orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/14/86)
> > Nuclear plants in the US of course do of course have containment domes. > .... > It isn't hard to see that the old Russian graphite reactors like the > ones at Chernobyl are a disaster just waiting to happen. > From what I can tell, the power density of the Soviet graphite reactors > is so high, that only continuos cooling prevents the temperature > from rising to the ignition point of the graphite. (Someone > correct me if I am wrong here.) There are many reasons that > Russian reactors are now PWR. > > Michael V. Stein This is not true. There are 8 nuclear plants operated by the Dept. of Energy in order to make nuclear materials for nuclear weapons which have no containment domes. These plants also are graphite core reactors exactly like the one at Chernobyl. Caspar Weinberger has asked for expanded production of weapons-grade materials at these nuclear plants to fuel Reagan's nuclear arms race. For the first time in over a decade, the Reagan administration has begun making *more* weapons-grade nuclear material to fuel the arms race. (Previously material from old nuclear weapons systems was transferred to newer nuclear weapons systems) Although Reagan is already deploying 3 nuclear warheads a day (or approximately 1000 nuclear warheads a year) Weinberger wants Congress to approve an increased capacity to over 2,000 nuclear warheads a year. This should tell us something about Reagan's sincerity about arms control. If he truly expected to achieve *reductions* in nuclear weapons then these dangerous nuclear plants could be shut down. But rather than shutting them down, Reagan wants to *increase* their production capacity by the 1990's. tim sevener whuxn!orb
ken@argus.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (07/16/86)
In article <858@whuts.UUCP>, orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > > > > Nuclear plants in the US of course do of course have containment domes. > > .... > > It isn't hard to see that the old Russian graphite reactors like the > > ones at Chernobyl are a disaster just waiting to happen. > > From what I can tell, the power density of the Soviet graphite reactors > > is so high, that only continuos cooling prevents the temperature > > from rising to the ignition point of the graphite. (Someone > > correct me if I am wrong here.) There are many reasons that > > Russian reactors are now PWR. > > > > Michael V. Stein > > This is not true. There are 8 nuclear plants operated by the Dept. > of Energy in order to make nuclear materials for nuclear weapons which > have no containment domes. These plants also are graphite core > reactors exactly like the one at Chernobyl. > tim sevener whuxn!orb To the best of my knowledge, Chernobyl is a commerical power reactor. this is different than a plutonium production reactor in that in a power reactor waste elements are allowed to accumulate for a far longer time than a production or research reactor. These wastes do not bother the reaction until they become really significant, but they do degrade the quality of the plutonium produced. Significant waste elements in the plutonium make it harder to use and handle in a bomb. If any new plutonium production reactors were to be built, containment buildings would probably be a wise precaution, of course. -- Kenneth Ng: Post office: NJIT - CCCC, Newark New Jersey 07102 uucp(for a while) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!argus!ken soon uucp:ken@argus.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet or ken@orion.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (We are VERY slowly moving to RFC 920, kicking and screaming) Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical, that is the only planet in the federation that can make that claim" Savaak: "He's so....human" Spock: "No one is perfect"
jmc@riccb.UUCP (Jeff McQuinn ) (07/16/86)
... There are 8 nuclear plants operated by the Dept. > of Energy in order to make nuclear materials for nuclear weapons which > have no containment domes. These plants also are graphite core > reactors exactly like the one at Chernobyl. > > Caspar Weinberger has asked for expanded production of weapons-grade > materials at these nuclear plants to fuel Reagan's nuclear arms race. > For the first time in over a decade, the Reagan administration has > begun making *more* weapons-grade nuclear material to fuel the arms > race. (Previously material from old nuclear weapons systems was > transferred to newer nuclear weapons systems) > Although Reagan is already deploying 3 nuclear warheads a day > (or approximately 1000 nuclear warheads a year) Weinberger wants > Congress to approve an increased capacity to over 2,000 nuclear warheads > a year. > This should tell us something about Reagan's sincerity about arms control. > If he truly expected to achieve *reductions* in nuclear weapons then > these dangerous nuclear plants could be shut down. But rather than > shutting them down, Reagan wants to *increase* their production > capacity by the 1990's. > tim sevener whuxn!orb I think this seems to be why there are so many folks arguing against nuclear power. They seem to believe that if they can outlaw reactors they can end the arms race. That argument would sound silly of course so they attack on saftey issues. They are effective at clouding the issue but the bottom line is that nuclear powers track record speaks for itself. Although we can no longer say no member of the general public has died from commercial reactor operations the number is still quite small. Coal burning is far and away the most destructive way to produce power. These same people are not banging their drums about coal burning. Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around