From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 11:20:35 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Becker [mailto:kmb@kai-m-becker.de]
> Not a loony, simply a knowledgeable, concerned person who lives a whole
> lot closer to Chernobyl than I do..
"The effects of Chernobyl where significantly, even though we are >1500km
away. I've found a quote that describes the most important effects: "A large
amount of agricultural produce in Europe had to be dumped due to
contamination from fallout. For instance, most vegetables in the region
around Munich were destroyed because they had become contaminated with
iodine-131. The southern portion of the former West Germany was more
contaminated than the rest of it. There were also severe restrictions on
agricultural activities, including sales of meat from three million sheep
and lambs in northwestern England and the neighboring portions of Scotland
and northern Wales, which were affected by rain-out of radioactivity when
the fallout cloud passed over them."[2]"
I am still not seeing how this is worse than the 3 million people who are
dying every year, right now. Do you feel that this number is perhaps
inaccurate? You lost some veggies and some lambs, while 3 million people
every year lose there lives. Or is it perhaps that I now grace your kill
file as well? I just have difficulty understanding how you justify the
continued use of fossil fuel combustion, which you admittedly dislike, but
there are no alternatives currently available that *wont* kill 3 million
every year except for nuclear power. Do we keep waiting for an alternative,
while millions die every year? Do we reduce the global energy demand to
substinence agriculture levels so we wont need nuclear or fossil fuel power?
Not a world I would want to live in nor one that would be conducive to
bringing about the singularity.
"If we would have just one accident like that in western Europe, we could
only shut down everything and look for another place to live."
So, if a Chernobyl like accident occurred in a Chernobyl like plant in
western europe devastation would occur. Solution, A) don't build chernobyl
like plants and B) don't build them in western europe
Citing chernobyl as an example of unsafe nuclear reactors is like citing the
titanic as a reason to think cruiseliners are unsafe. You are blaiming
nuclear reactors for an accident that cost dozens of short term deaths,
hundreds of cases of cancer and thousand or premature deaths, and some bad
crops and lambs, instead of the corrupt murderous government that built,
operated, and maintained said facility. A facility which would have never
been built in any other nation. Chernobyl had no actual containment
structure (as opposed to three unique independent ones most western reactors
have) to prevent release of contamination. Such a design could not be
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in this country, nor in most
countries of the world. Had a chernobyl like accident occurred in a western
reactor it would have been contained, but would have no chance of occuring
in the first palce anyway. If there is anyone to blame for the horrors of
Chernobyl, it's the soviet government (which had allready killed some 10
million of its own people) NOT nuclear reactors. I am sure the Soviet Union
killed many more in its thousands if not millions of faulty state products,
wars, and famines. Do you blame those products for those deaths, or the
government that sanctioned them and forced them on their people?
Does my making a beach ball that randomly explodes make all beach balls
unsafe? Or just the beach balls that have hand grenades inside them?
I understand how your close proximity to this event could give you a
particular point of view on it. But again, what about the 3 million people
who are dying every year right now? What if they lived right next door to
you? What if these 3 million people were everyone you knew, and everyone
they knew? Will their families feel consoled by your concern about the
vegatables being destroyed in Munich?
Michael Dickey
The Chernobyl Reactor: Design Features and Reasons for Accident
From - http://www-j.rri.kyoto-u.ac.jp/NSRG/reports/kr79/kr79pdf/Malko1.pdf
"According to the Soviet experts the prime cause of the accident at the
Chernobyl NPP was "...an extremely improbable combination of violations of
instructions and operating rules committed by the staff of the unit" [3].
This conclusion sets a full responsibility for the accident at the Chernobyl
NPP on its stuff. Participants of the Post-Accident Review Meeting [2] also
accepted the Soviet version. However, it was incorrect. This was
demonstrated in 1990 by the commission of the State Committee for Atomic
Safety Survey of the USSR which concluded that the main reasons of the
Chernobyl accident were serious shortcomings in the design of the Chernobyl
reactor as well as inadequate documents regulating a safe operation of the
reactor [4].
"Conclusions - The main reasons of the accident at the Chernobyl NPP were
sever shortages of the design, severe infringements of the safety
regulations for construction of the reactor as well as low safety culture in
the USSR preceding the accident."
Fear's just bad for business
Interesting commentary from -
http://www.disenchanted.com/dis/humanity/fear.html
"There was a difference in attitude that went into the design of ChernobylD
compared to Three Mile IslandD, and its roots could be found in the social
ethic of each government in power at the time. One believed that profit was
not important to motivate workers, while the other believed that profit was
everything. As a result, one built a reactor with the cheapest design to
save money, while the other spent a fortune and vastly overengineered. Guess
which side built the cheap one? Yep, the Soviets. Not just because they
wanted to save money, but because while they were busy dismissing profit as
a motivator they also missed the importance of eliminating fear as a
distraction."
"It's the impact of fear and worry on the locals which the Soviets
disregarded, but the Americans held almost holy, and thus the big difference
between Chernobyl and TMI. Chernobyl was based on a design that had a
positive void coefficientD, which meant it was unstable at low power. The
accident happened because the power level of the reactor fell unexpectedly,
and the operator tried to compensate by removing the control rods and
raising the power back to safe levels, only it got out of control."
"Three Mile Island, by comparison, was a story of poorly informed operators
thwarting a heavily overdesigned system that was doing its best to safely
shut down the reactor automatically. In both accidents there was an
explosion of hydrogen. At Chernobyl it blew the cap off the reactor core and
exposed hot graphite to oxygen, making it catch on fire. At Three Mile
Island the explosion was completely contained, in fact it didn't even cause
any undue stress to the containment building, which had 12-foot thick steel
reinforecd walls. Chernobyl had no such containment building, only a
concrete "bio shield"."
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 11:23:16 MST