Lawry, Yes, I did. I always read your stuff.
It's mostly interesting - though I may not agree on occasion. The immediate cause of Chernobyl was the testing of the reactor - I believe to find out how to get more output - but I would have to check that to reinforce my memory. However, the major problem was its double function as a provider of power and a producer of bomb material. As I said, it was an accident waiting to happen. That it would happen from such an apparently inconsequential circumstance was a tragedy. But, the continual removal of hot plutonium fuel rods from the reactor for the processing plant in a situation where the reactor was of old and uncertain design - without a containment vessel - is asking for trouble. Reactors tend to be fail-safe. This one seemed to be fail-dangerous. With heat the graphite melts and probably vaporizes (I would have to go back to notes to prod my memory.) It was probably vaporized graphite that blew the top off. You'll note that in this country most of the more serious problems seem to have occurred in research and plutonium producing reactors. Anyway, as terrible as Chernobyl was, it could have been much worse. And we can now concentrate (perhaps) on the real killer in the area. Poverty. Harry ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************* >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >Lawrence de Bivort >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:58 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl > >Harry, you seem not to have read my notes. > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:04 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Brad McCormick, >Ed.D.'; 'Darryl & Natalia' >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl > >Lawsry, > >Not really "experimented with". > >It was a dual purpose reactor, for producing power and making >weapons grade plutonium. > >As easy access to the fuel rods must be allowed, apparently a >containment vessel isn't possible. > >An accident waiting to happen. > >So 7 million curies of radioactive iodine 131 were released - >as against 15 curies from Three Mile which had a containment vessel. > >The problem with nuclear weapons in Iran is linked to their >belligerent attitude towards Israel. Their desire to destroy >Israel linked to the capacity to do it is frightening. > >The western reaction is understandable. > >We shall hope that diplomacy and cooler heads in Iran will prevail. > >Harry > > >********************************* >Henry George School of Los Angeles >Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >818 352-4141 >********************************* > > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de >>Bivort >>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:45 PM >>To: 'Brad McCormick, Ed.D.'; 'Darryl & Natalia' >>Cc: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl >> >>Interesting thesis that USSR products may have been built from rigged >>US secret 'plans.' I hadn't heard this idea before, but it makes a >>certain Spy-vs-Spy sense... I think, though, that the Soviets >>scientists and engineers have all the expertise they need to >smoke such >>gimmicks out. >> >>Yes, on the problems the USSR had (and has) with building quality >>things generally (like housing and automobiles), but in the areas of >>space and energy, I imagine they did things right. I repeat >that I was >>told that the Chernobyl unit was being experimented with when it went >>out of control. >> >>Re. religion and engineers.... My sense is that the world is slowly >>discovering that religion generally is misleading, and that >it imposes >>undesirable biases on any human endeavor. So yes, nukes under >>ayatollahs does worry me. But it worries me equally that they may be >>under Christian fundies, or Jewish >fundies. >> >>The current silliness being engaged in by Condie et al is a case in >>point. >>By refusing to recognize that Iran has a fundamental right to develop >>its nuclear capabilities -- whether it is for power or weaponry -- we >>take a stance that cannot be supported under any viable concept of >>international relations, except that of 'might making right'. And I >>think that anyone taking even a middle-term view of things will agree >>that that is no viable concept, tempting as it may be in the >short run >>to those who have the might. >> >>Too many people with too much power are playing games that are >>increasingly dangerous. Until their electorates come to the idea that >>they have an obligation to learn about the issues and assess >political >>candidates carefully, we will continue to be saddled with politically >>ambitious people who are more interested in the exercise of >ego and the >>acquisition of power than the performance of service in the public >>good. >> >>Cheers, >>Lawry >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 9:16 AM >>To: Darryl & Natalia >>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >[email protected] >>Subject: Re: [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl >> >>Darryl & Natalia wrote: >>> Thanks, Lawry, >>> Any way to confirm this? I would think that Iran, and other >nations >>> foolish enough to consider the Russian product would >appreciate this >>> tidbit. Though I'm certain all reactors sold are to be "used >only as >>> directed", it would be useful info for those who need it for >>accurate >>> assessment or study. If correct, it really should be made >>public. And >>> I realize this could be difficult. >> >>Some things to be concerned about: >> >>(1) It is possible that the soviet reactor design contains flaws that >>got there by them stealing designs that the U.S. >>intentionally modified to have flaws in them to help Communism >>self-destruct. I have read that this *was* the reason the Soviet SST >>was crash-prone, because they copied Concorde plans that we altered. >> >>(2) The Soviet Union and its "satellites" does not seem to >have always >>built to high engineering standards even when the U.S. didn't "help" >>them screw up. >> >>(3) Iran may have fine engineers. But don't you worry a bit when >>engineers are operating in a religious environment, as in the United >>States today -- oops, I meant: as in Iran today? >> >>\brad mccormick >> >> >> >>> Natalia >>> NAV scanned >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Lawrence de Bivort >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2006 9:32 AM >>> *Subject:* [Futurework] Back to Chernobyl >>> >>> Greetings, everyone, >>> >>> After our discussion some time ago on Chernobyl, we were >>left with >>> some uncertainty over just what happened. This >>information is from >>> a reliable source, one of the Russian engineering team >that went >>> into Chernobyl to assess the accident and its causes. They >used >>> robots, of course. >>> >>> The reactor is a graphite, and had no containment vessel. >There >>> were about 200 tons of enriched uranium (235) in Unit >Four, the >>> one that had the accident. The crew was experimenting with >the >>> possibility of increasing the heat yield (and thus the >amount of >>> steam that could run the electricity-generating >>turbines) and lost >>> control of the reactor. Steam built up rapidly within the >core, >>> and blew the top of the reactor off. Then there was a >second >>> explosion, equal they think to an 'inefficient' atomic >bomb in >>> power. This dispersed into the atmosphere, to a height of >70,000 >>> feet, approximately 190 tons of the enriched uranium. Thus >now in >>> the reactor only about 10 tons of the material is left. It >was >>> covered hastily in a concrete 'sarcophagus.' The Ukraine >>is asking >>> for more international money to redo the sarcophagus, as >it is >>> deteriorating. The official story is that the great >majority of >>> the uranium is still in the sarcophagus, but photographs >>show that >>> this is not correct. >>> >>> This person did not look at the health impacts of the >explosion. >>> >>> The remaining three units remain in operation today. This >is the >>> same model that the Russians have sold to the Iranians, in >a deal >>> made in '91 or '92. The Iranians are having to pay more >and more, >>> and they still don't have their reactor. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Lawry >>> >>> </DIV> <P> <HR> >>> >><P></P>____________________________________________ >>___<BR> >>Futurework >>> mailing >>> >>list<BR>[email protected]<BR>http://fes.u >>waterloo.ca/m >>ailman/listinfo/futurework<BR></BLOCKQUOTE> >>> >>> >>> >>--------------------------------------------------------------- >>--------- >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Futurework mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >> Let your light so shine before men, >> that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) >> >> Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) >> >><![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>--------------------------------------------------------------- - >- >> Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Futurework mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >Futurework mailing list >[email protected] >http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
