Nuclear power: Petr Beckmann
Richard Carnes
>>[My quote from Petr Beckmann:]
>>"A political campaign has, for example, succeeded in frightening the
>>public over a minuscule quantity of temporarily toxic nuclear wastes
>>while glossing over an annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes
>>with an infinite lifetime, a considerable part of which is diposed of
>>into the atmosphere."
>
>How about the billions of tons of (let us say) carbon dioxide, which
>may be damaging the thermal ballance of the whole planet? And a
>billion tons annually doesn't have to be very toxic to be dangerous.
Beckmann speaks of "an annual billion tons (in the US) of coal wastes
with an infinite lifetime...". CO2 has a quite limited lifetime,
since roughly 1/7 of the atmospheric pool is annually used up in
photosynthesis. To be sure, CO2 accumulation may pose a severe
threat to the environment, but that is due to the "greenhouse
effect", not to any toxicity of CO2. CO2 is indeed not very toxic,
because it is not toxic at all, at least anywhere near the ~500 ppm
concentration of it that we breathe. And sulfur compounds have an
average residence time in the atmosphere of only a few days. So I am
still looking for the "annual billion tons of coal wastes with an
infinite lifetime".
>The point that nuclear wastes, while highly toxic, are small in
>quantity compared to those from chemically powered processes is still
>valid.
Beckmann's point in the quoted sentence seems to be not merely that
nuclear wastes are small in quantity in comparison to coal wastes,
but that they are comparatively *insignificant* in terms of their
hazards to the public. He fails to support this assertion with any
argument, at least in the article under discussion (which I have
before me). If Wayne would like to provide such an argument, I'd be
happy to read it.
>I note that I personally don't find nuclear power a panacea, nor to I
>agree with Beckmann in all things. But some of what he has to say is
>quite valid, and weak attacks on valid points, such as these, don't
>do much to increase the credibility or perceived competence of his
>detractors.
Beckmann's point here is invalid. In a previous article I quoted
some of the other criticisms of Beckmann's two articles made by the
Ehrlichs. They were not trying to write a complete rebuttal to
Beckmann; rather, they were reviewing the book in which his articles
appear (*The Resourceful Earth*, eds. Julian Simon and Herman Kahn).
They judged his contributions to be "embarrassingly incompetent" and
cited a few points to illustrate. (I'll send Wayne a copy of the
Beckmann articles, if he wants.)
>> [quoting the Ehrlichs]
>> Responsible analyses of the numbers of deaths attributable to
>> coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation -- some of which Cohen
>> cited but apparently did not understand -- indicate that the range of
>> possibilities for both sources extends from one or two deaths per
>> plant-year to several tens of deaths per plant-year, depending on
>> mining practices, power-plant location, pollution-control technology,
>> and highly uncertain assumptions about dose-response relations and
>> effects (of both sources) extending millennia into the future.
>
>Right. Safety of burning coal or fissioning uranium is questionable,
>and, in reality, nobody knows the ultimate dangers of either path,
>though it seems on the surface that they are comparable in terms of
>predictable deaths. (Isn't that how you read this paragraph?)
No. The studies are talking about the health risks from the *routine
operation* of nuclear power plants, not the *total* health risks from
nuclear power, which should take into account the possibilities of
catastrophes, sabotage, reactors being struck by bombs, proliferation
of nuclear weapons, etc. In addition, health risks should not be the
only consideration for energy policy.
>And yet, anti-nukes (in essence) use these facts to "prove" that
>nuclear power is too unsafe to use, and at the same time squawk when
>pro-nukes say that the same data shows that chemical power is too
>unsafe to use. Lunacy.
That is not what they say. And many anti-nukes advocate the "soft
energy paths", by which our use of fossil fuels will be reduced while
renewable energy sources are increasingly developed and utilized.
>>[Beckmann] also says that deforestation in the Third World could play
>>a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
>>produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
>>labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
>>in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
>>combined. [Ehrlichs]
>
>OK. I give up. Why is *this* one confused? More BS about
>nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and
>straightforward?
Since Wayne is quite knowledgeable about biology, I won't venture to
correct him if he asserts that CO2 is absorbed into plants through
the process of photosynthesis. In a friendly spirit, however, I will
recommend to him an article which I think he would enjoy (Jan W.
could read it with profit): P.M. Vitousek, P.R. Ehrlich, A.H.
Ehrlich, and P.A. Matson, "Human Appropriation of the Products of
Photosynthesis", *BioScience* 36: 368-373 (June 1986). Abstract:
Nearly 40% of potential terrestrial net primary productivity is used
directly, co-opted, or foregone because of human activities.
Please send copies of replies by email, as otherwise I may not see
them.
Richard Carnes
Wayne Throop
> Since Wayne is quite knowledgeable about biology, I won't venture to
> correct him if he asserts that CO2 is absorbed into plants through
> the process of photosynthesis. In a friendly spirit, however, I will
> recommend to him [some reading matter, omitted]
Well, you don't need to "venture to correct" me since I didn't assert
that CO2 is absorbed into plants through the process of photosynthesis.
Nor did I claim to be "knowledgeable about biology", so the source of
your knowlege of my knowlege is unclear to me. If your condescending
attitude while misinterpreting what I post is supposed to be "friendly",
I suppose I'd hate to see you irate.
I suppose I'd better be explicit, since Richard seems to think I'm
attempting to *support* Beckmann.
Q. Do I trust Beckmann's analyses?
A. No, he too obviously has an axe to grind.
Q. Do I trust Ehrlich then?
A. No, he's just grinding the other side of the same axe.
Have a nice day.
--
Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
Richard Carnes
> Q. Do I trust Beckmann's analyses?
> A. No, he too obviously has an axe to grind.
>
> Q. Do I trust Ehrlich then?
> A. No, he's just grinding the other side of the same axe.
In my postings on nuclear power, I have tried to make the point that
there are knowledgeable and highly intelligent people on both the pro
and the con sides of the issue, and that it is not the case, as some
of the pro-nukes have it, that informed opinion is all on one side
while the lay public that fears nuclear power is uninformed and
hysterical. I have also pointed out that people who make their
livings directly or indirectly from nuclear power may be biased in
its favor (which is apparently inconceivable to Michael Stein).
Instead of citing the views of scientists who command wide respect,
(Bethe, Weinberg, Weisskopf, Flowers, etc.), some of the pro-nukes
foolishly base their case on the writings of the strident
propagandists Petr Beckmann and Bernard Cohen. I quoted a biologist
who is highly regarded by his scientific colleagues, Paul Ehrlich, in
a review of some of their work, to give some idea why Beckmann and
Cohen may be regarded as propagandists in the invidious sense. The
response was ill-judged attacks on Ehrlich.
It is when the lay public reads such claims as "plutonium is only ten
times as toxic as caffeine, and less so than botulin toxin", "after
300 years of waste storage the nuclear industry will be cleaning up
the earth", "there is absolutely no connection between nuclear power
and nuclear weapons", "hundreds of people are condemned to premature
death every time a coal plant is built instead of a nuclear plant",
"most opponents of nuclear power are Luddites who oppose technology
and progress", "Ralph Nader says nuclear reactors can blow up in a
nuclear explosion" (Nader merely echoes the views of nuclear experts
such as Brian Flowers who assert that fast breeders can undergo a
nuclear explosion, although such an event ["Hypothetical Core
Disruptive Accident"] is highly unlikely), "Amory Lovins
misrepresents his educational background" (he doesn't), "there is no
danger worth worrying about from reactor sabotage or theft of
plutonium", "[any of the AEC's notorious lies]", "the NRC is doing
its job and has everything under control", "nuclear power is the
`safest' energy technology", "Chicago must increase its electricity
bills by 30% (with severe consequences for the city's economy) to pay
for several new reactors, even though none of the existing nukes was
used when the record for power output was set in July", or any of the
propaganda generated by the US Committee for Energy Awareness -- when
the public hears this sort of claim, which has been characteristic of
the nuclear industry from the *beginning*, and discovers later that
some of the claims are exaggerated or false, it is small wonder that
the industry loses all credibility in the eyes of the public. In the
last few weeks you have seen, in the microcosm of the net, a
demonstration of of why the public distrusts nuclear power to such a
degree.
Richard Carnes
David Canzi
>>>a significant role in reducing the "absorption" of carbon dioxide
>>>produced by coal burning ("absorption" into what?), and that "high
>>>labor intensity and troublesome handling" will be "far more decisive"
>>>in affecting coal use than will be all its environmental problems
>>
>>OK. I give up. Why is *this* one confused? More BS about
>>nonstandard terminology, despite the use being quite clear and
>
>Since Wayne is quite knowledgeable about biology, I won't venture to
>correct him if he asserts that CO2 is absorbed into plants through
No great knowledge of biology is required, this is high-school stuff:
CO2 diffuses into a leaf, photosynthesis consumes the CO2 producing O2,
the O2 diffuses out. I can't see any other reason why the Ehrlichs
would object to Beckman's words other than this, that "absorption" is a
loose use of terminology. But if this is the nature of the Ehrlichs'
objection, it's just a pointless nit-pick. Surely they could restrict
themselves to ridiculing Beckman's *real* mistakes, no?
--
David Canzi
"We believe that all policemen and politicians can be rehabilitated.
-- Simon Moon
Barry Shein
Re: Nuclear power and propaganda
I turned on the TV a few weeks ago to see a debate between a representative
for the Seabrook nuclear plant and someone sent by an anti-Seabrook group
(I forget which.)
I couldn't help but notice that the guy the nuke plant sent was under
30, had longish hair and was stylishly dressed. The guy from the anti-nuke
group? You guessed it, 50ish, dowdy, looked like a chamber of commerce
old-boy.
Well, what could I do...I laughed.
-Barry Shein, Boston University
Michael V. Stein
>I have also pointed out that people who make their
>livings directly or indirectly from nuclear power may be biased in
>its favor (which is apparently inconceivable to Michael Stein).
It isn't inconceivable, it is just that it would be nice if you had
something to back up attacks on not only nuclear engineers, but
also all health physicists (whether or not they work in industry).
Nuclear engineering has numerous sub-disaplines so a direct conflict
of interest doesn't exist. As far as the entire field having no
professional ethics, remember the American Nuclear Society waited
until 1975 before they endorsed nuclear power. For *21* years
they refused to endorse it. Only in 1975 were they satisfied it
was the safest form of power generation.
The supposed conflict of interest between health physics and nuclear
power is even more stretched. The International Commission of
Radiological Protection (ICRP) was formed in 1928. The National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) was
formed in the United States in 1929. I'm sure such groups were
only started because of the massive nuclear power industry we
had back in the 1920's.
If there is *any* group of people who might have a conflict of interest
it would be the professional anti-nukes. In some cases, their income,
their prestige and entire career come from their ideological position
against nuclear energy.
The District Court's decision in the case of Johnson vs US govt, best
illustrates this point (page 92):
...Dr. Morgan claims that the recognized authorities such as
UNSCEAR, BEIR, NCRP and ICRP are all wrong because the
scientists serving on these committees have some vague
connection with government grants. Dr. Morgan claims that
he alone is "completely independent" and objective. Yet Dr.
Morgan is working on about 50 radiation cases, and in each he
is the plaintiffs expert witness. Indeed, given his $500.00
per day expert witness fee, one must wonder who is partisan!
The use of such sources as Sternglass, Gofman or Morgan does your case
no credit.
>...some of the pro-nukes
>foolishly base their case on the writings of the strident
>propagandists Petr Beckmann and Bernard Cohen.
Two very important points must be made here:
1. One of the characteristics of scientific debate is that the
debate is not one of personalities. Such groups
as NCRP, etc. have spent many hours studying papers that
reflect many more hours of scientific research on the
effects of ionizing radiation on human health. In fields
where experimentation can be directly applied to hypothesises,
a consensus eventually emerges from the researchers in
the field. Such knowledge eventually emerges written
up in technical reports. This is precisely the reason
that Kenneth Ng, suggested that people should only use
actual sources and technical reports. This avoids the
problems associated with biased interpetations, etc.
I have seen *NOBODY* who has "based their case" on the writings
of Dr. Beckman or Dr. Cohen. Show me one person who has.
Instead people have argued from OTA reports, studies from
the NRC, studies from Brookhaven, the TMI commission, etc, etc.
Speaking for myself, the only physicist I remember personally
quoting as a source has been Dr. A. David Rossin, of the
Public Policy Committee of the American Nuclear Society.
Although Dr. Cohen has written numerous papers in the
technical journals, the only paper referenced by people
on the net was his work on plutonium toxicity. Dr. Beckman's
major work on energy policy is "The Health Hazards of Not
Going Nuclear" which is a good introduction that I would
recommend to anyone interersted in energy issues. (The
bibliographic notes list around a hundred other sources for
those interested in the questions of energy policy.)
2. While neither individual is central to the debate, I, and
others, dislike continual ad homien attacks direced against
people who cannot defend themselves. For this reason,
people have wasted a lot of time and effort refutting
the charges of Ehrlich. And we are not talking about
Ehrlich having slight misunderstandings. He is obviously
confused about the health risks and waste
products from coal and formally removed himself from
scientific opinion in the areas of health physics. Even after
all of this, you still persist... Describing either Beckman
or Cohen as "strident propagandists" is a cheap
shot and uncalled for.
>...The response was ill-judged attacks on Ehrlich.
Ehrlich obviously doesn't mind saying things in the popular press that
he wouldn't dare say in a peer reviewed format. (His absurd claim
that nuclear wastes caused oysters to glow is a good example of this
sort of creative imagination.) If someone wants to quote one
source as an expert, one first has to prove his source has
some expertise in the field.
[What follows next are a bunch of quotes from Carnes, starting out with
statements actually made over the net and ending with several that I'm
sure he read somewhere. I suspect his inclusion of the extra quotes is to
associate people on the net with them. A few are worthy of
comment.]
>It is when the lay public reads such claims as "plutonium is only ten
>times as toxic as caffeine, and less so than botulin toxin",
It is when scaremongers say that "plutonium is one of the most
dangerous substances known to man" that the public begins to fear.
It isn't surprising when you consider how some activists are so
free with the truth.
>"Ralph Nader says nuclear reactors can blow up in a
>nuclear explosion" (Nader merely echoes the views of nuclear experts
>such as Brian Flowers who assert that fast breeders can undergo a
>nuclear explosion, although such an event ["Hypothetical Core
>Disruptive Accident"] is highly unlikely),...
Completely wrong. If Nader was actually aware of Flower's work then
he was engaging in deception. If he was unaware of his work (the most
likely scenario), then he was simply ignorant.
Energy scholar Nader made the following quote back in 1974:
How many atomic explosions in our cities would you accept
before deciding that nuclear power is not safe - no
complexities, just a number!
This was long before breeder reactors were in our cities, since
breeder reactors aren't in US cities today.
>... In the
>last few weeks you have seen, in the microcosm of the net, a
>demonstration of of why the public distrusts nuclear power to such a
>degree.
Poeple have always been concerned about energy supply, high utility
bills and clean air and water. This is why nuclear power has always
had to pass the environmental impact statements and
public hearings. For the same sorts of reasons, the nuclear
industry has been regulated by the federal government. Even with
the strident anti-nuclear propaganda from professional activists, the
American public hasn't been very deceived. Although I haven't
kept up with legal happenings for the last few years, nuclear
power has always been supported by the American public. Never had the
public voted against nuclear power in any sort of moratorium vote
until that point. Obviously, is only the minority of activists that want
to subvert the political process to acheive their own goals.
(I know that I am personally glad that those with no responsibilities
to the people are so willing to speak for the people.)
--
Michael V. Stein
Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services
UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
Richard Carnes
> [Carnes]
>>"Ralph Nader says nuclear reactors can blow up in a
>>nuclear explosion" (Nader merely echoes the views of nuclear experts
>>such as Brian Flowers who assert that fast breeders can undergo a
>>nuclear explosion, although such an event ["Hypothetical Core
>>Disruptive Accident"] is highly unlikely),...
>
>Completely wrong. If Nader was actually aware of Flower's work then
>he was engaging in deception. If he was unaware of his work (the
>most likely scenario), then he was simply ignorant.
Sir Brian Flowers writes ["Nuclear Power", *Bull. Atom. Sci.*, March
1978, p. 24]:
With any reactor employing a liquid coolant there is the risk that
if, due to some malfunction, a substantial amount of fuel should
melt, it could react with the coolant causing this to evaporate
explosively and the core to be disrupted. It is highly improbable,
but possible; and it is particularly serious for the fast breeder
reactor because of the consequent risk, peculiar to this system, that
the core somehow reassembles in a more reactive state than before.
The result would be a very inefficient nuclear explosion, which if it
also succeeded in breaching the reactor containment could cause
damage one or two orders of magnitude more extensive than is
envisaged for thermal reactors undergoing similarly improbable but
disruptive malfunctions.
This seems clear enough. The possibility of nuclear explosions in
fast breeders is also acknowledged in two AEC documents:
--AEC, Argonne Natl. Lab., *Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program
Plan*, Aug. 1968.
--AEC, WASH-1535, Proposed Final Environmental Statement, *Liquid
Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program*, Dec. 1974.
The former document estimates the energy yield of the accidents as
equivalent to 300-500 pounds of TNT.
>Energy scholar Nader made the following quote back in 1974:
>
> How many atomic explosions in our cities would you accept
> before deciding that nuclear power is not safe - no
> complexities, just a number!
Mr. Stein gives no reference that would enable one to verify that
Nader made this statement, and if so, what he meant by it. In *The
Menace of Atomic Energy*, revised edition, p. 46, Nader states: "A
water reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb -- its fuel does not
contain a sufficient percentage of U-235 to make it weapons
material."
>This was long before breeder reactors were in our cities, since
>breeder reactors aren't in US cities today.
But it was long after the October 5, 1966, fuel melting accident at
the Fermi breeder reactor near Detroit, which was more serious than
the "maximum credible accident" for the plant. The title of the book
*We Almost Lost Detroit* is a quotation from a nuclear engineer who
was working at the plant. A 1957 University of Michigan study had
concluded that a reactor accident at Fermi could kill 60,000 people.
Richard Carnes
Michael V. Stein
>>Energy scholar Nader made the following quote back in 1974:
>>
>> How many atomic explosions in our cities would you accept
>> before deciding that nuclear power is not safe - no
>> complexities, just a number!
[Carnes writes]
>Mr. Stein gives no reference that would enable one to verify that
>Nader made this statement, and if so, what he meant by it. In *The
>Menace of Atomic Energy*, revised edition, p. 46, Nader states: "A
>water reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb -- its fuel does not
>contain a sufficient percentage of U-235 to make it weapons
>material."
The reference I saw was a question asked by Nader to AEC Commissioner
Doub at Ralph Nader's "Critical Mass" meeting. November, 1974.
If Nader actually was aware that PWR cannot go critical, then he
doesn't have the excuse of ignorance.
The potential of a small explosion due to a superprompt critical
condition in a fast breeder reactor has been known for a very long
time. But the predicted size of such an unlikely explosion is on the
order of hundreds of pounds of TNT. It is misleading to call it an
atomic bomb when a small "Hiroshima" equivalent bomb is 20,000
*tons* of TNT.
>But it was long after the October 5, 1966, fuel melting accident at
>the Fermi breeder reactor near Detroit, which was more serious than
>the "maximum credible accident" for the plant. The title of the book
>*We Almost Lost Detroit* is a quotation from a nuclear engineer who
>was working at the plant. A 1957 University of Michigan study had
>concluded that a reactor accident at Fermi could kill 60,000 people.
The "fuel melting incident" at Fermi I was caused by a coolant
blockage of two of the 103 fuel subassemblies that comprised the core.
The result was the melting of about 1% of the fuel. There was no
difficulty in promptly shutting down the reactor, and all safety systems
worked as expected. No radiation was released to the general public
nor were there any health hazards to the workers at the plant.
Later the reactor was repaired and resumed operation.
The 1957 report I suspect that you are referring to is the "Report on the
Possible Effects on the Surrounding Population of an Assumed Release
of Fission Products into the Atmosphere from a 300-Megawatt Nuclear
Reactor Located at Lagoona Beach, Michigan" (APDA-120). You somehow
forgot to mention that the worst case health risks computed by
APDA-120 assumed all of the fission products contained in over two
tons of highly burned up reactor fuel were arbitrarily released to
the outside environment as if the reactor vessel, primary shield tank,
and containment building did not even exist. (Note, as part of the
Defense in Depth philosophy, the containment at Fermi I was
built to sustain far more pressure than what could be released through a
secondary criticality accident (explosion). Also, the fission product
activity at Fermi I was several thousand times lower than the
activity assumed in APDA-120.)
Even if all safeguards failed and enormous breaches to the
containment somehow occured, there would still be natural mechanisms
to reduce dispersion in the atmosphere such as plate-out of fission
products on surfaces. Once such a release of radiation occured, there
would have to be a temperature inversion combined with a slight wind
to blow the radiation to Detroit before it dispersed.
The worst case scenario in APDA-120 ignored all of these considerations.
Uncritical use of such sources as Fuller's "We Almost Lost Detroit"
does not advance the nuclear debate. Fuller's book is poor enough
that it prompted those who reviewed the accident, to write a report
refuting some of Fuller's more absurd claims. Their report was called,
"We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit."
A few quotes from this report might illustrate this point:
[Fuller writes]
"But as the control rods slowly withdrew, and the instrument
readings reflected this silent power when the huge pumps sent
the sodium syrup through the system, vibrations were felt in
the floor of the control room that hinted at the reactors
awesome power."
While the description is certainly colorful and consistent with
the images of impending disaster the author is trying to create, the
vibrations from the primary sodium pumps could not be felt in the
control room which is located in a separate building. The source of
the term "sodium syrup" would be of interest since the viscosity of
hot liquid sodium is about that of water.
...
[Fuller writes}
"Hundreds and hundreds of specifications like this had flowed
through the process of putting this giant Swiss watch of a
reactor together. And through it all, there could be no
mistake. What if 0.1 gram of Uranium-236 got thrown out with
the packing carton?
Another colorful image to attempt to demonstrate the potential for
disaster with the slightest slip. However, there were obviously
mistakes made during the construction of Fermi-I. Fuller himself
alludes to some of the difficulties with this first-of-a-kind reactor.
The reference to 0.1 gram of U-236 being thrown out by mistake is
confusing. The only U-236 at the site was microgram quantities in a
fission counter. Perhaps U-235, the fissile fuel was the intention.
In any case, the effect of throwing out 0.1 gram of either isotope
would be inconsequential.
----
I have posted this message also to net.physics in the hope that
someone more knowledgable about breeder reactors will respond.
Specifically, I am interested in the current state of breeder research
in the US, and around the rest of the world.
Thomas J Keller
>
> The potential of a small explosion due to a superprompt critical
> condition in a fast breeder reactor has been known for a very long
> time. But the predicted size of such an unlikely explosion is on the
> order of hundreds of pounds of TNT. It is misleading to call it an
> atomic bomb when a small "Hiroshima" equivalent bomb is 20,000
> *tons* of TNT.
No, it isn't. An "atomic bomb" is an explosive device which utilizes
fissionable material as it's reactive source. A "small explosion due to a
superprompt critical condition" as an explosion which is the result of
fissionable material as the reactive source. No one here claimed that this
explosion was in any way comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. It is dishonest
and misleading for you to claim that such an explosion is *NOT* in fact
the equivalent of a (very small) atomic bomb.
You also neatly avoid the critical issue, which is that in such an
explosion, the bulk of the fissionable material, along with *HUGE*
quantities of highly radioactive by-products of the reactor operation,
would be spewed directly (or indirectly) into the environment.
> >But it was long after the October 5, 1966, fuel melting accident at
> >the Fermi breeder reactor near Detroit, which was more serious than
> >the "maximum credible accident" for the plant. The title of the book
> >*We Almost Lost Detroit* is a quotation from a nuclear engineer who
> >was working at the plant. A 1957 University of Michigan study had
> >concluded that a reactor accident at Fermi could kill 60,000 people.
>
> The "fuel melting incident" at Fermi I was caused by a coolant
> blockage of two of the 103 fuel subassemblies that comprised the core.
> The result was the melting of about 1% of the fuel. There was no
> difficulty in promptly shutting down the reactor, and all safety systems
I beg your pardon? What sources do *YOU* have on the Fermi accident?
According to all the information *I* have read, there was some particularly
distressing difficulty in shutting the reactor down properly, and several
of the safety systems in fact failed to operate. Fortunately, the man who
was running the Fermi project was, unlike most people involved in the
administration of nuclear power plant construction, an honest and dedicated
individual, whose major goal *WAS* safety. Many of the safety systems *DID*
work, and a total disaster was avoided. Had the design and construction of
the Fermi plant been done the way contemporary plants are built, Detroit
would be a ghosttown today.
> worked as expected. No radiation was released to the general public
> nor were there any health hazards to the workers at the plant.
No radiation was released? **REALLY**??? Cite your sources for *THAT*
tidbit, please.
> Later the reactor was repaired and resumed operation.
Incorrect. There were two reactors at the Fermi plant, and the second
reactor was eventually brought into operation. As of 1979, the damaged
reactor was still sitting there, awaiting final disposition. Moreover,
several tens of drums of highly contaminated debris from the accident were
still sitting piled up in an outhouse. Cite any evidence that the damaged
reactor was in any way repaired. It was several *YEARS* before they even
determined the exact cause of the Fermi accident (which, ironically, was
the result of an attempt to further improve the safety of the reactor).
> Uncritical use of such sources as Fuller's "We Almost Lost Detroit"
> does not advance the nuclear debate. Fuller's book is poor enough
> that it prompted those who reviewed the accident, to write a report
> refuting some of Fuller's more absurd claims. Their report was called,
> "We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit."
And of course, Mr. Stein, the people who wrote this report had **NOTHING**
to gain by so doing, right? There is **NO** possibility that perhaps they
were attempting to cover something up? I am not saying that they *WERE*,
only that the existence of such a report, as you have so aptly noted in
response to postings citing reports inimical to nuclear energy, does *NOT*
mean that the report is complete, correct or worthwhile.
Quite rightly, you point out that many anti-nuclear activists are really
quite ignorant of technical nuclear issues. Many are in fact actively
resistant to learning about them. This was the major reason I divorced
myself from the organized anti-nuclear groups. There are many anti-nuclear
persons who are well qualified, however. Your ad hominem attacks on them
only make you look as foolish as you are attempting to make them look.
You continually make throuroughly ridiculous comments, such as the one
a few articles back wherein you state that plutonium is "slightly radioactive"
. Several nuclear physicists and engineers I know got a good chuckle out of
**THAT** piece of dis-information. You insist that anti-nuclear activists
have some hidden agenda (while failing to show what significant value any
of them have to gain from their stance), yet explode in vehement outrage when
someone suggests that those *WITHIN* the industry, who would very clearly
have much to gain in insisting that their technology is safe, would deigm
to mis-represent *ANYTHING*. An interesting, if somewhat distressing
double standard.
Let's face it, Mr. Stein, you are not interested in the truth, any more
than you claim the anti-nukers are. You refuse to seriously consider *ANY*
evidence that there could be serious problems with nuclear energy. You
simply close your mind to any "expert" who doesn't agree with your pre-
conceived notions on the subject.
Your claims of relative safety for nuclear energy are deliberately
misleading, your arguments about the possible effects of a serious
accident in the processing, shipment and use of nuclear fuels are specious
and dishonest. You either A) have something to gain from advancing nuclear
energy (perhaps you have invested heavily in it?), or B) you have been
thouroughly duped by the pro-nuclear proponents.
The truth about the safety, necessity and desireability of nuclear
energy is somewhere between your completely irresponsible attitudes and
the completely irresponsible attitudes of many anti-nukers. I believe,
however, that the truth lies somewhat closer to that espoused by the
anti-nukers than it does to yours.
--
Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!!
tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!"
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)