Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: "AustinMN" <tacooper260@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 Jan 2006 10:03:31 -0800
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On 19 Jan 2006 06:14:21 -0800, "AustinMN" <tacooper260@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >The lie in all this is that it assumes an accident will scatter highly
> >fractured plutonium in all directions. Far more likely is that the
> >reactor would come down intact, in one piece, or possibly 18 pieces.
>
> Lie? The complete analysis assumes a worse case scenario, which is that
> the plutonium is converted to dust in the atmosphere. It also recognizes
> that the probability of that is extremely low, with your scenario being
> far more likely.
I figured NASA had looked at it that way; the article (taken in it's
own context) makes it look like there is a 1/350 chance of having to
spend 1.3 billion dollars per square mile.
One in 350 is far from extremely low.
Austin
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- References:
- Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Rich
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: AustinMN
- Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- From: Chris L Peterson
- Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Prev by Date: DUSTY PLANETARY DISKS AROUND TWO NEARBY STARS RESEMBLE OUR KUIPER BELT (STscI-PRC06-05)
- Next by Date: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Previous by thread: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Next by thread: Re: Activist cranks oppose the mission
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|