Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!well!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 From: mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Thomas J Keller) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.sci,net.physics Subject: Re: Nuclear power: the fast breeder Message-ID: <881@gilbbs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Aug-86 21:15:33 EDT Article-I.D.: gilbbs.881 Posted: Sun Aug 24 21:15:33 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Aug-86 19:32:19 EDT References: <546@gargoyle.UUCP> <521@dg_rtp.UUCP> <551@gargoyle.UUCP> <495@meccts.UUCP> Organization: Gil's Place, Santa Rosa CA Lines: 120 Xref: mnetor net.politics:9344 net.sci:1252 net.physics:2766 In article <495@meccts.UUCP>, mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > > The potential of a small explosion due to a superprompt critical > condition in a fast breeder reactor has been known for a very long > time. But the predicted size of such an unlikely explosion is on the > order of hundreds of pounds of TNT. It is misleading to call it an > atomic bomb when a small "Hiroshima" equivalent bomb is 20,000 > *tons* of TNT. No, it isn't. An "atomic bomb" is an explosive device which utilizes fissionable material as it's reactive source. A "small explosion due to a superprompt critical condition" as an explosion which is the result of fissionable material as the reactive source. No one here claimed that this explosion was in any way comparable to the Hiroshima bomb. It is dishonest and misleading for you to claim that such an explosion is *NOT* in fact the equivalent of a (very small) atomic bomb. You also neatly avoid the critical issue, which is that in such an explosion, the bulk of the fissionable material, along with *HUGE* quantities of highly radioactive by-products of the reactor operation, would be spewed directly (or indirectly) into the environment. > >But it was long after the October 5, 1966, fuel melting accident at > >the Fermi breeder reactor near Detroit, which was more serious than > >the "maximum credible accident" for the plant. The title of the book > >*We Almost Lost Detroit* is a quotation from a nuclear engineer who > >was working at the plant. A 1957 University of Michigan study had > >concluded that a reactor accident at Fermi could kill 60,000 people. > > The "fuel melting incident" at Fermi I was caused by a coolant > blockage of two of the 103 fuel subassemblies that comprised the core. > The result was the melting of about 1% of the fuel. There was no > difficulty in promptly shutting down the reactor, and all safety systems I beg your pardon? What sources do *YOU* have on the Fermi accident? According to all the information *I* have read, there was some particularly distressing difficulty in shutting the reactor down properly, and several of the safety systems in fact failed to operate. Fortunately, the man who was running the Fermi project was, unlike most people involved in the administration of nuclear power plant construction, an honest and dedicated individual, whose major goal *WAS* safety. Many of the safety systems *DID* work, and a total disaster was avoided. Had the design and construction of the Fermi plant been done the way contemporary plants are built, Detroit would be a ghosttown today. > worked as expected. No radiation was released to the general public > nor were there any health hazards to the workers at the plant. No radiation was released? **REALLY**??? Cite your sources for *THAT* tidbit, please. > Later the reactor was repaired and resumed operation. Incorrect. There were two reactors at the Fermi plant, and the second reactor was eventually brought into operation. As of 1979, the damaged reactor was still sitting there, awaiting final disposition. Moreover, several tens of drums of highly contaminated debris from the accident were still sitting piled up in an outhouse. Cite any evidence that the damaged reactor was in any way repaired. It was several *YEARS* before they even determined the exact cause of the Fermi accident (which, ironically, was the result of an attempt to further improve the safety of the reactor). > Uncritical use of such sources as Fuller's "We Almost Lost Detroit" > does not advance the nuclear debate. Fuller's book is poor enough > that it prompted those who reviewed the accident, to write a report > refuting some of Fuller's more absurd claims. Their report was called, > "We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit." And of course, Mr. Stein, the people who wrote this report had **NOTHING** to gain by so doing, right? There is **NO** possibility that perhaps they were attempting to cover something up? I am not saying that they *WERE*, only that the existence of such a report, as you have so aptly noted in response to postings citing reports inimical to nuclear energy, does *NOT* mean that the report is complete, correct or worthwhile. Quite rightly, you point out that many anti-nuclear activists are really quite ignorant of technical nuclear issues. Many are in fact actively resistant to learning about them. This was the major reason I divorced myself from the organized anti-nuclear groups. There are many anti-nuclear persons who are well qualified, however. Your ad hominem attacks on them only make you look as foolish as you are attempting to make them look. You continually make throuroughly ridiculous comments, such as the one a few articles back wherein you state that plutonium is "slightly radioactive" . Several nuclear physicists and engineers I know got a good chuckle out of **THAT** piece of dis-information. You insist that anti-nuclear activists have some hidden agenda (while failing to show what significant value any of them have to gain from their stance), yet explode in vehement outrage when someone suggests that those *WITHIN* the industry, who would very clearly have much to gain in insisting that their technology is safe, would deigm to mis-represent *ANYTHING*. An interesting, if somewhat distressing double standard. Let's face it, Mr. Stein, you are not interested in the truth, any more than you claim the anti-nukers are. You refuse to seriously consider *ANY* evidence that there could be serious problems with nuclear energy. You simply close your mind to any "expert" who doesn't agree with your pre- conceived notions on the subject. Your claims of relative safety for nuclear energy are deliberately misleading, your arguments about the possible effects of a serious accident in the processing, shipment and use of nuclear fuels are specious and dishonest. You either A) have something to gain from advancing nuclear energy (perhaps you have invested heavily in it?), or B) you have been thouroughly duped by the pro-nuclear proponents. The truth about the safety, necessity and desireability of nuclear energy is somewhere between your completely irresponsible attitudes and the completely irresponsible attitudes of many anti-nukers. I believe, however, that the truth lies somewhat closer to that espoused by the anti-nukers than it does to yours. -- Disclaimer: Disclaimer? DISCLAIMER!? I don't need no stinking DISCLAIMER!!! tom keller "She's alive, ALIVE!" {ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020 (* we may not be big, but we're small! *)