Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!jmc
From: jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn )
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci
Subject: Re: Re: Nuclear power vs Coal vs Alternatives
Message-ID: <708@riccb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 06:04:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: riccb.708
Posted: Fri Jul 11 06:04:53 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jul-86 04:58:46 EDT
References: <628@bu-cs.UUCP> <1943@ihlpg.UUCP> <796@whuts.UUCP> <1557@ames.UUCP> <442@meccts.UUCP>
Organization: Rockwell Telecommunications, Downers Grove,Il.
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.politics:17266 net.sci:1213

> >	No, but coal fired plants don't have fission products
> >	like Ba, Sr, Cs, etc. when they blow up.  And they do blow up.
> 
> Name one nuclear power plant that has *ever* blown up.  A nuclear
> power plant can never come close to ever getting a critical mass.  A
> chemcial explosion followed by a fire is not blowing up.  
> 
> -- 
> Michael V. Stein
> Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services

I'm sorry to differ (especially since I've always been a staunch defender
of nuclear power) but a steam or chemical explosion is 'blowing up'.  
What you mean is that it will not produce a nuclear explosion which is true
however a steam or chemical explosion is capable of breaching containment
and dispersing radionuclides to the envirnment.  Case in point - Chernobyl.

US reactor facilities have containment structures that can stand up to
quite a lot but when you have explosions INSIDE the structure there is
only so much you can do.  I worked on a reactor facility at Argonne Nat.
Labs where the containment structure was designed to withstand the
detonation of 100 lbs of TNT at core center.  We annually pumped the
inside of the containment structure to 10 PSI for leak testing.  Most
structures fall down with 5 PSI on the outside.  Three Mile Island
officials were quite worried about hydrogen build up.  Their calculations
were showing that IF the temperature was high enough that hydrogen was
disassociating from water in enough quantity to violate containment if
ignited.  Fortunately hydrogen wasn't forming but I can't believe it's
not possible for it to happen.

I guess the real problem for reactors is the risk vrs benefit factor.  Since
we had no real idea what the price to be paid is if the worst happens we
have to assume total destruction of the area and a wasteland legacy for
generations.  If anything is to be learned from Chernobyl, it should be an
accurate picture of the price to be paid when all hell breaks loose.  I
don't believe the price is as bad as the general public thinks (all though
it is a heavy price).

					Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around