mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (09/04/86)
I hope no one took Tom Keller's personal attacks seriously, but there are some points in his message which can be addressed. [I said] >> 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. [Tom Keller] > No, it isn't. An "atomic bomb" is an explosive device which utilizes >fissionable material as it's reactive source. ... >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. The argument here is that, by literal definition, an explosion caused by a superprompt critical condition in a breeder reactor, is an atomic bomb. As a start my dictionary defines atomic bomb as follows: An explosive weapon of great disruptive power derived from the rapid release of energy in the fission of heavy atomic nuclei, as of uranium 235. (2) Any bomb deriving its disruptive power from the release of atomic energy. The very worst case explosion possible in a fast breeder would be equivalent to a few hundred pounds of TNT. We can build containment structures, as was done at Fermi I, to contain this force. We can't build a structure to contain a force of 20,000 tons of exploding TNT. As can be seen, the major problem in equating the two is one of scale. By analogy, a pellet gun and an AK-74 assault rifle are both guns. Yet it is much easier to protect yourself from one of them. For this reason we don't generally consider them equal. It certainly isn't misleading to distinguish between them - it would seem the only honest thing to do. Also if nuclear fusion is ever made feasible, it will work by releasing energy through the same process used in hydrogen bombs. Yet I doubt whether most people would describe a fusion plant as getting its energy through setting off H-Bombs. [Tom Keller] > 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. As noted, the reason I hesitate to use the word "atomic bomb" when describing a superprompt critical explosion, is that the images associated with an atomic bomb blast don't correspond to what would happen in a breeder reactor. Such an unlikely accident would cause damage but would not be a health hazard to the environment. The Fermi I containment building was built to easily withstand the maximum explosion from a superprompt critical explosion. To say you can't protect the environment from such an explosion is simply wrong. Although many people consider breeder reactors to be exotic new technology, as someone was kind enough to point out to me, the first reactor to produce electric power from nuclear energy was a liquid metal fast breeder. Designed by physicist Walter Zinn, the EBR-1 went on-line in 1951. [ I wrote ] >> 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 [Tom Keller] >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. The point noted in Fuller's book, is that one of the six control rods stopped six inches from its full "down" position. What he failed to point out is that *1* control rod was enough to terminate the reaction. The insertion of the last six inches of one control rod would have made a negligible difference in total negative reactivity. [Tom Keller] >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. The first obvious insinuation is that everyone except these individuals is dishonest and unprofessional. The second obvious charge is that only the people running Fermi I had safety as a major goal. A serious set of charges. If true, it indicts an entire field of malfeasance and corruption. Unfortunately, no proof is offered for this charge. With no proof, such a spurious charge has to be ignored. [Tom Keller] >Had the design and construction of >the Fermi plant been done the way contemporary plants are built, Detroit >would be a ghosttown today. This is complete gibberish. Even the APDA-120 report gave as a worst case, 60,000 deaths. Since this report was done in 1958, people had no real way of even trying to quantify the risks, so the report made the following assumptions: ALL protection systems and engineered safety features, completely failed to function. Concurrently, a sufficiently large opening, "the size of a door" existed in the containment vessel to immediately release radioactive material to the atmosphere. No protective measures were taken by individuals in the vicinity of the plant. Later work, studying the accident at Three Mile Island, has shown that the actual radionuclide release from a nuclear accident is much less than was originally thought. The latest work studying this was "Report of the Special Committee on Source Terms." To quote from the Executive Summary: Specifically the Committee found that reductions in the source term from estimates reported in the 1975 pioneering Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) could range from more than a factor of ten to several factors of ten for the critical fission products in most of the accident scenarios that have been recently considered. This finding is based on considerable technical progress since 1975 in both fundamental knowledge and analytical techniques. This report can be ordered for $24.50 from ANS 555 N. Kensington Ave. La. Grange Park, IL 60525 (Thus if APDA-120 was done today, I imagine the numbers would look quite different.) [ I wrote ] >> No radiation was released to the general public >> nor were there any health hazards to the workers at the plant. [Tom Keller] > No radiation was released? **REALLY**??? Cite your sources for *THAT* >tidbit, please. "The offsite doses never even exceeded the limits set for normal operation, much less accident conditions. Even the dose rate inside the containment building could have been tolerated by workmen for hours without exceeding their allotted weekly dose limit" From "We Did Not Almost Lose Detroit" Following the quote are two references to reports to substantiate this claim: "Report on the Fuel Melting Incident in the Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant on October 5, 1966" APDA-233 "United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rules and Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations - Energy" [Tom Keller] >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. Well I thought that I read somewhere that Fermi I was brought back on-line. But since I can't even remember where I read it, I will assume you are correct. [ I wrote ] >> 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." [Tom Keller] > 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? Well considering that you are the person who said that the people who ran Fermi I were "honest and dedicated", I am surprised, that when the same people write an article describing the accident, you accuse them of deception. Of course, you have to carefully examine any argument. This is clear to anyone. This is exactly the reason, that the individuals who wrote the report stated: ..."We Almost Lost Detroit" presents an interesting paradox in this regard. It purports to correct what the author felt was a neglect of communication of pertinent nuclear information, but the book has so distorted this information that the cause of improved technical communication to the public has been hindered rather than helped. The rebuttal that has been offered is an attempt to help refocus some of this distortion. Admittedly, a pro-nuclear stance can be identified in the rebuttal material, but there has been a concerted effort to preserve technical accuracy and to provide specific references to the technical source material. The reader is urged, whenever possible, to obtain such material in any area of particular interest rather than to place sole reliance for information on nuclear issues on popular communicators. For this reason, the report has 65 technical reports and papers referenced. [Tom Keller] > 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. Some people would call this willful ignorance. [Tom Keller] >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. My sole "ad hominem attack on them" was quoting statements that were already made. Questioning what someone has said, is certainly not a logical fallacy. [Tom Keller] >You continually make throuroughly ridiculous comments, such as the one >a few articles back wherein you state that plutonium is "slightly radioactive" Plutonium is an alpha emmitter with a halflife of 24,000 years. These alpha particles can be stopped with the aid of a piece of paper or an inch or two of atmosphere. Seems pretty clear to me. If the half-life of 24,000 is what is frightening, it is nothing in comparison to the radium 226 in coal wastes. (It has a half-life of 1620 years and is water soluble and chemically active. And as you surely know, coal wastes aren't monitored like nuclear wastes.) [Tom Keller] >Several nuclear physicists and engineers I know got a good chuckle out of >**THAT** piece of dis-information. Without any explanation that charge doesn't have much meaning. As your nuclear physicist friends will inform you, there are MANY substances much more radioactive than plutonium and much more common in the environment. Some of the radon daughters (present in every home,) are much worse looking. Bismuth-214 has a half-life of 20 minutes and Polonium 214 has a half-life of 164 microseconds. I am simply trying to put things in perspective. Because it is only an alpha emitter, plutonium isn't a major hazard unless ingested. Unfortunately, because of its chemical composition, plutonium is retained in the body. Because it is a hazardous material, the government has set up maximum lifetime burdens for anyone who has to work with the material. [Tom Keller] >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), No, that isn't what I said. After seeing numerous attacks on the whole field of nuclear engineering, nuclear physics and health physics, what I wrote was: >>>If there is *any* group of people who might have a conflict of interest >>>it would be the professional anti-nukes. In some cases, their income, >>>their prestige and entire career come from their ideological position >>>against nuclear energy. I am simply pointing out an observable fact. I make no claim as to knowing the motivations that actually drive such people. So naturally I do not claim to know what they have to gain from their stance. The only real value for studying such incidents is in understanding the maturity of the nuclear debate, it does little to advance the debate itself. For those interested in pursuing such material, I recommend "The War Against the Atom" by Sam McCracken (Basic Books). I would also recommend reading the Court's decision in the case of Jonson vs U.S. It can be found in law libraries in Federal Supplement, vol. 597, pp. 374-434. Or it can be ordered for free from: AIF Publ. Aff. & Info., 7101 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814. This certainly should not be seen as a statement accusing all who write articles on nuclear power of such low tactics. The reference to Flowers was a good example. I saw nothing essentially inaccurate about the excerpt from that article. [Tom Keller] >...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*. What I actually said was: >>>It isn't inconceivable, it is just that it would be nice if you had >>>something to back up attacks on not only nuclear engineers, but >>>also all health physicists (whether or not they work in industry). >>>Nuclear engineering has numerous sub-disiplines so a direct conflict >>>of interest doesn't exist. As far as the entire field having no >>>professional ethics, remember the American Nuclear Society waited >>>until 1975 before they endorsed nuclear power. For *21* years >>>they refused to endorse it. Only in 1975 were they satisfied it >>>was the safest form of power generation. >>>The supposed conflict of interest between health physics and nuclear >>>power is even more stretched. The International Commission of >>>Radiological Protection (ICRP) was formed in 1928. The National >>>Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) was >>>formed in the United States in 1929. I'm sure such groups were >>>only started because of the massive nuclear power industry we >>>had back in the 1920's. I feel I have been misrepsented on both of the last points, but that is the least of the insults and tactics employed in Tom Keller's message. [ Tom Keller proceeds with three paragraphs of personal attacks against this writer. ] Tom Kellers personal attcks bordering on libel have absolutely no place in this debate. His contention seems to be that anyone who disagrees with him on this issue is either evil or stupid. Such savage personal attacks have no place here or in any debate among rational people. No matter how completely you disagree with someone, attempting to smear them is *never* condoned. There are certain rules to formal argument and Tom Keller has decided to break them. I have seen five year old children argue more maturely than Tom Keller has in this message and I seriously feel that no one should have to deal with this kind of attack. --- Closing thoughts on energy policy. People who study the issue of energy policy realize that in order to make responsible decisions, the different options must be compared to each other. This is done by comparing them against the criteria and goals of the problem. Most people would say that one of the most important goals is safety. Because of its importance, this is an issue that must be solved by scientific inquiry. Over the years many studys have been done of the health costs of mining, transportation, routine operation, waste disposal and effects of catastrophic accidents of the different energy sources available. Of our available choices today, the authoritative evidence seems to show that nuclear fission is the safest available. As Richard Carnes has pointed out, safety is only one goal in the complex decisionmaking process involving energy policy. Other considerations might include cost, supply, and reliability. Unfortunately we never were really able to get into these other issues. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (09/06/86)
In article <517@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > >The very worst case explosion possible in a fast breeder would be >equivalent to a few hundred pounds of TNT. We can build containment >structures, as was done at Fermi I, to contain this force. We can't >build a structure to contain a force of 20,000 tons of exploding TNT. >As can be seen, the major problem in equating the two is one of scale. > >By analogy, a pellet gun and an AK-47 assault rifle are both guns. Yet >it is much easier to protect yourself from one of them. For this reason >we don't generally consider them equal. It certainly isn't misleading >to distinguish between them - it would seem the only honest thing to do. It should be noted that in this analogy the pellet material is frozen HCN and the bullet is a copper-jacketed steel! >Also if nuclear fusion is ever made feasible, it will work by releasing >energy through the same process used in hydrogen bombs. Yet >I doubt whether most people would describe a fusion plant as >getting its energy through setting off H-Bombs. Probably not by inertial confinement. > > Closing thoughts on energy policy. >People who study the issue of energy policy realize that in order >to make responsible decisions, the different options must >be compared to each other. This is done by comparing them against >the criteria and goals of the problem. Most people would say that >one of the most important goals is safety. > >Because of its importance, this is an issue that must be solved >by scientific inquiry. Over the years many studys have been >done of the health costs of mining, transportation, routine operation, >waste disposal and effects of catastrophic accidents of the different >energy sources available. Of our available choices today, the >authoritative evidence seems to show that nuclear fission is >the safest available. In a world where "conventional" wars and terrorism are not that rare in regions where nuclear plants operate, it is foolish not to include the nuclear radiation catastrophe resulting from a deliberate and well planned attack, as part of the overall energy technology safety considerations. The big problem we face is that in some ways we are a technologically "undeveloping" nation. If technological downturn continues to hold true, nuclear safety is going to become a very substantial problem. All the rah-rah bullshit in the world isn't going to stop it. Another result is that the greatest option for mankind is not one we will develop, namely, fusion energy. Our government only fully sup- ports the most backward and obsolete of fusion concepts that are inher- ently incapable of being developed into commercial fusion generators. The making of "quick paper profits" has the minds, hearts and souls of the investment bankers, and private investment in truly innovative technology is DEAD. Unfortunately, there is no standing still. The decay is already all too evident. $$$$$ SNIFF SNIFF $$$$$ Replace those clogged nuclear reactors & coal burners with PLASMAK(TM) Fusion Power Generators +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+ | Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075 | FUSION | | Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222 | this | | {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP | decade | +---------------------------------------------------------+--------+