FERC says no more nuke or coal plants needed

Page 8 of 10  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

And the history is _still_ [0] in the numerator for deaths/serious injuries from nuclear-related causes in commercial LWRs.
If the NRC and its inspectors really were so ineffective and such a stooge of the industry as your attempts to make it seem, and the industry operators and reactor vendors were also so incompetent and hell-bent to melt down their (rather large) investments, how can you explain the observable result?
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course I can: Who really knows how close we came to serious incidents? Even the NYT article suggests that the condition of buried pipes seemed to come as somewhat of a surprise, and that backup measures MAY not have worked according to plan had things gotten worse.
Back to the faith issue: Do you believe that industry ***NEVER*** meddlies with regulatory agencies?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

That's raising a different question and not answering the one raised -- your favorite tactic, it seems.
The question raised is _HOW_ w/ if it were so poorly designed, regulated and operated as you seem to believe have there not been rampant injuries and deaths already?
As for the "NEVER" question, I never say never. I would say the difference is in frequency and level and specifically w/ NRC which is where my experience is. In 30+ years I've not run across a case in which I thought it was a contributing factor, no.
I've had lots of times I've had serious disagreements and protracted battles over particular issues but have always had them eventually resolved in a manner in which I think were completely aboveboard.
Back to using airplanes as examples, it's only the crash that makes news, not the thousands of safe landings every day that are reported. Only the rare occurrence is worth reporting; you simply latch onto each and every one of them as if they were the ordinary instead of the extraordinary.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Two things:
"To investigators' surprise, the aircraft's thermal insulation blankets, which had passed an FAA test for fire safety, readily ignited in a test conducted during the crash investigation."
"Now, what do we have in the airline industry? We have what I would call a confederacy of complacency with respect to in-flight fire detection and suppression. The National Transportation Safety Board has said that we need an integrated firefighting philosophy on airplanes. Yet we've got spaces that we don't have access to that are not protectable by fire detection or suppression. So the hazard continues to this day."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: ...

Neither of which have anything in the world to do w/ the NRC nor commercial nuclear power.
QED
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They do unless you believe one agency is miraculously immune to the "quirks" which are typical in all other government agencies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

They don't and I don't but...
I've already agreed people are people (and agencies and all other entities involved are comprised of people, they're not monolithic entities w/ some sort of inherent sentience you seem to provide them) and therefore susceptible to foibles of same as well as provided with the wherewithal to resist such.
While the investigation arm of the FAA is as good as it gets, there have been shortcomings on the regulation side although again I'd submit their overall record ain't all that bad and you're again making each and every overall isolated incident into inferring essentially everything is corrupted which just isn't so even there.
That said, yes, my experience with the NRC has led me to conclude it is, indeed different from and better than most other agencies. That comes, I believe, from two primary causes -- first off, it has a heritage that encompasses a mentality that it is important and secondly, as compared to the FAA and for commercial reactor safety in particular the subject here it has a much narrower realm of concentration to focus upon that makes their task somewhat easier.
But, overall, the results speak for themselves as to the effectiveness of the oversight program. Perfect? Of course not. Pretty darn good? You betcha'...
Remember, the numerator is still [0] and the denominator (in whatever units you choose to select) is increasing daily.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As the bumpersticker notes, more people have died in Teddy Kennedy's car than in nuclear accidents.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Heck - I'll play too:
4000+ dead soldiers in Iraq is nothing compared to the number of deaths in auto accidents in the same period of time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not impressed with facts, although more correctly stated, "per passenger mile traveled, there are fewer accidents or deaths with commercial aircraft." But then I tend to favor reason over emotion when making important decisions.
This of course makes things difficult for the "if it saves one life, it's worth it" crowd, as they decide which pro choice candidate they want to vote for.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I also pointed out that survival rates for airplane crashes are close enough to zero to be interesting. This fact is not changed by pointing out the rare exception, like the recent incident on the Hudson River. Do you agree?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's just plain false. The survival rate for airplane crashes is most definitely NOT close to zero. There are frequently crashes where a plane skids off a runway, lands long and overruns the runway, strikes another while taxing on the ground, etc and either everyone lives or a small percentage perish. You're simply focusing on the attention getting headlines of the truly catastrophic accidents and ignoring the others.
As others have asked, what exactly is your point? To conjure up as much FUD regarding everything as possible?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

CNN Quoting the NTSB: But according to government data, 95.7% of the passengers involved in airplane crashes categorized as accidents actually survive. Then, if you look at the most serious plane crashes, that's a smaller number; the survival rate in the most serious kinds of accidents is 76.6%. So the point there is, when the NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] analyzed all the airplane accidents between 1983 and 2000, 53,000 people were involved in those accidents, and 51,000 survived. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872154,00.html?imw=Y

anything.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK - I stand corrected and should've been more specific. What I had in mind were crashes like that of Swiss Air 111 and others like it.
OTHERS LIKE IT.
Nobody survives OTHERS LIKE IT. Nobody. And I mention this type of crash because Swiss Air 111 was a perfect example of a problem that is probably not being solved, even though the airline industry now knows about the hazard which sent that plane into the ocean. I base that last statement on the fact that when the story of the investigation was aired, the airline industry had done nothing, and from all indications, intended to do nothing.
Definition of nothing: "We'll have it fixed by (now + 10 years)".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, Joe. Once again you seem to have an unusual grasp on reality. From a PBS Nova special: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/safer.html Note in particular the last two sentences.
Swissair Flight 111 | September 2, 1998
This flight on an MD-11 plummeted into the sea off Nova Scotia, Canada, while traveling from New York to Geneva at night. All 229 people on board were killed. The crash occurred after the pilot radioed that there was smoke in the cockpit and requested an emergency landing. As he dumped the aircraft's fuel, vectored for a runway at Halifax's airport, and reported an escalation of the emergency, Flight 111 disappeared from radar. After a four-and-a-half-year investigation, which revealed evidence of an in-flight fire above the cockpit caused by faulty wiring and fueled by flammable airframe insulation, Canada's Transportation Safety Board published its final recommendations. These included toughening flammability standards for all materials used in airplanes and more stringent testing and certification of electrical wires. The FAA ultimately issued an order requiring the replacement of insulation in 700 commercial jetliners in the U.S., including every MD-11 in service. At least 500 other MD-11s worldwide were also modified.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'll have to track the timeline of the PBS story I read, since it contains this:
"We're presently having new airplanes designed, they're on the drawing board. Boeing has one. Airbus has what they call the Airbus 380, which is going to be a 550-passenger airplane. The regulations haven't changed. They do not have to provide any more fire detection or fire protection than we had on Swissair 111."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In otherwords you aren't looking for anything that might actually be indicative of the safety of the entire industry, just that which reinforces your ideas. You want to look at only those flights that ditch in the sea and kill everyone on board.

The FAA and NTSB would tend to disagree. From the Wiki (and the actual report from Canada's NTSB_equivalent.' "TSB Recommendations The TSB made nine recommendations relating to changes in aircraft materials (testing, certification, inspection and maintenance), electrical systems, and flight data capture. (Both flight recorders stopped when they lost power six minutes before impact.) General recommendations were also made regarding improvements in checklists and in fire-detection and fire-fighting equipment and training. These recommendations have led to widespread changes in FAA standards, principally impacting wiring and fire hardening. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1998/a98h0003/01report /index.asp#a5

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"We're presently having new airplanes designed, they're on the drawing board. Boeing has one. Airbus has what they call the Airbus 380, which is going to be a 550-passenger airplane. The regulations haven't changed. They do not have to provide any more fire detection or fire protection than we had on Swissair 111."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You are quoting the statement of one individual, a pilots union rep, the validity of which has been has been severely challenged. A pertinent paragraph follows, but you can read the entire transcript of the 2004 TV program you watched here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html
as well as the program update that rebuts Adams statements here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aircrash/update-faa.html
From the previous link - note the last sentence:
Finally, both the FAA and an independent expert contradict a statement by Ken Adams. In the program, Adams, who represented the Air Line Pilots Association during the investigation, claimed that regulations have not changed and new planes such as the Boeing 7E7 and Airbus 380 do not have to provide any more fire detection or fire protection than on Flight 111. According to the FAA, a more stringent flammability test has been mandated for newly built aircraft, and the requirement takes effect in September 2005. Both the new Boeing and Airbus planes will have advanced electrical-system protection and will feature low flammability materials.
Bottom line is that your attemp to claim that nuclear power generation is an unacceptible risk because of unknown failure modes isn't supported by pointing to airline accidents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wonder if existing aircraft will be retrofitted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.