about heroism that moves the debate from technical to
>ethical grounds. If lives hung in the balance it might be justified to ask
>men to volunteer for such suicide missions, where in all likelihood they
>will be cooked alive, so much raw meat in a microwave oven.
Gawf! What a joke. From a pool approaching the dimentions of a football
field and over 100 ft deep, any rate of water loss that could be made
up with fire hoses would take WEEKS to uncover the fuel. This means
that the utility has the time to buy the hoses, have them shipped in,
have the operators string 'em up as their other duties allow
and still have plenty of time. And I haven't even mentioned the
fittings already built in all spent fuel pits expressly for the purpose
of supplying emergency water from hoses when everything else fails.
Just to put this in perspective, it is routine for divers to descend
into spent fuel pits in order to do repairs, retrieve dropped tools
and so on. Old spent fuel is pretty innocuous.
>The answer, as far as the 35 GE boiling water reactors currently under
>discussion are concerned, is a resounding no. In these plants storage
>pools are located inside the containment structure.
Nope. Dead wrong. The spent fuel pits are located outside the
primary containment but inside the reactor building. The reactor
building is sometimes called the secondary containment but it is NOT
a pressure vessel. It is NOT rated to contain any pressure. It
"contains" whatever leaks out of reactor systems by virtue of a negative
pressure maintained by fans. The space above refueling deck where
the spent fuel pit is located is typically enclosed by the same sort
of sheet metal siding used on ordinary metal buildings. This is NOT
airtight. Indeed, one of the problems we had at Browns Ferry (Mk II
BWR) was birds getting inside the structure and swimming in the spent fuel
pit water. This water is mildly contaminated so the birds would
spread contamination around the building.
>All "heroic" reactor operators would buying with their lives would be the
>safety of the reactor itself. Without their sacrifice it would be trapped
>inside a radiation-filled tomb, untouchable for centuries.
Hmm, did we suddenly jump context from the spent fuel pit to the
containment building? IN what context can you possibly imagine operators
cooling the containment building with fire hoses? And what figment
of your imagination caused you to come up with the last sentence.
How do you suppose we managed to enter the containment (or is that
tomb) of TMI II barely a couple of years after it dumped a good
chunk of its core on the containment floor? Bet it would amaze you
to learn that the gamma emitters that make spent fuel externally
hazardous decay in DECADES and not centuries and that the long lived
stuff is primarily alpha and beta emitters, neither of which present
external exposure hazards. If the unimaginable happened and
the reactor spammed all over the containment, it would be safe to
enter and work there in YEARS and not centuries. You've read
and uncritically accepted far too much of that anti-nuke propaganda.
Why don't you find a credible expert or two to talk to? There are many
of them right here in this forum.
>No matter how much it might improve their balance sheets, utilities have
>no moral right to ask the NRC to approve their plan to trade their workers
>lives for property. # # #
Why do you suppose a nuclear utility should be any different than any
other business entity? I've been on the fire brigade of a number
of plants, nuclear and otherwise, and it is understood by all that
one may risk and even give up his life in the process of saving
other lives or equipment. It goes with the territory. In point
of fact I KNEW that I was safer in any nuclear plant than I was most
any other sort of heavy industrial facility. In another point of
fact, utilities would never have to ask its employees to risk their
lives - there would be more than enough volunteers. The same sort
of volunteers that kept Browns Ferry safe during the fire with such
heroics as opening high voltage breaker cabinets and holding pump
breakers closed with sticks, all the while wearing SCBA packs because
of the smoke and fire.
Your article is egregiously insulting to all nuclear workers. You write
as if nuclear workes are droll robots that do only what the evil
management tells tehm to. It is shallow, wrong, sloppy, poorly
researched and oh so typical of what I've come to expect from media
writers. You were too lazy to verify even the most basic of facts such
as the location of a BWR spent fuel pit, facts that could be verified
with a quick phone call or 10 minutes' worth of looking in a public
documents room. I would say that you should be ashamed of yourself but
I already know that ethics, honesty, integrity and morality get checked
at the door of journalism school.
John
>_The Outrider Report_ is distributed to more than 200 newspapers. If it
>doesn't appear in your local paper let us know and we'll try to add them
>to the list. E-mail your requests to: jim...@aol.com
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC, Marietta, GA j...@dixie.com
Performance Engineering Magazine. Email to me published at my sole discretion
Respect the VietNam Vet, for he has survived every attempt by this country
to kill him.
JM Alvis
>Outrider Report for July 31, 1994
>
>Betting on Nuclear Courage
>by
>Jim Wilson
>
It is obvious that the author of this material is a dolt. He
cannot even get the basic facts straight. The Department of
Energy (DOE) has the responsibility to build to take the spent
fuel generated at commercial power plants. It is the DOE investigating
Yucca Mtn. not the NRC. Currently, nuclear utility rate payers
are paying into a goverment fund to meet the expected cost of taking
the spent fuel. Because the congress has decided to include this money
into the federal budget, so that it counts against the deficit, they do
not want the money spent on it intended purpose. Therefore, the fund
continues to grow with no spent fuel storage facility in the future. If you
are going to dispense blame for this problem, get your facts strait first.
---
John M. Alvis
Research Engineer
Nuclear Systems and Materials Dept.
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories
voice: (509) 376-2099
fax: (509) 376-5824
email: d3e...@alvis.pnl.gov
Blazek Robert
sci.space and skeptic newsgroups with similar "Outrider Reports".
Its very interesting watching him in action, at times it seems almost
like trolling. He's gotten similar reactions from the denizens of
those groups to his inaccuracies. Check it out and enjoy.
JimWils
written that your employers have told you that, as a condition of
employment, you are expected to lay down your life to protect company
PROPERTY. Got news for you lads; it doesn't work like that in America. I
hope you're just trying to yank my chain, because if you're not your right
are being trampled big time. Consult your shop stewards, not me, for
details.
JimWils
Robert) writes: Other Outrider Reports are on Sci. Skeptics.
A more complete collection will be found in alt.paranet.sci.
Jim Wilson
John De Armond
Has anyone actually seen this guy's rot in any print media? I haven't,
but then I haven't been looking. Perhaps a quick library search would
turn up some titles. Anyone with on-line access want to take a look?
Perhaps it would be sporting to track this guy's propaganda and
send factual corrections to the papers that print his scribbling.
Might reduce that list of papers real fast.
Bet this guy's suffering from acute culture shock right about now.
After all, these print journalists aren't used to readers being
able to call their lies. Brave new world, Jimbo. Better
get used to it.
John
Mark O. Wilson
|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
|by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
|a dump.
He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
BTW, at the time Annappolis did not have a nuclear engineering degree.
--
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Carl J Lydick
=In <30v9ns$3...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
=
=|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
=|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
=|by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
=|a dump.
=
=He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
=Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
=he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
=
=BTW, at the time Annappolis did not have a nuclear engineering degree.
I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
latter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Jeremy Whitlock
>I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
>two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
>time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
>East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
>latter.
Trivia: Carter, as a lieutenant in Rickover's navy, participated in the
decontamination programme at Chalk River, Ontario, following the 1952 NRX
accident. His picture still hangs in the NRX lobby.
--
Jeremy Whitlock e-mail: whit...@mcmaster.ca
Department of Engineering Physics phone: (905)-525-9140 ext.27140
McMaster University, 1280 Main West
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7 "My thoughts are mine, not Mac's"
David Feller
>Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote:
>
>>I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
>>two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
>>time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
>>East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
>>latter.
One facility (older) is in Ballston Spa, NY. A new facility is in Charleston, SC.
One just recently closed in Windsor, CT.
---
David Feller dfe...@nps.navy.mil
The whine-ocerous will never become extinct.
Be careful when sliding down the razor blade of life.
Mark O. Wilson
This must have been in e-mail, because no one on the net said it. Several
said that they felt that many workers would put their lives at risk in
order to protect company property, fellow workers and the surrounding
community. This is a far cry from being required to.
E. Michael Smith
>In article <mwilson.775246521@ncratl>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark O. Wilson) writes:
>=In <30v9ns$3...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
>=
>=|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
>=|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
I let this go by the first couple of times, but I'm giving in ...
I think you left out some puctuation... as it stands, this could be
read as:
After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
fuel reprocessing plant failed, President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
when what I'm sure you meant was:
After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
fuel reprocessing plant, failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
;-)
>=He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
>=Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
>=he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
>
>I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
>two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
>time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
>East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
>latter.
Does the Navy grant 'Engineer' status without a degree in Engineering?
I know the term can be ambiguous that way... just curious about what
Carter's real 'Nuclear Engineer' status is/was ...
--
E. Michael Smith
Manager of Stuff
Cygnus Support
John K. Dobitz
up your life to protect property. They do ask many people to do dangerous
things to protect property or even just to make money. We ask
firefighters and police to do dangerous things to protect property. You
may say these are exceptions except that all chemical plants have fire
brigades and serving on a fire brigade can be dangerous and usually all
you are doing is protecting property. Even if you discount natural or
unnatural disasters there are many professions that are very dangerous.
Deep sea diving is very dangerous and this is done for nothing more that
preventative maintenance or construction.
I work in an office and I am told if I face a dangerous situation I am to
leave. When I worked in a chemical plant I served on the fire brigade and
was instructed what I was supposed to do to minimize property damage
after assuring people were evacuated. Just being in the vicinity of some
of our units when they were out of control was dangerous. Our job was to
keep the plant from burning down.
If you don't know what you are talking about don't talk.
******************************************************
John Dobitz *
Texaco Exploration & Production Technology Department*
Houston, Tx *
dob...@Texaco.COM *
******************************************************
Boucher David
#writes:"when what I'm sure you meant was: After three separate
#multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial fuel reprocessing
#plant, failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer..."
Shouldn't that be, a "nucular" engineer? ;)
- db
--
****** "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. ******
****** Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories ******
****** instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes ******
*************************************************************************
JimWils
multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial fuel reprocessing
Funny, but wrong. Put the comma back where it belongs.
Jim Wilson
JimWils
K. Dobitz) writes:"Employers do not ask you to give
up your life to protect property."
Exactly right. They don't ask and legally cannot ask. However, this is
exactly the change that some utilities want made. This is the point of the
article, a major question of social justice is being masked as a minor
technical issue.
Did you guys sleep through high school civics or what?
Jim Wilson
_The Outrider Report_
B. Alan Guthrie
My recollection, from an article in Science in 1976 or 77, is that
Mr. Carter took a six-month course of study at Union College in
New York after he graduated from the Naval Academy. The head of
the program was quoted as saying that his training could in no
way have been as equivalent to a Master's Degree.
He was in the Nuclear Navy and did help clean up an accident at
the Chalk River facility in Canada.
I'm no fan of Mr. Carter, but I will grudgingly grant him some
sort of status in nuclear engineering based on his industrial
(military) experience.
>
>--
>
>E. Michael Smith
>Manager of Stuff
>Cygnus Support
--
B. Alan Guthrie, III | Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin
zc...@octopus.pgh.wec.com |
E. Michael Smith
>In article <311qc3$p...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
>>In reply to my article "Betting on Nuclear Courage" several of you have
>>written that your employers have told you that, as a condition of
>>employment, you are expected to lay down your life to protect company
>>PROPERTY. Got news for you lads; it doesn't work like that in America. I
Hate to break it to you, but protecting property is often the first
step in protecting LIFE. If a small fire is prevented at the risk
of one life, if often stops a major conflagration that would take many
more... Normal people understand this. It is the basis of altruism.
>>hope you're just trying to yank my chain, because if you're not your right
>>are being trampled big time. Consult your shop stewards, not me, for
>>details.
"shop stewards"? Surely you jest ... I thought unions were down to
something like 15% of the total workforce these days? (And dropping...)
>I think your statement is inflamatory. Employers do not ask you to give
>up your life to protect property. They do ask many people to do dangerous
>things to protect property or even just to make money. We ask
>firefighters and police to do dangerous things to protect property. You
>may say these are exceptions except that all chemical plants have fire
>brigades and serving on a fire brigade can be dangerous and usually all
>you are doing is protecting property.
You need not be a firefighter to find yourself in that position. During
the Loma-Prieta quake I was in charge of our building (when I was at
Apple). Just post quake, with unknown conditions in the computer room,
stuff strewn all over, and electical power out; with 'after-shocks'
due and the open issue of was the 7.1 just a 'pre-shock' ... I got to
call for volunteers to help me go into the computer room and power room
to shut off the breakers and make sure nothing hazardous was going on.
It was a potential 'risk of life'. The goal was to assure that several
million dollars of property was not sitting on broken power lines waiting
for electricity to come back on and start a life threatening fire. The
'tilt-up-fall-down' cement slab construction we were in was very much at
risk of crushing us if another shock was big enough.
Much of my 'shop' volunteered. We're talking about computer programmers
and operators, secretaries and managers.
If they had not, I'd have done the whole job myself.
It comes with the turf of being responsible. And you don't have to
be in a 'heroic' job title to do it. All these folks realized that
it was for the long term minimum risk to _all_ that some of us would
take short term higher risk. All of them realized that it was something
that needed doing. I had more volunteers than I needed and had to
ask some folks NOT to help, but told them to go home instead; that the
best thing they could do was go take care of their families and call
in over the next couple of days to see if they were needed.
My 'facilities guy' came in over the next 2 days to do a very complete
walk-through and clean-up of the site in preparation for power restoration.
We had lots of hazards to deal with; not the least of which was driving
past semiconductor fab companies with nice stuff like phosgene and arsine
(not to mention all the silane and the ordinary stuff like HCl ...)
in tanks that had not been inspected for damage/leakage yet... It was
'just part of the job' to him...
>Even if you discount natural or
>unnatural disasters there are many professions that are very dangerous.
I think you ought not to discount natural disasters ... Most
companies have volunteer squads of folks assigned to emergency
duties in case of natural disasters. And when the disaster does
hit, even the ones who didn't volunteer befor tend to do what is
right for all.
>I work in an office and I am told if I face a dangerous situation I am to
>leave.
As a manager, part of MY job _duties_ is to hang around in the
dangerous situation until I've shooed most/all of my folks out...
or taken whatever risk mitigating behaviours are most effective.
Yes, I accept that I'm going to take more risk than most of my
folks since I'm going to be making sure THEY get out. It is for
the greatest good and the least aggregate risk.
>When I worked in a chemical plant I served on the fire brigade and
>was instructed what I was supposed to do to minimize property damage
>after assuring people were evacuated. Just being in the vicinity of some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which means that you, too, expected to hang around somewhere very
dangerous to assure that others were safe... and to try to mitigate
the fire so that others had more time to escape and less risk of a
catastrophic event.
>of our units when they were out of control was dangerous. Our job was to
>keep the plant from burning down.
>
>If you don't know what you are talking about don't talk.
I get the impression that the other fellow, Jim?, has not worked much
in the real world or doesn't care much about his workmates... I would
not want to share a building with him during and earthquake or fire...
E. Michael Smith
Um, since you omitted the comma entirely it was left to the inflection
of the reader to interpret where to place the pause ... before or
after the 'failed' ... I just made the most rational choice ;-)
and applied a comma where appropriate ...
Paul McCombes
ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU "Carl J Lydick" writes:
> In article <mwilson.775246521@ncratl>, mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark
> O. Wilson) writes:
> =In <30v9ns$3...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
> =
> =|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
> =|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
> =|by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
> =|a dump.
> =
> =He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
> =Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
> =he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
>
> I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
> two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
> time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
> East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
> latter.
Quote from a speech by exPres. Carter to the University of Georgia 4 May 1974
'I'm not qualified to talk to you about law, because in addition to being a
peanut farmer, I'm an engineer and a nuclear physicist, not a lawyer.'
While it may not be explicit, the implicit meaning is clear - he claimed to be
a professional engineer and nuclear physicist and the automatic assumption is
that he had a degree. How many 'engineers and nuclear physicists' do you know
without a degree.
--
Paul McCombes
Thomas Richard Hubbard
Mark O. Wilson <mwi...@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> wrote:
>In <30v9ns$3...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
>
>|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
>|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
>|by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
>|a dump.
>
>He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
>Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
>he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
>
>BTW, at the time Annappolis did not have a nuclear engineering degree.
Nor do they now. As far as I know, USNA never had a degree in NE,
although they do offer a couple of pretty good courses in nuclear
theory. Also they have a subcritical reactor.
Tom Hubbard, USNA '87
--
Tom Hubbard Office:(804)982-4865 or 982-5440
Nuclear Reactor Facility Home: (804)296-2546
University of Virginia FAX: (804)982-5473
Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442 http://kelvin.seas.virginia.edu/~trh2m/
Thomas Richard Hubbard
>=In <30v9ns$3...@search01.news.aol.com> jim...@aol.com (JimWils) writes:
>=
>=|After three separate multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial
>=|fuel reprocessing plant failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer
>=|by training, ordered the NRC to close its checkbook and begin looking for
>=|a dump.
>=
>=He spent a couple of years as an undergrad at Georgia Tech, with Nuclear
>=Engineering as his major. Of course he left Tech to go to Annapolis before
>=he got to any courses that had anything to do with his major.
>=
>=BTW, at the time Annappolis did not have a nuclear engineering degree.
>
>I don't see any claim that Carter had a degree in the field. The Navy has had
>two training facilities for nuclear-power-related specialties for quite some
>time. One's between Pocatello and Idaho Falls. The other's somewhere on the
>East coast. If I recall correctly, Carter did receive some training at the
>latter.
Currently naval nuclear officers go through a year of nuclear
training. First there are 6 months in the classroom at Orlando, FL,
then there are 6 months at a Nuclear Power Training Unit (NPTU). The
NPTU's are located near Idaho Falls, ID; Balston Spa, NY; and
Charleston, SC. The first two above are actually prototype naval
reactor sites that they also use for training, and the SC one is
known as a "flototype" because it's actually half of an old sub
welded to the pier. There are several reactor plants in Idaho Falls,
and 4 in Balston Spa. The one in SC replaced a NPTU in Groton, CT a
couple of years ago.
A lot of this has probably changed since Carter's days. I know that
Orlando replaced Bainbridge, MD; and Mare Island, CA as the classroom
location around '78. Also, none of the NY prototypes existed back
then.
As far as the term "nuclear engineer" goes, there is no requirement
to have an engineering degree to get into the program. As a matter
of fact, I had a few English and History majors as classmates when I
went through. You don't need to be a rocket scientist - you ned to
be a good, safe operator. You need to be able to think analytically
and quickly, and take action.
Mark O. Wilson
|In article <CtMAG...@cygnus.com>, e...@cygnus.com (E. Michael Smith)
|writes:"when what I'm sure you meant was: After three separate
|multi-billion dollar attempts to open a commercial fuel reprocessing
|plant, failed President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer..."
True, compared to Clinton, Carter doesn't look so bad.
John K. Dobitz
What you did in response to my post was the cheapest of shoddy debaters
tricks. It pulls no weight and scores no points. This sort of behaviour
is to be expected of lawyers and politicians.