Home Repair forum - Safety of Nuke Power (was: 1950s Chest Freezer

Author

Safety of Nuke Power (was: 1950s Chest Freezer

Jim Redelfs

2008-02-27, 8:25 pm

In article <47c4d8db$1$24118$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
> Three Mile ISland...

TMI-2 was virtually a non-accident: A small volume of irradiated steam was
released to the atmosphere. There was no injury to any thing or any one.

It's all about timing, folks...

March 16, 1979 - The China Syndrome starring Hanoi Jane
and Jack Lemmon opens in theaters.

March 28, 1979 - Three Mile Island Unit 2 incident

April 26, 1986 - Chernobyl #4 disaster

"Slightly" different containment philosophy, too. U.S. reactors are housed in
containment structures consisting of 3-4-foot-thick, steel reinforced concrete
able to withstand the direct impact of a Boeing 727.

The Soviet Union's idea of containment at Chernobyl (and others to this day)
is the equivalent of a metal-sided pole shed.

TMI-2 "belched" some bad steam.

Chernobyl-4 exploded, melted-down and killed virtually everyone that worked on
the subsequent job of encasing the core in concrete. The direct fallout
"nuked" a nearby, evacuated city. It is still abandoned but barely "hot".
*Normal* wildlife and flora flourish there and have for years.

Kudos to George W. Bush to be the first President since the 1970s to have the
guts to actually call for more nukes. We can (and should) build more nuke
plants.
--

hallerb@aol.com

2008-02-27, 8:25 pm

> TMI-2 was virtually a non-accident: =EF=BF=BDA small volume of irradiated =
steam was
> released to the atmosphere. =EF=BF=BDThere was no injury to any thing or a=
ny one.

could of been much worse if cooling hadnt been restored..... there was
concern of a explosion in the containment too

[color=darkred]
> "Slightly" different containment philosophy, too. =EF=BF=BDU.S. reactors a=
re housed in
> containment structures consisting of 3-4-foot-thick, steel reinforced conc=
rete
> able to withstand the direct impact of a Boeing 727.

not strong enough for larger planes espically with a full load of fuel
in use today and they have been used as weapons

> The Soviet Union's idea of containment at Chernobyl (and others to this da=
y)
> is the equivalent of a metal-sided pole shed.

yeah like the spent fuel storage rods in cooling pools nationwide.
perfect terrorists targets........

> TMI-2 "belched" some bad steam.
>
> Chernobyl-4 exploded, melted-down and killed virtually everyone that worke=
d on
> the subsequent job of encasing the core in concrete. =EF=BF=BDThe direct f=
allout
> "nuked" a nearby, evacuated city. =EF=BF=BDIt is still abandoned but barel=
y "hot".

have you looked at the zone of exclusion, far more than one city its a
entire region where humans cant safely live for probably a thousand
years

=EF=BF=BD
> *Normal* wildlife and flora flourish there and have for years.

theres lots of wildlife, but those animals suffer from tumors cancer
and early death. true humans arent around to bother them. animals move
into the thousands of abandoned but still standing buildings

>
> Kudos to George W. Bush to be the first President since the 1970s to have =
the
> guts to actually call for more nukes. =EF=BF=BDWe can (and should) build m=
ore nuke
> plants. JR

Well good old bush isnt exactly known for being a intelligent
president, his legacy is one of failure. his approval rate under 30%
the vast majority dont trust his judgement

for the pro nuke plant people...........

long term can you guarantee safe storage of spent fuel till its
harmless?'
how about short term storage in pools near reactors?

imagine a plane laden with explosives being flown into a storage pool.

how would the nuke power industry pay for long term thousand year
storage?

hallerb@aol.com

2008-02-27, 8:25 pm

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTow...uicknavmenu.htm

heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some
areas are so hot even after all these years you can die.

so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it?

what if this happened in our country?

hallerb@aol.com

2008-02-28, 3:25 am

ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
reinforced containment.

if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb
onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building.
the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods,
in a explosion will be a bad day.

very bad..............

the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in
place to handle spent fuel safely.

those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested
interest in reassuring the public its safe......

Jim Yanik

2008-02-28, 9:25 am

"hallerb@aol.com" <hallerb@aol.com> wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa-
ff400798d29c@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

> ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
> reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
> reinforced containment.
>
> if a terrorist somehow blew up the building by either smuggling a bomb
> onto the grounds or the more likely flying a bomb into the building.
> the newest fuel rods will be hot enough to melt down and all the rods,
> in a explosion will be a bad day.

unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the
rods in the belowground pool.
>
> very bad..............
>
> the ower companies should be required to have a plan with funding in
> place to handle spent fuel safely.

Once the rods cool enough[in short a time frame for terrorist
planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.
>
> those who worked or work for the nuke power industry have a vested
> interest in reassuring the public its safe......
>
>

All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems.
The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

hallerb@aol.com

2008-02-28, 9:25 am

On Feb 28, 8:18=EF=BF=BDam, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa-=

> ff400798d...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> unless the bomb is right IN the pool,an explosion is not going to harm the=

> rods in the belowground pool.
>
>
>
>
>
> Once the rods cool enough[in =EF=BF=BDshort a time frame for terrorist
> planning],the rods get shipped to Yucca Mtn secure storage site.
>
>
>
>
> All the greater reason to build pebble-bed reactors,no fuel rod problems.
> The fuel "pebbles" are extremely durable.
>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> kua.net

so how long has work been done on yucca mountain? how much old fuel
has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and
moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is
paying for all this?

what about shipping danger?

trader4@optonline.net

2008-02-28, 9:25 am

On Feb 28, 9:06=C2=A0am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 28, 8:18=EF=BF=BDam, Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
a-[color=darkred]
>
>
[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>
he[color=darkred]
>
>
>
>
>
..[color=darkred]
>
>
> so how long has work been done on yucca mountain?

Yucca would have been done a long time ago and all the fuel being
temporarily stored at power plants around the country if fear
mongering environmentalists hadn't done everything they could to block
it. Obsructionist tactics that continue to this day. And then the
same bunch are the ones bitching about how unsafe it is for the waste
to be stored temporarily at the power plants. Actually, the
envionmental extremists are quite happy with the arrangement, because
they use the spent fool storage at power plants to fear monger and try
to get them shut down. Tha't what they want and the only thing they
will accept.

how much old fuel
> has been moved there? whats the ultimate price tag for yucca and
> moving, storing, and monitoring this hopefully forever tomb? who is
> paying for all this?

There is a fund that all nuclear power plants have been paying into
for years to pay for yucca. But, in the end, like most things, it's
consumers, that is most of us, that are going to pay for it, one way
or another.

>
> what about shipping danger?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

More fear mongering nonsense. The canisters have been designed and
tested to withstand external explosions and intense fires that rage
for hours.

Nothing is perfect. Imagine someone just came up with the idea of an
airplane today and proposed putting people into them and flying them
around. And they proposed putting 3 airports, within a few miles of
NYC. How much fear can you conjur up with that? Yet, we do it
everyday and it's the safest form of transportation we have.

Dr. Hardcrab

2008-02-28, 5:27 pm

<hallerb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e6fda94f-ccfa-445a-a747-d6ddacbf7ae6@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/GhostTow...uicknavmenu.htm
>
> heres a page of links, to pictures of the russian dead zone. some
> areas are so hot even after all these years you can die.
>
> so take a look around and ask yourselves, is the risk worth it?
>
> what if this happened in our country?

I have one in my "back yard" and there are very close to being approved for
the first new reactor in years. I really hope it goes through...

LinkBot