Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What do you base your final prediction on, Adam? On 4/25/06 10:41 PM, "Adam Bridge" <abridge@gmail.com> wrote: > Setting aside issues of a political nature, the Soviets chose to > design a reactor plant that could never EVER be licensed in the west. > The graphite core of the Soviet plant had a few very nasty > characteristics: 1) it could catch on fire and 2) (the worst) it could > have what's called a "positive alpha-T" - In nuclear engineering > jargon that means that as the temperature of the reactor increased it > would cause the nuclear reaction to increase in rate as well! That's > positive feedback so when things begin to go wrong they go very wrong > and they go very wrong very fast. Nuclear reactors are exponential > beasts. If it takes 1 second to go from .1 % power to 10% power the > next second will see power go to 1,000% and so on. Those zeros add up. > Fast. > > The Soviets attempted to do testing of the most dangerous sort with > completely insufficient protection and some safety systems may have > been off-line. (It's been a while since I read the accident summary.) > > That said, the accident at Three Mile Island was serious and it was > only the competent design of the plant and finally some presence of > mind, that kept things from getting even worse. The operators forgot > Rickover's dictum - repeated often in the Naval Reactor Technical > Bulletins: "Believe your indications. When things go wrong you tend to > see what you want to see rather than what is really there." That's > good advice in other areas as well. When the TMI technicians, using > core thermocouples, saw rising temperatures they chose not to believe > them - in spite of the fact that there was almost nothing that could > have made those readings inaccurate: we're talking about the most > straightforward of measuring devices. > > BUT the engineers who designed the plant created a design able to > overcome not only the original accident by the almost malicious > decisions made after the accident which made things so much worse. The > Soviet design made things worse from the start with horrendous > consequences. > > Someday the biologists will do something MUCH worse. I hope we survive it. > > Adam Bridge > > On 4/25/06, Walt Johnson <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information