On 26/04/2022 22:18, Tim Streater wrote:
> On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:57:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/04/2022 18:51, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>> No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.
>>
>> Japanese were closely second, not considering the effect of a tsunami.
>> Something that was very likely during the life of the reactors.
>
> They did consider the effect of a tsunami. Just not one of the magnitude that
> actually happened. Although I don't understand why the generators for
> emergency power were put in the basement instead of upstairs.

This article is interesting as it says "The 11 March 2011 tsunami was
probably the fourth largest in the past 100 years" and implies the
probability was perhaps greater than 1 in 1,000 years
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0379
There may be better articles.

I understood the generators had been moved to higher ground, but the
switchgear was still left in the basement. BICBW

Either way it was a series of errors and the station should have simply
been closed down. Hindsight by me, maybe, but others in the know would
have been in a better position to understand the consequences.

On 4/26/2022 7:11 AM, Spike wrote:
>
> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into the
> fire is now underway.
>
> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the blaze.
> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their windows
> closed.
>
> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>
> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a total
> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>
> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of the fire
> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>
> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew returned
> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over to the
> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>
> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we received a
> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire Fire and
> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>
> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a precautionary
> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we would like
> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>
> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be analysed
> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>
> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>

That's a curious plume of smoke, whatever that is.

There could be a bucket of lube inside the nacelle somewhere.
Or an empty bucket, where the lube used to be :-)

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/395/wind-turbine-lubrication

A good windmill would have collapsed, and saved people the
trouble of climbing the tower.

Paul

On 27 Apr 2022 at 00:13:52 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 22:18, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:57:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 18:51, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>> No one else but the russians build such stupidly badly designed nukes.
>>>
>>> Japanese were closely second, not considering the effect of a tsunami.
>>> Something that was very likely during the life of the reactors.
>>
>> They did consider the effect of a tsunami. Just not one of the magnitude that
>> actually happened. Although I don't understand why the generators for
>> emergency power were put in the basement instead of upstairs.
>
> This article is interesting as it says "The 11 March 2011 tsunami was
> probably the fourth largest in the past 100 years" and implies the
> probability was perhaps greater than 1 in 1,000 years
> https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0379
> There may be better articles.
>
> I understood the generators had been moved to higher ground, but the
> switchgear was still left in the basement. BICBW
>
> Either way it was a series of errors and the station should have simply
> been closed down. Hindsight by me, maybe, but others in the know would
> have been in a better position to understand the consequences.

It did close down. That is, the reactors were scrammed (control rods inserted
all the way) the moment the earthquake happened. Tsunami came later. The issue
was then keeping cooling water circulating which required pumps and hence
electricity.

--
Socialism: For people who lack the charisma to be train spotters.

Ann Sheridan

On 26/04/2022 17:20, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 14:25, Fredxx wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 12:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:46, Fredxx wrote:
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/04/2022 12:11, Spike wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 100-metre-tall wind turbine has dramatically burst into flames,
>>>>>>> sending black smoke billowing into the sky. An investigation into
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> fire is now underway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An exclusion zone had to be set up while firefighters tackled the
>>>>>>> blaze.
>>>>>>> Residents living near the scene were also warned to keep their
>>>>>>> windows
>>>>>>> closed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue first shared news about the incident at
>>>>>>> around 5.45pm on Sunday, April 24. The incident took place at French
>>>>>>> Farm Wind Farm in the village of Thorney near Spalding,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are a total of 13 turbines at the site. The wind farm has a
>>>>>>> total
>>>>>>> capacity of 26MW, having become fully operational in 2016.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pictures show long trails of black smoke coming from the burning
>>>>>>> turbine. Lincolnshire firefighters handed the operation over to
>>>>>>> Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service, which said the cause of
>>>>>>> the fire
>>>>>>> was believed to be accidental and related to an equipment failure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cambridgeshire firefighters left the scene at 10.40pm. A crew
>>>>>>> returned
>>>>>>> to reinspect the site on Monday morning before it was handed over
>>>>>>> to the
>>>>>>> company behind French Farm Wind Farm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A spokesperson for the wind farm said: "On Sunday evening we
>>>>>>> received a
>>>>>>> report of a turbine fire at French Farm Wind Farm. Lincolnshire
>>>>>>> Fire and
>>>>>>> Rescue attended the wind farm and ensured the site was safe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The power to and from the turbines was switched off and a
>>>>>>> precautionary
>>>>>>> exclusion zone has been set up. There are no injuries and we
>>>>>>> would like
>>>>>>> to thank the fire service for their assistance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "An investigation is now underway. The affected turbine will be
>>>>>>> analysed
>>>>>>> by the manufacturer's experts to determine the cause of the fire."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/exclusion-zone-set-up-wind-6997497>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Imagine if that had been a fire at a nuclear plant. front page
>>>>>> news on the beeb not a by-line in the Derby telegraph
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite, that could be because the exclusion zone could be slightly
>>>>> more than a few "residents living near the scheme".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No, it couldn't.
>>>> No UK nuke under any circumstances less than nuclear attack  would
>>>> require more than site evacuation.
>>>> As did neither 3MI or Fukushima.
>>>> The Fukushima evacuation was political.
>>>
>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl. Was
>>> that more than site evacuation?
>>>
>>> That you conveniently missed from your list of nuclear disasters.
>>
>> The others were not 'disasters'. Just industrial accidents.
>
> You might call them accidents. When a child grazes their knee, that's an
> accident. Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.

Most are therefore simply ill informed.

Japanese tsunami death toll, - 20,000+
Fukushima death toll - 1
3MI death toll - 0.
Chernobyl death toll - 78.
Banqiaou dam collapse - 10,000+
Bhopal industrial 'accident' - 16,000 and 30,000

>
>> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
>> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is
>> simply not relevant to any reactor in the West.
>
> Quite, most of our reactors are out of date.

But all have secondary containment. And none have positive void
coefficients, and all are operated by trained staff.

I accept that you are so blind to the lack of risks with nuclear that
you wouldn't accept these figures

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 26/04/2022 17:57, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>
>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It
>> could
>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and
>> 200 more
>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are
>> plenty
>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to
>> look into
>> it.
>>
>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>
> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>
No, they are not.

> Chernobyl was a disaster. It wasn't just an accident.
>
Chernobyl was almost a disaster because it had no containment vessel.

> Anyone who thinks these incidents are mere accidents, like a child
> grazing their knee, needs to reassess their senses of proportion.
>
No, they are accidents, in that they were neither anticipated nor
deliberate.

To the extent that their *possibility* was anticipated with secondary
containment, they did not become disasters except possibly Chernobyl.
Which was no so equipped.

But on the scale of industrial accidents, its nowhere near the top.

Banqiaou dam is probably the worst energy related disaster and for me
Bhopal the worst escape of contaminants.

I don't think it gets much worse than Aberfan, in the UK 144 people dead
from just *one* coal tip. More than all of Chernobyl.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is simply
> not relevant to any reactor in the West.
>

I think you underestimate western potential for stupidity. Challenger
O-rings, Grenfell Tower, Windows Vista, Mars Climate Orbiter
(metric/imperial), etc.

Chernobyl is about the worst that could happen, excluding terrorist
plutonium theft. I don't think we should say it could never happen,
instead we should say it is less likely, an acceptable risk.

On 26/04/2022 21:48, Fredxx wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster?
>>>> It could
>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed
>>>> and 200 more
>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish
>>>> night
>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are
>>>> plenty
>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to
>>>> look into
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>
>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>
>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was
>> the
>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>
> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who
> died.
>
> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
> even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.

I see you are in a mood to flout your ignorance again.

there was no reactor with 'issues with submerged switchgear' at Fukushima.
The issue was the emergency diesel generators flooded due to an
unprecedented wave that was two meters taller than what had be designed for.

Nevertheless that contingency had been designed for, and the meltdown
was fully contained and there would have been almost no release of
radioactivity if the operators had not been so scared of venting the
hydrogen that built up, that it blew the roof off releasing rather more
than was necessary. But in the event not very much at all.

--
In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone
gets full Marx.

On 26/04/2022 18:32, Andy Burns wrote:
> Colin Bignell wrote:
>
>> Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> Remind us about the exclusion zone associated with Chernobyl.
>>
>> That was due to the plant having graphite cores and built without a
>> containment vessel. No such plant is still in service today, nor would
>> one be built.
>
> I was looking earlier, wikip says 8x RBMK-1000 reactors are still in
> service, there is some talk about "different models" or "alterations"
> but I doubt you can change that much about an existing reactor.

The russians with their less litigious attitude to safety consider that
if managed by trained staff who understand the risks it is acceptable to
continue to run them till they are too old to be worth fixing

Reactors were still running at chernobyl *14 years* after the fire. And
they must have been staffed. The site is still staffed.

"The three other reactors remained operational after the accident but
were eventually shut down by 2000, although the plant remains in the
process of decommissioning as of 2021. Nuclear waste clean-up is
scheduled for completion in 2065" [Wiki].

Hardly 'death if you go near it' is it?

I believe some modifications have been made.

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

On 26/04/2022 21:54, Fredxx wrote:
> Being dimwitted to call a disaster a mere accident shows they're not fit
> to judge risk.

Being dimwitted to call a a mere accident a disaster shows you're not
fit to judge risk.

--
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

On 27/04/2022 10:24, Pancho wrote:
> On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
>> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is
>> simply not relevant to any reactor in the West.
>>
>
> I think you underestimate western potential for stupidity. Challenger
> O-rings, Grenfell Tower, Windows Vista, Mars Climate Orbiter
> (metric/imperial), etc.

In all of those cases the issue was political interference.

They normally would not have launched challenger die to the cold. They
were under pressure to do so.
Grenfell towers was the result of knee jerk green legislation by
governments forcing councils to 'do something;' they should and would
never have done otherwise.
Windows Vista - well I never used it so have no idea what was wrong with
it, but all of Microsoft suffers from it being the result of a program
to make money, not create proper software.
Mars orbiter -0 well no one was hutrt and a prober third party code
inspeaction would have picked that one up as would testing te software
first. Execrable lack of professionalism.
Engineering understands it gets things wrong, and thats why top quality
engineering uses a quality approach to managing process, and also has a
plan B and a plan C in safety critical situations.

A lot more people have died in air accidents than in nuclear power
accidents, and even more on car crashes.

>
> Chernobyl is about the worst that could happen, excluding terrorist
> plutonium theft. I don't think we should say it could never happen,
> instead we should say it is less likely, an acceptable risk.
>

Even if you have half a ton of plutonium, stolen from a post processed
Sellafield , its still very hard to make a bomb out of it. And unless
you grind it into powder and eat it, its moderately harmless unless you
handle it with bare hands.

--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:28:47 +1000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 26/04/2022 21:48, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster?
>>>>> It could
>>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed
>>>>> and 200 more
>>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish
>>>>> night
>>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are
>>>>> plenty
>>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to
>>>>> look into
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>>
>>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>>
>>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was
>>> the
>>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who
>> died.
>> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
>> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
>> even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
>> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.

> I see you are in a mood to flout your ignorance again.

Flaunt, not flout.

> there was no reactor with 'issues with submerged switchgear' at
> Fukushima.
> The issue was the emergency diesel generators flooded due to an
> unprecedented wave that was two meters taller than what had be designed
> for.
>
> Nevertheless that contingency had been designed for, and the meltdown
> was fully contained and there would have been almost no release of
> radioactivity if the operators had not been so scared of venting the
> hydrogen that built up, that it blew the roof off releasing rather more
> than was necessary. But in the event not very much at all.
>
>

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:59:15 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:

>On 26/04/2022 22:15, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 21:48:17 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/04/2022 18:53, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:57:59 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/04/2022 17:47, Tim Streater wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Apr 2022 at 17:20:36 BST, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most would call a meltdown a disaster. I accept that you are
>>>>>>> so blind to the risks with nuclear that you wouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, if there are no injuries or deaths? Was Buncefield a disaster? It could
>>>>>> have been, but wasn't. I'd say that when more than 200 are killed and 200 more
>>>>>> severly burnt when a liquified gas tanker overturned near a Spanish night
>>>>>> club, *that* is a disaster. (See
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alfaques_disaster). And there are plenty
>>>>>> more industrial accidents even in this day and age, if you bother to look into
>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to get a sense of proportion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have and I agree. Except a meltdown isn't just an accident. The
>>>>> reactor and the surrounding area are a disaster.
>>>>
>>>> Not at TMI, and not really at Fukushima. At Fukushima the disaster was the
>>>> tsunami and the more than 20,000 it killed.
>>>
>>> I agree, and thoroughly dislike the attention away from the 20,000 who died.
>>>
>>> But it also clearly shows that the authorities are willing to run a
>>> reactor that was known to have issues with submerged switchgear in the
>>> even of a tsunami. I would say that stupidity was on par with Chernobyl
>>> with a well kept secret associated with the dodgy control rods.
>>
>> Only in the case of a tsunami greater than the 1 in 1000 year tsunami, or
>> whatever it was. There was a sea wall that would have protected against all
>> except the exceptional event.
>
>I read it could cope with a 1 in 100 year tsunami? BICBW
>
>> In the case of Chernobyl, the control rods were fine in normal operation,
>> AIUI. They only became a problem when the reactor was operated outside its
>> normal operating range. Under these circs they made the problem worse. The
>> Winky article on this is quite detailed and interesting, I found.
>
>I have read this and seen the HBO series. The issue is that in the
>Chernobyl disaster, graphite ends on the control rods sent the reactor
>critical.

Nitpick: Criticality is the normal operating condition for a nuclear
reactor. It is simply the point at which the chain reaction is
self-sustaining.

>Of course they were operating outside the normal operating
>range, but that was in part down to confidence the reactor could be shut
>down quickly.
>

On 27/04/2022 12:23, Custos Custodum wrote:

>> I have read this and seen the HBO series. The issue is that in the
>> Chernobyl disaster, graphite ends on the control rods sent the reactor
>> critical.
>
> Nitpick: Criticality is the normal operating condition for a nuclear
> reactor. It is simply the point at which the chain reaction is
> self-sustaining.
>

Clarification: The allegation was that it went prompt critical. (I don't
think we know for certain)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality>

On 27/04/2022 11:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 10:24, Pancho wrote:
>> On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
>>> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is
>>> simply not relevant to any reactor in the West.
>>>
>>
>> I think you underestimate western potential for stupidity. Challenger
>> O-rings, Grenfell Tower, Windows Vista, Mars Climate Orbiter
>> (metric/imperial), etc.
>
> In all of those cases the issue was political interference.
>
> They normally would not have launched challenger die to the cold. They
> were under pressure to do so.
> Grenfell towers was the result of knee jerk green legislation by
> governments forcing councils to 'do something;' they should and would
> never have done otherwise.
> Windows Vista - well I never used it so have no idea what was wrong with
> it, but all of Microsoft suffers from it being the result of a program
> to make money, not create proper software.
> Mars orbiter -0 well no one was hutrt and a prober third party code
> inspeaction would have picked that one up as would testing te software
> first. Execrable lack of professionalism.
> Engineering understands it gets things wrong, and thats why top quality
> engineering uses a quality approach to managing process, and also has a
> plan B and a plan C in safety critical situations.
>
> A lot more people have died in air accidents than in nuclear power
> accidents, and even more on car crashes.
>

And even more pertinently, from good old-fashioned air pollution.

>>
>> Chernobyl is about the worst that could happen, excluding terrorist
>> plutonium theft. I don't think we should say it could never happen,
>> instead we should say it is less likely, an acceptable risk.
>>
>
> Even if you have half a ton of plutonium, stolen from a post processed
> Sellafield , its still very hard to make a bomb out of it. And unless
> you grind it into powder and eat it, its moderately harmless unless you
> handle it with bare hands.
>

That surprises me. AIUI it needs a highly precise implosion (explosive
lens), but I would have thought modern tech made that relatively easy to
achieve.

On 27/04/2022 13:52, Pancho wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 11:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 27/04/2022 10:24, Pancho wrote:
>>> On 26/04/2022 17:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And  an  out of date reactor built without any secondary containment
>>>> operated by idiots who seem to have deliberately sabotaged it is
>>>> simply not relevant to any reactor in the West.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you underestimate western potential for stupidity. Challenger
>>> O-rings, Grenfell Tower, Windows Vista, Mars Climate Orbiter
>>> (metric/imperial), etc.
>>
>> In all of those cases the issue was political interference.
>>
>> They normally would not have launched challenger die to the cold. They
>> were under pressure to do so.
>> Grenfell towers was the result of knee jerk green legislation by
>> governments forcing councils to 'do something;' they should and would
>> never have done otherwise.
>> Windows Vista - well I never used it so have no idea what was wrong
>> with it, but all of Microsoft suffers from it being the result of a
>> program to make money, not create proper software.
>> Mars orbiter -0 well no one was hutrt and a prober third party code
>> inspeaction would have picked that one up as would testing te software
>> first. Execrable lack of professionalism.
>> Engineering understands it gets things wrong, and thats why top
>> quality engineering uses a quality approach to managing process, and
>> also has a plan B and a plan C in safety critical situations.
>>
>> A lot more people have died in air accidents than in nuclear power
>> accidents, and even more on car crashes.
>>
>
> And even more pertinently, from good old-fashioned air pollution.
>
>>>
>>> Chernobyl is about the worst that could happen, excluding terrorist
>>> plutonium theft. I don't think we should say it could never happen,
>>> instead we should say it is less likely, an acceptable risk.
>>>
>>
>> Even if you have half a ton of plutonium, stolen from a post processed
>> Sellafield , its still very hard to make a bomb out of it. And unless
>> you grind it into powder and eat it, its moderately harmless unless
>> you handle it with bare hands.
>>
>
> That surprises me. AIUI it needs a highly precise implosion (explosive
> lens), but I would have thought modern tech made that relatively easy to
> achieve.
>
Modern tech is what terrorists don't have. Or they could process their
own enriched uranium

--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."