Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/25

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Chernobyl Legacy
From: walt at waltjohnson.com (Walt Johnson)
Date: Tue Apr 25 17:27:02 2006
References: <C073ED2B.FD52%bdcolen@comcast.net> <C073ED2B.FD52%bdcolen@comcast.net> <3.0.2.32.20060425174136.0295f7c8@pop.infionline.net>

Marc:

I'm sure nuclear disasters are very complex in  engineering terms but 
this had nothing to do with my statements.  Whether or not our system of 
checks and balances is better that  the now defunct Soviet Union is not 
an issue. I can't help but feel our system of CYA is far superior and 
Three Mile Island comes to mind.  Lack luster Russian engineering aside, 
the  reactions of our own  (edited out in my original post) Christian 
Right salivating over a "commie disaster" is hard to deny.  Holier than 
thou always strikes me as the unholiest of all.

Walt




Marc James Small wrote:

>At 03:31 PM 4/25/06 -0400, Walt Johnson wrote:
>  
>
>>Unfortunately, I'll bet many right wingers  reacted to Chernobyl much 
>>the same way the Reagan administration did to  KAL 007. You know, God 
>>points a finger at the Evil Empire. 
>>    
>>
>
>Walt
>
>It is a bit more complex than that.  The USSR opted for cutting some
>technical edges which ought not to have been cut, and the Chernobyl
>disaster resulted.  The only "right-wing" comment on the event was to point
>out the danger of allowing a single entity -- the same government agency --
>to design, build, and inspect something as dangerous as a nuclear pile.
>(In the West, nuclear plants are designed by private industry to government
>standards, and are inspected by an agency completely distinct from that
>which set out the standards, to ensure inspection by a neutral entity.)
>
>There are some engineers on this List who probably can speak to more detail
>about this, but I would direct your attention to the rather lengthy report
>run in THE ECONOMIST, a publication of a mildly pinkish nature, around 1986
>or 1987, which discussed the technical gaps the Soviets attempted to jump
>and did so though, in the end, unsuccessfully.  The other side is that
>Chernobyl was one of seeral dozens of Soviet power plants using the same
>technology, and the others are still in use today.  The successor
>governments will not tell us much about safety measures taken to ensure no
>repeat of the Chernobyl disaster.
>
>The good news is that Northern Hemisphere winds normally blow west to east.
> The bad news for Sweden, a nation of appallingly arrogant insistence that
>it had no dog in the Cold War fight, was that the winds briefly blew from
>Chernobyl to Sweden.  Couldn't have happened to a better target.  But, in
>the future, if such a problem should occur again, the radiation path will
>probably spread over Russia and not over western Europe.
>
>Mind you, I am not in favor of nuclear disasters but a well-run nuclear
>plant is the most effective method for the production of power.  
>
>Marc
>
>msmall@aya.yale.edu 
>Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Leica Users Group.
>See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
>  
>

Replies: Reply from abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge) ([Leica] Chernobyl Legacy)
Reply from msmall at aya.yale.edu (Marc James Small) ([Leica] Chernobyl Legacy)
In reply to: Message from bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Chernobyl Legacy)
Message from msmall at aya.yale.edu (Marc James Small) ([Leica] Chernobyl Legacy)