Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Adam: I thought I was paranoid? You might be as well. Walt Adam Bridge wrote: >It's always been easier to make a weapon and take life than it has to >save it. Today, as the human genome is published and as the technology >to make custom viruses becomes more and more accessible (even to >weallthy individuals, let alone companies) I fear we'll see someone >create a designer plague, either by intention or accident. > >For a long time I worried that AIDS was a test vector for a biological >weapon gone astray. I guess they have proved it isn't. > >Adam > >On 4/25/06, B. D. Colen <bdcolen@comcast.net> wrote: > > >>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 >>> >>> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > > >