The _systems_ did work correctly as is demonstrated by having no offsite
or onsite consequences other than mechanical damage. That's what they
were designed to do and what they did.
As noted in another response in which I summarized the accident
scenario, the actual failure was in the intervention of the operators in
the automatic response of the system to the incident w/o which the whole
thing would have been over and the reactor online again within a month
or so at the outside.
So, again, your lack of knowledge of what actually happened and what it
really shows is apparent. If it didn't say so much about what is wrong
w/ our overall level of scientific and technical education in the
country it would almost be funny.
In fact, if the operators had just sat back and done essentially nothing
instead of intervening, there would have been no "TMI" anybody would
remember. Only a short outage similar to that in FL the other day...
"haller" and "research" in the same sentence? There's an oxymoron for
as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher
altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive
debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.
plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from
long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.
Yeah, if you consider 20Ktons low yield. It did wipe out the city.
As to how much radioactive waste it created vs Chernobly, I'm actually
not sure about that, one way or the other. Chernobly was such a half
assed hell hole to begin with that it was easy to just walk away from
it instead of rebuilding it.
The uranium used in commercial reactors is enriched to a whopping 2 or
3%. Before those rods go into the nuke, you could hold them in your
hand. Weapons grade uranium like that used at Hiroshima is what's
highly enriched, which is to 80 or 90%.
well,they were air-burst,not ground burst,which digs a lot of dirt up and
spreads it.I'm not so sure about "higher altitude",as nukes usually are
detonated at around 3-5 thousand feet.
And they VERY rarely get released.That's the important part.
actually,those early nukes were very dirty,as they didn't know enough to
fine-tune the amount of fissionables so that ALL the fissionables actually
fissioned.IOW,they wasted a lot of uranium and plutonium to be sure the
bombs would fission.
Unlike N.Korea's recent nuke test "fizzle".
No, I've seen the effects stupid people can have on even the simplest
operations. Plus, I can't at this moment think of a single incident at a
nuclear power facility that wasn't caused by stupidity. Not even one single
incident caused by an actual materials or design failure runs through my
If they could invoke Dubya,
I can certainly call a jerk Hussein.
and how do you guarantee a stupid person in the future wouldnt create
one tech looking for air leaks caused a electrical fire in the control
top of reactor core nearly ate thru, one and i believe it was around
the great lakes, a water deflector came loose and blocked cooling
water, the nearly brand new reactor nearly melted down and was
permanetely shut down and encased in a oncrete vault.
how many old reactors have been shut down, disassembled and the ground
cleaned up, core sent for proper disposal?
Fermi II, IIRC. 1967. Described in a sensationalist book 'We Almost Lost
Detroit. No idea how accurate the book was.
Not very many, so far. I think NRC and the Navy just got around to
dismantling the R&D reactors for the original nuke sub program a couple
of years ago. The earliest commercial reactors are just now reaching
end-of-life, and many got their licenses extended (according to the
papers) by doing upgrades and reinspections. Commercial ones that are
offline permanently are mothballed in place, if the newspaper reports
They really do need to move all those old fuel rods to a centrally
located real deep hole, sooner rather than later. I'm sure the taxpayers
will end footing most of that bill. After a century or so, the stainless
cylinders inside those concrete casks will start to deteriorate.
They put a lot of thought into the 'keep out' markers for Yucca Mountain
and similar sites. Granite and gold for durability, supposed to still
be legible in 10k years. Multiple languages, as well as diagrams showing
atomic structure of the stored materials, that will hopefully mean
something to anyone still around then. (presuming no current languages
will still be spoken.) ISTR they also buried markers around the
perimeter in some way that would call attention to itself to any
prospectors, in case the above-ground markers got stolen or recycled as
grave markers or something.
Of course, if some calamity produces a general societal collapse and
loss of all historical records, and a reversion to a barely literate
agrarian economy led by local Jefes and Shamans, the dump sites may
become very holy places.
I'll lay you odds that Hallerburton is also _against_ the Yucca
mountain project. From his reasoning in this thread, he probably
figures it is too dangerous to store there while ignoring the danger
of having it scattered in sites all over the country.
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.
ok on the spent fuel rods in a pool right next to the
reactor........... non hardened buildings, no heavy concrete steel
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.
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......
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?
No, a bomb would tend scatter stuff around, not put it in closer
proximity to the small number of "hot" assemblies which would be
required to heat up all the rest.
They have been funding it since the beginning of commercial nuclear
power in the 60s...
And we've been extremely successful despite the irrational fears of
folks like you who rant about stuff they have no idea of how it actually
Just like the Chernobyl/LWR comparison -- can you explain the difference
between the two reactor designs or even the mechanism by which the
Chernobyl accident caused the dispersion? If you understood anything
about the reactor design and the accident scenario itself, you would
have an understanding of why that type of accident can't physically
occur at a LWR.
you know if it werent for 3 mile island, nuke power would be much more
but building something that can in any degree create another chernobyl
here in our country is folly.
your statement that things are safe there except for one city shows
how little you know of the after effects.......
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.