Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!think!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Request for info . . . "graphite fire"
Message-ID: <1144@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 11:55:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.1144
Posted: Mon May  5 11:55:09 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 10-May-86 12:44:27 EDT
References: <142@mcc-hi.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 45
Keywords: Soviet Union, nuclear fire, nuclear reactors

In article <142@mcc-hi.UUCP> shook@mcc-hi.UUCP (Rob Shook) writes:
>The Cable News Network, as well as National Public Radio, have
>been using the term "nuclear fire" and "graphite fire" in conjunction
>with what appears to be a tragedy in the Soviet Union. I'm not
>a physicist (I'm a psychologist), and am not familiar with these
>terms.

	To start with, "nuclear fire" is just a meaningless buzz
phrase coined by the media. A graphite fire is just an ordinary fire
in the form of carbon known as graphite(as opposed to the form of
carbon known as diamond). Being essentially pure carbon, graphite
burns *very* well when oxygen is present.
>
>What fuels a nuclear fire besides oxygen and heat? How does one
>fight such a fire?

	Nothing else is needed, except of course the graphite!
You would fight such a fire like any other fire, by trying to
suffocate it. The problems in this case involve the fact that the
graphite was in a small, enclosed space(inaccessibility), and the
very high radiation levels in the vicinity of the fire(danger to fire
fighters). Also, the fire may have been hot enough to evaporate water.

>Are there dangers other than the contaminated
>exhaust put out by such a fire? Are there differences between a
>nuclear fire and a graphite fire?

	Well, beyond the normal dangers of a fire(smoke inhalation and
the like), the contaminated exhaust is the only danger from the
*fire*. However the contaminants being released into the air are not only
radioactive, they are *also* toxic in thier own right, most of them
are heavy metals(like Plutonium and Lead). In fact the toxic effect of
heavy metals resemble those of radiation.
	In addition, if the melt-down of the reactor core was sufficiently
extensive there is a danger of serious contamination of the ground
water in the area due to radioactive material melting through the
floor of the reactor.(Actually, the Russians may have used a local lake
in fighting the fire and cooling the reactor, so the water may be
contaminated anyway, without a complete meltdown)
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ??