Re: Nuclear-powered merchant shipping?
From: Hatunen (hatuunen_at_cox.net)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:42:10 -0800
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 05:00:13 GMT,
bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair)
>In article <email@example.com>, "Eric Gisin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz> wrote in
>>> In article <email@example.com>, "Eric Gisin"
>>> >> You miss the point. Not blow up "nuclearly" .. blow up with conventional
>>> >> explosives. Effectively a large dirty bomb.
>>> >We have nothing to worry about.
>>> >The ship sinks and passengers die, no matter what power it uses. The
>>> >high-level waste sits at the bottom of the ocean and bothers no one. In
>>> >shallow water, the government recovers the reactor so terrorists can't.
>>> Not if the terrorists have opened or blown the reactor (conventionally)
>>> spreading the radioactivity. This is considered the most likely use for
>>> radioactive material aquired by terrorists and if you consider this
>>> happening in a large city, could be quite nasty.
>Gosh thanks :)
>>You do NOT open a reactor and live. Even if it had a door, the
>>fuel does not walk out.
>These are suicide missions ... why do they care ?
I think you are confusing the reactor, ie., the reactor pressure
vessel, with the congtainment, the large protective wall or dome
built around it to contain the results of any rupture of the
pressure vessel (Chernobyl didn't have a proper containment; if
it had we wouldn't be trying to use it as a horror example).
>>The reactor is contained. Anything that blows it sinks the ship immediately.
>If you say so. Love to have your faith :)
A little education on your part wouldn't hurt, and would make
your arguments a lot more effective.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (firstname.lastname@example.org) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *