Mark, But can these reactors withstand terrorist attacks with modern anti-tank missiles? Or attacks with nuclear missiles? I have always wondered why nuclear powerplants are not built deep under the ground, lets say, in the depth of ca 200 meters or so. That would prevent the harm from potential missile attacks by terrorist groups.
Mati Kokk --- "F. Marc de Piolenc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I realize this is a largely anti-nuclear forum, so > I'll say all this > quickly and only once, and only because somebody > else brought it up. > > The low-dose rate danger is a myth based on junk > science, carefully > fostered by the anti-nuke movement over decades. > > If it were true, it would be impossible for nuclear > workers to get life > or health insurance without subsidy and aviators > (who get cosmic-ray > exposure that is significantly higher than the dose > rate allowed by NRC > regulations) would be dying like flies of > radiation-related diseases. It > just ain't so. > > Re long-lived nuclear waste - the longer the life, > THE LOWER THE LEVEL > OF RADIOACTIVITY. It's the short-lived stuff that is > dangerous - and if > the nuclear industry were allowed to reprocess > "spent" fuel (which for > safety reasons is only allowed to go to 5% burnup), > the low volume, high > flux waste would be segregated and stored for the > several half-lives > required to drop to background at very low cost, > because it decays VERY > FAST. The remaining low level waste would be stored > in long term > facilities, but with a hazard protection level > commensurate with the > much lower risk. The anti-nuclear crowd demonstrates > either dishonesty > or ignorance by quoting radiation fluxes taken from > the highly > radioactive waste and lifetimes that pertain to the > low-rad waste. And > they're the same people who are responsible for > eliminating > reprocessing, thus guaranteeing that 90% of the fuel > value, plus all the > high-level waste, plus all the low-level waste, ALL > HAVE TO BE DISPOSED > OF TOGETHER, thus ensuring that nuclear power is > "unsafe" and > uneconomical. Talk about self-fulfilling prophesies! > > As for reactor safety, it is possible to make > reactors that are > inherently safe against core meltdown - that is > reactors that will do no > damage outside of their containment structure even > in the worst case - > total primary coolant loss, total failure of all > redundant engineered > backups and total failure of control-rod and > safety-rod actuation > mechanisms in the full-open position. One example is > the Modular High > Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor advocated by General > Atomics. There are > disadvantages to inherently safe reactors, however - > typically they are > size limited (MHTGR grosses 40 MWth, I think) so > large outputs mean > several reactors in a rather large complex - one > that allows each > reactor the heat dissipation radius it needs to > fulfill the promise of > inherent safety. The real estate required may not be > a problem, but to > achieve economies of scale requires true mass > production of reactor > modules, not custom jobs like most current nuclear > reactors. Another > difficulty of the MHTGR is that it requires enriched > fuel - about 30% - > and very demanding fuel pellet processing, which > complicates > reprocessing. On the other hand, burnup is higher... > > Marc de Piolenc > Philippines > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger http://phonecard.yahoo.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
