Slashdot Mirror

Does the report notes that WE (Dick) did not require them in "our" waters, but they are used everywhere else....

And, what about today?

http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/BP_documents

Thanks, DICK.
(maybe some shrimpers would like to sue his ass?)

See:
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/incidents/37598

/Z

Seems to me I've seen this plan of using nuclear power sources before... oh yes, here it is: Russian Nuclear Batteries These were used to power lighthouses, but there were no plans on what to do when they got old, and no protection from vandals stealing the shielding to sell as scrap metal.
So, how are they planning to protect the locals from harm? Or just create Darwin Awards for folks who don't understand the dangers of cracking the casing on nuclear sources?

Nuclear batteries have been in place for a long time, resulting in bad things: http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/incidents/31772

But maybe that is because Russia lost so many of them and people broke into them to get warm.

While the company featured in TFA seems to be trolling vapourware in order to grab some government cash, there are a couple of interesting points made in TFA and on the company website. First the company states on their site that the device will need to be refueled every five years. This means that if they are situated in populated areas radioactive material will need to moved to site, swapped over with spent material and the used material transported away from site. This leads me to ask several questions:

• Where will new fuel be stored?
• Where will spent fuel be stored?
• What will the transport safety and security arrangements be?
• What will level of training need to be for the personnel performing the above tasks?
• If the devices proliferate will the quality of all of the above remain at an acceptable standard?

The second point the article makes is that the company intends to use a uranium compound as fuel. The old Russian devices used strontium 90 as a heat source, this was probably used as it is cheaper than plutonium 238 the other obvious choice. Uranium isotopes have extremely long half lives. I find it difficult to believe that they would use a uranium isotope, especially when they state they need to refuel every five years. You may find these devices less acceptable if any waste needs to be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. To me this makes the Russian RTG look like a sensible, conservative design. If the device is real then surely choosing plutonium-238, curium-242, curium-244 or the Russian favorite strontium-90 makes more sense.

I still think that apathy is going to be the problem with these devices, even if the device itself is maintained is this going to be the case with the supporting infrastructure? Organizations with toxic legacies today are often reluctant to clean up until legislation forces them to. If the device is safe within a population center the by products from its use could be unsafe outside of populated areas. In this case the risk of apathy has not been abated but merely moved elsewhere.

If you enjoyed the previous Bellona link then this one may also be of interest.

Ok, I looked it up and it was harder to find than I thought. Here's what I meant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
http://www.bellona.no/bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/northern_fleet/incidents/31767

Very clearly not something that would be approved for everyday civilian use!

I couldn't find the old article I found that described how often the radition detectors go off, but these two articles imply it and talk about the CIA operation.

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke -weapons/nonproliferation/42576.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&si d=a.6ODqglGQO0&refer=us

Although I generally dislike the French government, I have to give them kudos in this area for being the only government with the balls to continue civilian research in this area, when the US decided to ban it

I guess India India and China were also doing civilian research in fast breeder reactors.

Also i think India is only one which tried Thorium as a fuel. And she has quite a lot of it too...

The RTGs in question here are not just Plutonium slugs.

Remember there have been accidents with them in the past.

During the three mission accidents that did occur, the RTGs performed as predicted. The Transit 5-BN-3 mission was aborted because of launch vehicle failure. The RTG burned up on reentry as designed with the plutonium dispersed in the upper atmosphere. The RTG design was changed shortly after that to accommodate intact reentry. The next accident was with the Nimbus-B-1 that was aborted shortly after launch by a range safety destruct. The RTG was recovered, with no release of plutonium, and the heat sources were reused in later missions

The failure of the Apollo 13 mission meant that the Lunar Module reentered the atmosphere carrying an RTG and burnt up over Fiji. The RTG itself survived reentry of the Earth's atmosphere intact, plunging into the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of plutonium will occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area.

In order to minimise the risk of the radioactive material being released, the fuel is stored in individual modular units with their own heat shielding. They are surrounded by a layer of iridium metal and encased in high-strength graphite blocks. These two materials are corrosion- and heat-resistant. Surrouding the graphic blocks is an aeroshell, designed to protect the entire assembly against the heat of reentering the earth's atmosphere. The plutonium fuel is also stored in a ceramic form that is heat-resistant, minimising the risk of vaporization and aerosolization. The ceramic is also highly insoluble.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTG
http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/space-desc.html
http://www.nuclearspace.com/facts_about_rtg.htm

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy /northern_fleet/incidents/31772.html
Nice information about RTG powered lighthouses

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html (scroll down to the "ships and submarines" section. (yes, it's a green site, that doesn't mean it's not a valid source if the information is true))
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke _industry/co-operation/31750.html (not quite a nuclear accident but close to causing one)

and the reason why that was allowed:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1992/52/52p10.htm

I don't care much for the issue but I found it hard to believe there had been *no* accidents in about 50 years of service, especially when I knew it definitely wasn't true for the UK which had an accident in the 60s iirc.

Well the great thing about a catalyst is that it's not consumed in the reaction so it shouldn't cost that much. IIRC it is now possible to use iron oxide as the catalyst which is, I think you would agree, pretty cheap. The high temperature is a problem but it's possible to get 85% efficiency. I would be supprised if the microbe can manage 10%. The heat may not be that much of a problem either. I have seen test steam reformers that run off mirrors (presumably they could also be made to perform the shift reaction). It's a difficult problem but one that can be solved.

Actually, there are two new RMBK-1000 reactors under construction / recently completed at the Russian Kursk Power Station.

It really begs the question of WHY anybody would be thick-headed enough to build one of these things.

Even if you don't go for one of the new experimental 'safe' designs (such as the Pebble-Bed design), Russia has access to safer reactor designs than the RBMK...

Well, industry has been using "mythical" catalysyts for years then. You'll be hard pressed to find industrial applications where electrolosis is performed that are less than 70% efficient. Norsk Hydro, produces some nice ones
Norsk Hydro Electrolysers (NHE) is today a leading producer of alkaline electrolysers. Some of NHE's electrolysers have an efficiency of over 80% (high heating value). (http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6 -2002/22871.html)

There was also an article/news brief I found last time this was being discussed on http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/ describing using certain mildly radioactive elements to improve Water=>Hydrogen up to the 90%s

If your father noticed a change in the energy bill, you must have been producing a LOT of hydrogen really quickly (and probably put a lot of salt in it). I did the same thing as a kid with small batteries, and they tend to be limited to arround 1 A max output. Given that water is a poor conductor, I have a feeling it wasn't drawing the full 1000mA, esp since it lasted for several hours.

I do not think that his statement applies to all navies.

The Soviets had several nuclear accidents on board their submarines, and at least one on the surface (a nuclear icebreaking ship).

There is a site with a list here, it seems reasonably authoritative, although the source may be biased (environmentalist):
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy /northern_fleet/report_2-1996/11084.html

K-8 (1960): Loss of coolant.
K-19 (1961): Primary coolant system leak. 8 dead.
K-11 (1965): Reactor opened with control rods unsecured.
K-27 (1968): Unexplained, possibly leak. Sub later scuttled.
K-140 (1968): Minor. Control rods removed without warning.
K-123 (1982): Leak of liquid metal coolant in steam generator.
K-314 (1985): Refueling accident. 10 dead.
K-431 (1985): "Overheating." Possibly coolant leak.
K-192 (1989): Primary coolant system leak. Environmental release due to human error.

Not exactly a stellar safety record. However it should be noted that the majority were not due to equipment failure so much as human error, or failure to follow established safety procedures which would have prevented the accidents. When you take human error off of the table, some of the worst releases (although not K-19, which has had the most publicity of late) are no longer present.

The GP however is correct in saying that the U.S. Navy has never had a severe reactor accident. However it has lost two nuclear submarines, the Scorpion in 1968 and the Thresher in 1963. However both losses were unrelated to the reactor systems.

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke _industry/co-operation/39015.html

You mean 1/150?

Add to that, the 200 grand isn't the entire cost. For instance, a quick google of the project reveals that they are paying the Chinese 86.5 million for the barge. I'm guessing the quoted price is either a gross conversion error or its just for some key components of the reactor. Then they have to secure it, these are nice targets for potential terrorists.

This process produces "7.05 kg CO2 ... per [1.0] kilogram hydrogen".

Now new cars are getting near 140.9 [grams] C02 [per kilometer] (This is a target, double it if you want)

So, how many KGs of Hydrogen does a Hydrogen powered car need per mile? Multiply x7.05kg to get emissions based on current production technologies.

Are these hydrogen cars poisoning the planet? With a 500 km (310 miles) range, a gas powered car at the target level could sequester and store about 70 kgs (154 pounds) of CO2.

If gas stations were required to accept and sequester this CO2, we could effectively eliminate CO2 emissions from most new automobiles without criss crossing the world with Hydrogen delivery lines or developing a totally new CO2 free hydrogen creation system.

Just capture 50% of CO2 emissions and you'll be doing quite fine as far as cutting emissions goes.

Well, according to BMW, hydrogen fueled cars are actualy safer than common gas fueled ones.
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6- 2002/22966.html

Fission can be very clean and safe. You get waste, but a lot of that can be stored safely, if you have the proper facilities and some of it can even be used to power spacecraft using radio-isotope power generation, so long as you have it contained enough that if the thing fails to launch or blows up, you won't spray it all over the planet.

But for the most part, fission can be done safely and cleanly, so long as you handle the waste in a proper manner.

I would rather see them put some more money into thorium reactors. There is far more energy locked up in thorium than in uranium deposits on earth. Simply because there is a hell of a lot more thorium in the earth's crust. India has been working on this since 2003 --> http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/npps /co-operation/31261.html

And a company has been looking into this since the 90's and the idea goes back much farther --> http://www.thoriumpower.com/english/about/history. htm

Keep up the fusion research, but we should also look for alternatives to uranium reactors as well, espcially given that throrium reactors cannot be used to make bomb components.

If a radioisotope source has enough activity to match the power output of a regular cell, it has enough activity to kill several people from several metres away.

How many rusty, discarded Energizers have you seen lying around? How do you propose to design a radioisotope cell that will never break or decay during the century or more it will take to become safe?

Imagine not being able to walk down the street for fear of radiation poisoning. This sort of thing has already happened.

While I agree that nuclear technology is the future of power, putting radioactive sources in the hands of the general population is not the way to go.

http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/navy /northern_fleet/incidents/37598.html

I thought most models/prototypes we have so far were less energy efficient than gasoline powered cars

Fortunately you thought wrong. The real roadblock is the price of fuel cells, which everybody expects to plummet once mass-production is commenced (today most production is pretty much manual), and of course the missing infrastructure.

electrolysis is simply not the most efficient way

Hard to substantiate. Current efficiencies in electrolysis processes rank up to 90% energy efficiency. This is however the "reported" one, which might be away from the standard operating point of equipment; 80% and 94% are reported here. Compare with the 20-30% of internal combustion engines, which does normally not account for dead time in queues, where some gas is being consumed, which does not happen in fuel cells as there are no major moving parts to keep spinning.

Of course there are other considerations than just efficiency, as usability of current distribution networks (which favours the use of liquid fuels as methanol, formic acid), presence of existing technologies (reforming of natural gas, oil and hydrocarbons in general).

Remark: efficiency is often given (faultily) as the ratio of Work obtained / Available enthalpy ("W/Delta_H"), which is BS: Gibbs' free energy should be used, "W/Delta_G". This causes electrolysis processes to look a bit better than they atually are, since the reaction enthalpy is ca. 286 kJ/mol, while the Gibbs' free energy is less, about 237 kJ/mol. Therefore, we actually need a minimum of 237 kJ to split a mole of water. Don't be surprised when someone will claim "over 100% efficiency in electrolysis", because that is well possible if you use the enthalpy definition.

Let me recap the relevant portions of the post you're replying to, since you didn't seem to read it:

1. As of 2003, there has yet to be a single human death officially attributed to plutonium exposure.

2. Alpha radiation does not penetrate the skin.

3. Extremely small particles of plutonium on the order of micrograms have a *small* chance to cause lung cancer if inhaled into the lungs.

This is what happened in and around Chernobyl...

The plutonium fallout from Chernobyl had a nearly negligible effect on the environment. The plutonium released at Chernobyl had a radioactivity of about 2000 Curie. The iodine-131 had a radioactivity of about 47 million Curie. The xenon-133 had a radioactivity of about 175 million Curie.

...this is what happens in Uranium mines...

Since when is there plutonium in uranium mines? Since when is plutonium a naturally occurring element? Right. Idiot.

...this is what happened to Madame Curie...

Marie Curie died of leukemia brought about by prolonged radium exposure. Radium is not plutonium. Radium-226 (the most common isotope) is a gamma emitter. Do you get tired of writing bullshit?

...this is what happened to unburned survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

There was no plutonium in the Hiroshima bomb. There was no significant plutonium fallout at Nagasaki, since it all fissioned. There was significant fallout of radio-isotopes of plutonium, but that's a different story. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

This should be obvious to anyone who's had highschool physics.

Maybe you need a refresher course. And the "maybe" was only added to give the illusion of politeness.

...it is still very nasty stuff, which isn't doesn't become less nasty because of blatant ignorance.

I accept that you are an authority on blatant ignorance, but nuclear science also isn't doesn't become more nasty because of it.

"In a series of 61 tests, where LH2 in thermoses were put under great physical stresses (such as crushing the thermos with a heavy object), there was never a case of detonation as a result of the direct blows"

"...confirmed that hydrogen never detonated from impact - not even when bullets were shot through the tank."

"In a series of 61 tests, where LH2 in thermoses were put under great physical stresses (such as crushing the thermos with a heavy object), there was never a case of detonation as a result of the direct blows"

"...confirmed that hydrogen never detonated from impact - not even when bullets were shot through the tank."

So what are these two things Russia has built, exactly? Giant potatoes?

Have the sneaky russians cleverly labelled their potato farms as breeder reactors in order to throw off the americans?

I wonder about the efficiency of H2 production every time some political yahoo, or tree-hunging greenie starts ranting about fuel cells. Breaking hydrogen out of its current chemical compounds; hydrocarbons, water, etc will require a substantial amount of energy. Then the hydrogen has to be stored, and it is notorious for being one of the most difficult to store compounds in existence. Then you have safety issues because H2 is also highly flammable. One poster pointed out that H2 will dissipate while gasoline forms a puddle, but its greater propensity to explode in the first place probably counteracts that benefit. Then you have the issues with H2O exhaust. Yes, it is water vapor we are talking about, but when 100 million americans drive to work everyday, that is a lot of water vapor, the potential for ecosystem impact is very real.

This link has some facts about hydrogen safety. Basically, for every safety problem hydrogen has, gasoline has it twofold or more. Re: water vapor, we already create an amount of water vapor on the same order of magnitude by burning gasoline, plus CO2 and traces of more exotic stuff like CO and hydrocarbon radicals. I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.

The most powerful bomb of which I'm aware was a 50 or 58 MT bomb (depending on the source) on Novaya Zemlya.

"The world's most powerful hydrogen bomb was detonated on the 30th of October 1961 [over Novaya Zemlya]. The bomb had an explosive force of 58 megatons, or almost 6,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The bomb was dropped by an aircraft, and detonated 365 metres (1,200 feet) above the surface. The shock wave produced by this bomb was so powerful, it went thrice around the earth. The mushroom cloud extended almost 60 kilometres into the atmosphere."

Links:

George Washington University
The Bulletin
Bellona Foundation

And just how was the surrounding water ignited in the Fusion reaction? As I say...links please.

One tends to be concerned about censorship laws because the regulations can be a lot wider in implementation than originally planned. For example, China used to have a blanket ban on pornography. Fine, but in the eyes of the Chinese government, democratic politics was also classified as pornography.

I am sorry, I know how laws can work and be abused inside the new Russia. For example, the campaign by the FSB against Nikitin who was a former military officer who used public sources to collate data on nuclear waste disposal issues in the Russian Navy for Bellona, an environmental outfit. Similar cases include that of Grigory Pasco, a journalist investing illegal dumping of radioactive waste in the sea of Japan.

Some religious sects will also feel the pinch. Perhaps this isn't a bad thing as some cults are really money-making rackets. However, it does appear that the Orthodox Church (not afraid of a little business itself) uses the rules about sects against other genuine religious groups.

The problem is that the environmentalists are particularly worried that the new rules will be applied to them. There is politics and big money associated with pollution (as everywhere), and it is felt that such influence will be used to have web sites shut down.

Putin is definitely one of the better presidents, but I'm sorry that once a KGB man, always a KGB man. The training is designed to instil a certain mindset.

check out the Bellona foundation's page : their Northern Fleet page is superbly detailed and they have tons of technical details about Russia's subs and surface ships. They even have some information about projects such as the Severodvinsk-class 4th-generation submarine class that got canned when the Berlin wall collapsed, or never got finished due to lack of funding.

check out the Bellona foundation's page : their Northern Fleet page is superbly detailed and they have tons of technical details about Russia's subs and surface ships. They even have some information about projects such as the Severodvinsk-class 4th-generation submarine class that got canned when the Berlin wall collapsed, or never got finished due to lack of funding.

Even though it is nice for the families of the people who died to get to do a proper burial, I do not think this operation is done for the benefit of these unfortunate soldiers. It is a long tradition in marine nation to see the sea as a proper burial place for sailors who lose their life at sea. That is why for instant the ferry Estonia, that went down between Sweden and Finland, has not been raised or tried to be emptied for bodies, even though many relatives have been working hard for it. The argument of the Swedish goverment is that the ship itself is a proper graveyard for the passengers and the extra cost of raising the ship or getting out bodies at the risk of divers life, does not match the . The real reason to get the Kursk out of the sea, even though it is an extreemly difficult operation, is that you don't want a nuclear reactor in the sea slowly rusting away. This area of the north atlantic is extreemly important for fishing. The sad part is that there is still a lot of retired submarines and radioactive waste that the russian navy don't care about or don't have money to take care of in this area. The norwegian environmental organization Bellona has been working hard to gets funds and understanding that something has to be done to this potential environmental catastrophy. Check out http://www.bellona.no/ for more information.

When you could just "stumble" upon one of the 100+ that Russia has "lost".

... a lot can change.

The Egyptian dynasties were around a mere 3000 years ago, our earliest examples of writing less than 6000 years ago. We can't decipher those early writings. And how many of their relics still exist? where now are the cities of Akkad, Ur, Uruk?

Now add 4000 more years and work out what will be left. How many buildings or artifacts last this long? What will climatic changes and geological changes will happen to any location on the planet?

It's a great and worthy problem of our own making for people to solve. I heard the US military were looking at this problem a few years ago and came up with a symbolic language to mark out high level radiation dumps. Can anybody give me a reference to this?

It's also worth checking out the Long Now Foundation for their work on a 10,000 year clock and The Rosetta Project looking to create written artifiacts that will physically survive and be decipherable in a time period twice as long as the history of the written word so far...

What ever the solution we owe it to our future generations to sort it out. I wonder though if we're so fixed on short term plans and desires that we won't be able to dedicate the energy to making it happen. Sixty years after the nuclear age began and we're already finding that our leaders attitude towards nuclear waste is just to dump it out of sight and mind.

The Chernobyl accident is far from over. I attended a special lecture by Professor William Zoller at the University of Washington, in which he described what happened, and is continuing to happen, at Chernobyl. It is not an entertaining lecture to attend. He told us a lot of things.

Professor Zoller showed us images of the radioactive goo at the bottom of the reacter. He told us that 3 people died to get the picture. The government just kept sending people down with cameras until someone went down, took a picture, and survived the trip back up, and then died. (Prof. Zoller was functioning as a UN inspector, or something. I have forgotten just what he was doing over there.)

If there are pictures of the interior of the building where the accident occured, you can pretty much assume people died to take them.

No, they didn't send robots to take those pictures.

All Russian nuclear plants were breeder plants. Apparently, they wanted plutonium for their weapons. Nuclear submarines, and, yes, NUCLEAR HANDGRENADES are the stupidest ideas in history, but, hey... There wasn't/isn't exactly a concern for human life over there.

Arctic dumping was the primary means of evacuating radioactive waste. Rivers were also a way of getting the waste out of there. As far as I can tell, people panicked, and thought, "Well, if we just dump this in the sea, it'll all just go away." In 10 years time, here in Seattle, we'll be told not to eat our fish. (This is according to Professor Zoller.) He also claims that the EPA knows about this, but is required to keep quiet. But, they continue to monitor the radioactivity of boats coming in on the ports here in Seattle.

The so-called "Brave Firefighters" who put out the fire were not brave. They were forced to put it out by the KGB.

There is a place called Chelyabink-Tomask (unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me and cannot spell the name correctly.) that is a living graveyard, guarded by the military; They are essentially, waiting to die. Nobody goes out, nobody goes in.

You can verify this yourself by contacting him. He will ask you if you are a member of the press. If you are, he is not allowed to talk about it with you. So ask him personally.

I wonder if posting an email to Slashdot is equivelent to being a member of the press.?

These notes are from my memory, not my written notes; I'm afraid there will probably be imprecise. But they are accurate. That is, what is described is true, though I may have numbers and names wrong. His lecture scared me immensly. The room had only about 10% of the people in it by the time he finished...

Related links:

• Professor William Zoller Unfortunately, he does not talk about any of this, nor his military role in the discovery of the Chernobyl radioactivity, nor his security clearance. I encourage you to e-mail him personally to verify all this. (Hmm. I hope he doesn't mind me posting this..!)
• Arctic Pollution Issues: Radioactivity
• Naval Nuclear Waste Management in Northwest Russia

Weren't you the kid who dropped the coke can on the sidewalk the other day and said "hey, don't worry, it's only a tiny bit of trash..." ?

Nuclear test statistics (hey, what's a little bit of junk going to matter in the oceans.. ?)

UNITED KINGDOM
--Total number of tests: 45
Nevada Test Site -- 24
Monte Bello Island -- 3
Woomera -- 2
Maralinga -- 7
Christmas Island -- 9.

CHINA
--Total number of tests: 43

FRANCE
--Total number of tests: 210.
--Tests were conducted at sites in Algeria, the Sahara Desert, North Africa, and in the South Pacific.

INDIA
--Total number of tests: 6

...and counting...

What do I do, when it seems I relate to Judas more than You?

Safeties off on a reactor... write that one down as a no-no

Why ? Active safety is vastly over-rated on reactor designs. The only real safety features that have ever stopped reactor accidents have been good design, ie design that was inherently more stable and less likely to go off into reactivity feedback. Most accidents that have occurred have occurred despite active safety systems, and most that have been narrowly averted were averted because of that design's inherent behaviour.

Active safety systems are good, and we should use them, but their track record is that they aren't all that likely to save your butt when you most need it.

Chernobyl (and SL-1, just to show that the US can get it wrong too) were both caused by the positive reactivity coefficients that Tau Zero described so well. It's not widely appreciated that many reactors, especially the older designs, are incredibly dangerous when operating at low power, or in the initial startup phase, compared to their normal operating power. This is so contrary to "normal" engines and machines that it's hard to comprehend instinctively.

The Bellona site has a good piece on Soviet naval reactors, which goes into some detail of this. Their 3 or 4 generations of designs have sought to minimise these effects, often by such seemingly unrelated techniques as changing pipe diamters

Safeties off on a reactor... write that one down as a no-no

Why ? Active safety is vastly over-rated on reactor designs. The only real safety features that have ever stopped reactor accidents have been good design, ie design that was inherently more stable and less likely to go off into reactivity feedback. Most accidents that have occurred have occurred despite active safety systems, and most that have been narrowly averted were averted because of that design's inherent behaviour.

Active safety systems are good, and we should use them, but their track record is that they aren't all that likely to save your butt when you most need it.

Chernobyl (and SL-1, just to show that the US can get it wrong too) were both caused by the positive reactivity coefficients that Tau Zero described so well. It's not widely appreciated that many reactors, especially the older designs, are incredibly dangerous when operating at low power, or in the initial startup phase, compared to their normal operating power. This is so contrary to "normal" engines and machines that it's hard to comprehend instinctively.

The Bellona site has a good piece on Soviet naval reactors, which goes into some detail of this. Their 3 or 4 generations of designs have sought to minimise these effects, often by such seemingly unrelated techniques as changing pipe diamters

Wrong. Try again.

A 200 knot torpedo/missile (that's not even designed to make drastic course changes at all, much less 180 degrees) has a minuscule (read: impossible) chance of taking out its launch platform once launched.

Far more likely is the theory that K-141's standard torpedoes detonated in the exercise, probably while still in the tube or weapons racks.

The Bellona Foundation has posted their analysis here, and the venerable folks at Jane's have their's up as well.

Finally, the effect this will have on Naval funding and deployment was discussed at STRATFOR.