Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality
Dr.Schlesinger
>without a containment vessel even though that was pointed out as being
>the chief problem with Chernobyl?
No, the referenced posting did NOT refer to the author's greater or
lesser feelings of comfort, and gave no indication that this was
implied. The posting was a response to another which seemed to
infer that Hanford is just like Chernobyl, and that any criticism of
the Soviet reactors applies equally to such American ones as Hanford.
As for feelings of comfort, obviously the distinctions become
trivial unless one infers some policy implications. One reasonable way
to state these, perhaps, would be to say that the Hanford situation,
because its operating pressures are signficantly lower, AND because
it is not situated in densely populated area (less than a dozen
families within 10 mile radius from what I read), does present
significantly lesser safety risks. Hence if one is making judgments
about the comparative prudence of national policies, the American
policies **on the basis of this one example only, and not knowing very
much about the rest on either side!!** seem significantly more
acceptable.
Tom Schlesinger, Plymouth State College, Plymouth, N.H. 03264
uucp: decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
Stanley Friesen
>
>How come lower capacity et al seem so important when it seems that our
>major nuclear accidents are being attributed to "human failure"
>(Chernobyl, TMI) by plant operators? Does the lower capacity
>compensate for human failures? I presume somewhat (less likely to be
>confronted with certain problems like bursting valves) but I think it
>ventures into some very sticky new probabilities.
You have missed a couple of factors. First the minor factor, a
smaller reactor has laess radioactive material, so the situation
cannot get quite as bad. Second, a smaller core is *intrinsically*
*cooler*, and is thus less likely to meltdown other factors being
equal. In fact some of the smallest reactors are almost immune to
meltdown, you would have to *try* to get them to melt!
--
Sarima (Stanley Friesen)
UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??
j...@ism780c.uucp
>>So, therefore, you feel comfortable with the fact that Hanford operates
>>without a containment vessel even though that was pointed out as being
>>the chief problem with Chernobyl?
>
> No, the referenced posting did NOT refer to the author's greater or
>lesser feelings of comfort, and gave no indication that this was
>implied. The posting was a response to another which seemed to
>infer that Hanford is just like Chernobyl, and that any criticism of
>the Soviet reactors applies equally to such American ones as Hanford.
You seem to be interested in some indications of implication but not others.
The issue isn't "applies equally", but rather "is relevant".
The engineer quoted was saying that commerical reactors are different.
And the reaction from the interviewer was that that isn't relevant to
the folks near Hanford. And he is right. Pointing out that Chernobyl
isn't relevant to commercial reactors evades the question of whether it
*is* relevant to Hanford. It also evades the basic point that *accidents
happen*. The NRC's own figures predict something on the order of a 40%
chance that *some* reactor *somewhere* will melt down by the year 2000.
The hydrogen bubble at TMI nearly burst; we were *lucky* that time.
> As for feelings of comfort, obviously the distinctions become
>trivial unless one infers some policy implications. One reasonable way
>to state these, perhaps, would be to say that the Hanford situation,
>because its operating pressures are signficantly lower, AND because
>it is not situated in densely populated area (less than a dozen
>families within 10 mile radius from what I read), does present
>significantly lesser safety risks.
Has there been a recent accident that killed off the other dozen families
you mentioned in your last posting? Perhaps you should reread your NY Times
article, and see what it *really* says, and determine whether it is reliable.
From your critical postings in net.politics, I am rather surprised that you
would take such an article at face value. Does the article mention that the
Hanford plant uses the Columbia River for cooling, and the implications on
the water supply to nearby communities? Does it mention the size of the crew
at the plant? That the high school football team is called the bombers and
that they have mushroom clouds on their helmets and that when workers get
exposed at the plant their friends buy them "red hot lover" T-shirts? Does
it mention that the Polish children taking iodine tablets are a bit more than
10 miles from Chernobyl? Did it say just what the safety risk *is*?
>Hence if one is making judgments
>about the comparative prudence of national policies, the American
>policies **on the basis of this one example only, and not knowing very
>much about the rest on either side!!** seem significantly more
>acceptable.
The issue is not comparative prudence of national policies. Any idiot knows
that the Soviet nuclear policy is much less prudent than our own.
But the real question is, how should we react? Should we pour large amounts
of energy into assuring everyone that everything is ok and it can't happen
here, or should we take this opportunity to remind ourselves of the possible
consequences of error, and take a serious look at our own safety risks?
Perhaps we should look at how well the policy recommendations that came
from the study of the TMI accident have been implemented. I think you would
find the conclusion pretty dismal. The problem isn't so much that nuclear
power reactors are dangerous as it is that they are dangerous if you aren't
aggressive about guaranteeing their safety.
P.S. What is this doing in net.philosophy and net.religion?
--
-- Jim Balter ({sdcrdcf!ism780c,ima}!jim)