| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2006 10:45:15 AM |
| Object: |
sci.engr.nuclear? |
I guess the USENET was born after the failure of WPPS.. so no nuke
engrs dared id themselves.. but with all this nuclear energy being
talked about I wonder what has been learned from TMI & Chernobyl.. (I
was one of the Columbia students calling for activiating the reactor
the other wanted to dismantle in 1979. I recall navy recruiters joked
about the soviet sub reactors having no tops so if the turned upside
down, they spent a couple of millenia cooling off under the arctic.)
I'm a chem engr, know next to nothing about nuke engr, except I know a
lot of disemployed nuke engrs.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: sci.engr.nuclear? |
04 Mar 2006 07:05:48 AM |
|
|
wrote:
I guess the USENET was born after the failure of WPPS.. so no nuke
engrs dared id themselves.. but with all this nuclear energy being
talked about I wonder what has been learned from TMI & Chernobyl.. (I
was one of the Columbia students calling for activiating the reactor
the other wanted to dismantle in 1979. I recall navy recruiters joked
about the soviet sub reactors having no tops so if the turned upside
down, they spent a couple of millenia cooling off under the arctic.)
I'm a chem engr, know next to nothing about nuke engr, except I know a
lot of disemployed nuke engrs.
Their is nothing about nuke enginnering to know,
since there is no such fielld of study.
Physicists simply invented the idiotic name
to keep The Mt St Helens EPA visitor dork park
open, before they blew it up.
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: sci.engr.nuclear? |
04 Mar 2006 04:12:25 AM |
|
|
In sci.energy wrote:
I guess the USENET was born after the failure of WPPS.. so no nuke
engrs dared id themselves.. but with all this nuclear energy being
talked about I wonder what has been learned from TMI & Chernobyl.. (I
Lots of the lessons from TMI were not learned by the people operating
Chernobyl.
There had been problems with the other reactors of Chernobyls class, but
these were kept secret.
The operators were never informed, so they were under the impression
there had never been any problems with the class of reactor they were
operating.
This of course utterly screws safety.
Not to mention that there was no secondary airtight structure around the
reactor, to contain the accident.
If the Chernobyl reactor had been inside a TMI style containment dome,
then as with TMI, there would have been essentially no external release
of radiation, or if there was, it would have been dramatically smaller,
as flooding the reactor with nitrogen, and stopping the fire would have
been trivial.
If the operators of Chernobyl had been informed of the previous problems
with the reactor type, there would not have been an accident.
Yes, they operated the reactor outside the specifications, but they had
no reason to suspect that this was especially dangerous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G. R. L. Cowan" |
|
| Title: Re: sci.engr.nuclear? |
06 Mar 2006 10:26:03 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.energy wrote:
I guess the USENET was born after the failure of WPPS.. so no nuke
engrs dared id themselves.. but with all this nuclear energy being
talked about I wonder what has been learned from TMI & Chernobyl.. (I
Lots of the lessons from TMI were not learned by the people operating
Chernobyl.
There had been problems with the other reactors of Chernobyls class, but
these were kept secret.
The operators were never informed, so they were under the impression
there had never been any problems with the class of reactor they were
operating.
This of course utterly screws safety.
Not to mention that there was no secondary airtight structure around the
reactor, to contain the accident.
If the Chernobyl reactor had been inside a TMI style containment dome,
then as with TMI, there would have been essentially no external release
of radiation, or if there was, it would have been dramatically smaller,
as flooding the reactor with nitrogen, and stopping the fire would have
been trivial.
If the operators of Chernobyl had been informed of the previous problems
with the reactor type, there would not have been an accident.
Yes, they operated the reactor outside the specifications, but they had
no reason to suspect that this was especially dangerous.
Unlike Dr. Edward Teller -- reactor opposer, Chernobyl preventer.
--- Graham Cowan, former Ontario, Canada hydrogen fan
Boron: fire with nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Quaoar" |
|
| Title: Re: sci.engr.nuclear? |
06 Mar 2006 07:46:00 PM |
|
|
Ian Stirling wrote:
In sci.energy wrote:
I guess the USENET was born after the failure of WPPS.. so no nuke
engrs dared id themselves.. but with all this nuclear energy being
talked about I wonder what has been learned from TMI & Chernobyl.. (I
Lots of the lessons from TMI were not learned by the people operating
Chernobyl.
There had been problems with the other reactors of Chernobyls class, but
these were kept secret.
The operators were never informed, so they were under the impression
there had never been any problems with the class of reactor they were
operating.
This of course utterly screws safety.
Not to mention that there was no secondary airtight structure around the
reactor, to contain the accident.
If the Chernobyl reactor had been inside a TMI style containment dome,
then as with TMI, there would have been essentially no external release
of radiation, or if there was, it would have been dramatically smaller,
as flooding the reactor with nitrogen, and stopping the fire would have
been trivial.
If the operators of Chernobyl had been informed of the previous problems
with the reactor type, there would not have been an accident.
Yes, they operated the reactor outside the specifications, but they had
no reason to suspect that this was especially dangerous.
I believe your thesis that a containment vessel would have prevented the
"Chernobyl incident" is optimistic if not unrealistic. The design of
the Soviet's reactors, with the one involved Chernobyl reactor as an
example, would have overpowered any containment in a loss of control
incident (as happened) since the design was basically a controlled dirty
atomic weapon.
The Soviets had every reason to suspect (or EXPECT) that the design was
especially dangerous. IIRC, the design had been reviewed by experts in
the field external to the CCCP and found to be, as happened,
exceptionally dangerous since the design had no ultimate and effective
nuclear cessation procedure.
Now, neither of us has supplied independent and respected citations for
our viewpoints. I am researching the literature. You should do the same.
Q
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
