1950s Chest Freezer Refurbish

[salty]

Please feel free to continue with your fantasy. I won't bother attempting to wake you from your dream.

See Ya

[dpb]

No fantasy at all -- having spent 30 years in reactor design and utility operations, I know the difference between safety and non-safety system--I designed them.

--

[gfretwell]

Why would the firemen go down the shaft. You just open the door and climb out. The only dangerous part is if the power comes back on while you are in the door. Most elevator doors can be pried open from inside then you can trip the latch for the hallway door. BTDT

[gfretwell]

The "safety issue" was that the distribution system had a failure. They shut down the power plant because they had nothing to do with the power it was making.

[HeyBub]

Certainly the risk is worth it. That's already been established.

If it can be shown that nuclear power causes less deaths per KWs generated than any other form of electrical generation, then nuclear should be a hands-down winner.

Well, it can.

Consider the mining and transportation (from, say Montana to Chicago) of tens of thousands of railcars full of coal. Consider that hydroelectric dams don't fail very often, but when they do...

And so on.

The thing that nuclear has that the others don't is the "terror factor."

[Dr. Hardcrab]

I still consider that a near miss: Although 25,000 people lived within five miles (8 km) of the site at the time of the accident,[5] no identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred, and a government report concluded that "There will either be no case of cancer or the number of cases will be so small that it will never be possible to detect them. The same conclusion applies to the other possible health effects."

[dpb]

...

Actually, in the end it was a very good test and demonstration of the adequacy of the system design to handle a LOCA (albeit an operator-error induced one, but a LOCA nonetheless).

--

[cybercat]

wrote

Perfectly lovely comment. Thank you.

[Jim Redelfs]

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.

[cshenk]

"cybercat" wrote

Not to mention that the soup kitchen here was delighted to get one for free from us, roughly same vintage. Big enough to store a 1/2 side of beef easily with a bit spare around the edges .

[hallerb]

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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?

[dpb]

Nothing external to the plant, yes--they did melt the core to about

2/3rds but it was all contained in the vessel...

All it took to restore cooling was to turn the RCP (reactor coolant pumps) back on. They had been shut off (manually) owing to operator error and misinterpretation of instrumentation data. Once forced circulation was reestablished, the situation was stabilized.

There was far more concern in the media over the "H-bubble" than there was in reality.

There was no containment at Chernobyl--there was no idea that it was anything other than weather protection. Not a good design, but then again, in their regime they could do as they saw fit.

OTOH, at their LWRs (Westinghouse design copies) they have containments same as any other.

I haven't checked for certain, but I believe all the Chernobyl-style reactors have been retired.

--

[Edwin Pawlowski]

You can get killed walking across the street, yet they keep building more streets.

Sad as the photos are, that is a different setup than anything in the US. We can't burn oil and coal forever either.

[hallerb]

well after some time it wouldnt be retrievable. and nevada is fighting the plan, based at least partially on the risk of a earthquake opening the mountain at some point in a thousand years.

just how does one prevent a person in the future from accidently breeching the storage area? our country is just over 200 years old.

now a thousands or more. how does one guarantee a future resident doesnt drill a well, not knowing the hazard

[hallerb]

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......

[hallerb]

we have on us soil a couple thousand year supply of coal.........

isnt that enough for you?

arent you the one who claimed chernobyl only killed one city, yet this proves the dead area is very large....

plus the river sends contaminated water down river indefinetely.

no one says how long term storage will be paid for a yucca mountain is no guarantee

[cybercat]

Neat!

[Edwin Pawlowski]

But we still need better wqays to mine and burn it

No, that was not me

[Jim Yanik]

" [e-mail]" wrote in news:7d0fd62f-f80a-4664-82fa- [e-mail]:

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 short 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.