I guess all that about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek was just bullshit huh?
Historical context:
The custom at the time to insult someone lower than you was to slap them on one side of the face. To insult someone who was your equal, you slapped them on the opposite side of the face.
Thus if you were slapped on the 'lower' side of the face, Jesus's advice was to turn so that any further insults would require the belligerent admitting equality with the insultee.
Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."
Actually, I'm gonna have to give ghandi an N/A for this affair. What Ghandi realized, and pretty much every modern pacifist who invokes his name doesn't, is that pacifism only works against a moral enemy.
To quote, for example: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." Yeah, Ghandi said that, indicating he believed violence was of us at times.
He used pacifism against the British because they were morally restrained, and wouldn't violently put down a non-violent protest. The one British General who did was relieved of command on rather short order.
You never hear of any Ghandi or MLK types from Iran, former Iraq, Syria, as they where all captured and murdered as soon as they opened their mouths, because their brutal regimes had no qualms about killing anyone given the slightest reason.
Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.
The media, except for fox news (and they're still in the camp that no news is good news) is largely from the american left, and seem to now consider it their sworn duty to do whatever they can to defeat GWB in the upcoming election, instead of actually reporting the news over there.
This means that anything that makes the US look like a failure and incites anger against the US gets widespread airtime, and anything that makes the US look good or reminds folks just how barbaric our enemies are gets little play, or regulated to the back page.
The media has a political agenda, and it colors everything they report, sometimes to an incredible degree. The same is true of Fox News, of course, but at least they wear that bias on their sleave for all to see, instead of pretending it isn't there.
Scandinavians are proud that they have the freedom to enter the property of others.
The same is true in the US, freedom is the presumption. That is, anything not specifically prohibited is allowed.
This extends to private property. Unless someone has posted their property 'no trespassing' or told you to leave/don't enter personally, you are free to cross their land without fear.
Like instead of magnificent-for-TV testing of weapons against the main side wall, approaching it with a lockpick set and set of spanners or something...
No one ever said they couldn't be opened. It's quite likely they can opened with rather standard tools. The point was that these things do not open under the most extreme accident conditions.
Now, suppose you did sneak up to one, past the guards (or you killed them) and managed to open it...
You'd die within minutes of opening it. You sure as hell couldn't handle the stuff directly.
Most of this material cannot be handled safely without a huge capital investment (that would be noticed), and sure as hell can't be shipped around in anything less than a huge container.
Even if you had plenty of suicidal jihad types to handle each stage of the work until they got sick or died, the suicidal types, for the most part, aren't intelligent to do anything useful with the material in the time they have with it.
Basically, this material's lethality is also perversly a safety feature for the rest of us.
They did release radiation to the public, but it was such a ridiculously small amount that the projected increase in cancer deaths was 0.6- and thousands of people where potentially exposed.
There have been lawsuits, of course, but all thrown out of court because of a complete inability to prove that the accident caused any harm.
Oh, and the operators did try- well, not to release radiation, but they shut down a number of accident mitigation systems because they misunderstood the situation. Had they simply let them run, they would have been back online a few weeks later.
At my powerplant, there's a manned guardhouse with a few jersey barriers you have to weave around before you get anywhere security even remotely cares about. You come in unexpected, 999 times out of 1000, the guard politely turns you around at the gaurdhouse and gives you the best directions he can.
If you go barrelling past the guardhouse (no gates at the outer perimeter of the site) then you'd get that kind of response. Of course, only people who where trouble- certainly not a family of four- would weave past Jersey barriers and then zoom past a guard waiting for you 15 ft afterwards.
As for the 1 time out of 1000 when some poor misdirected soul wasn't treated kindly at the gate, his arrival coincided with the start of a security alert, and he was seen as potentially a part of it. He was thrown on the ground and handcuffed by about 40 state troopers who were already on their way to respond.
Turns out the security event was likely caused by a turkey setting off a few proximity alarms. After several hours of searching the power plant from top to bottom- and the guy probably shitting himself the entire time- he was sent on his merry way.
Some time ago, post september 11th, the Nuclear Regulatory commission decreed that the security at nuclear power plants was not enough, and that it should be increased.
Ok, that's all well and fine, as much as I hate the nanny state, that's what they're there for, and we have to deal with it.
So, these security upgrades, required by the NRC if we are to continue generating nuclear power, where initially scheduled to be done by this coming october.
This was a reasonable timeframe at the initial order.
Except every month or two, they'd increase or change the theoretical attack our security would have to be able to repel.
And then never move the completion date back to allow time to make adjustments for their continual meddling.
So now, at my plant, we have a huge security capital project that needs to be done in 5 months, because the NRC just finished up their requirements, finally, two months ago. The engineering and construction firms obviously need time to design a system to meet the NRC standards, and prepare for it's construction.
So basically we're spending 15 million dollars on a rush job because the NRC has no fucking clue how businesses work, and allow no time adjustment for their indecision.
And the funny part is that even if a team of terrorists got past our already substantial security (both physical and personell), they'd have no fucking clue how to cause any damage that would extend beyond the plant or spread radiation to the public- figuring out such a thing requires years of studying the plant's most intimate workings.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of this one. France and Spain are trying to wiggle out of the islamofascists war with the west, and it's not working out for them too well right now, is it?
They have brought open war to us. Our response is their death. Even, if as you suppose, we brought war to them, the result is the same- they are the enemy, they pose a risk to our lives, and must be dealt with as such. Such a basic instinct of self defense is lost on people like you through generations of European-style neutering.
The WTC and airline guys were "people and businesses" in general. Do you propose they were part of a great zionist conspiracy holding down the poor, disenfranchised arab? Or that the towers some how held some great industrial military complex production facility? Whatever makes you think that they people in those towers weren't, in general, hardworking honest Americans is horseshit, and you spit on their graves by implying such.
There is no hiding spot for the US, or western civilizations, or any derivative thereof, that does not put plain old US citizens at risk of islamic terrorism. The only option is to meet them in their lair and put down our enemies like dogs- which is what we're trying to do in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Those who are not our enemies in those countries have little to worry about.
And again, I don't give two shits about this insurance analogy you keep trying to make. I could offer a counter analogy, but it seems plain speaking is lost on you as it is, so it would be an even greater waste of my time.
On what basis do you demand that he not pay for the cost of protecting his asset against assault by said suicide attacks?
Against simple attacks that take place more or less on his own grounds, he should pay for his own security.
On the other hand, the 9/11 attack was an act of war, insomuch as a backwards, parasitic society can carry out on us. They attacked American Airlines, the citizens on board, the Trade Centers, and the business people therein. Not just some guy with a building. It was moreover clearly an assault on symbols of western dominance and our culture. We're far past protecting property here, buddy.
On what basis do you interpret a desire to have him pay the costs of his protection to a desire to steal from him?
Please reframe this question so it makes sense.
On what basis do you attribute wealth that is created, while he is not payig the aforementioned costs, to hs initiative/creativity, as opposed to his being subsidized by those paying the costs of his protection?
This question makes no sense either, but fortunately it's worded enough that I can explain why.
Being subsidized? Instead of wealth creation? Maybe you're posting from some Cuba or something, but the way it works in the United States, People & corporations generate wealth, and the government takes a portion of it. Therefor, the only way the government gets money to subsidize anything is by the creation of wealth by private individuals or corporations.
Sure, there's plenty of subsidizing going on, and I'm not going to argue it on a case by case basis with you. But my statement about wealth creation clearly stands....and then runs around the world doing things that inflame the hatred of people who are known for engaging in suicide attacks.
It's time we stop worrying about how they will react to our actions, and time to make them start fearing how we will react to theirs. You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try.
So tell me, do you believe saying the most idiotic things in a complex way makes you appear intelligent, and will put people off of questioning your basic, flawed premise?
You believe that people are irrelevant, only the treatment of the group matters, and individuals who happen to be doing well should take a step back and realize that they're really being held down.
Your entire main paragraph stank of the "white man holding me down" attitude that's absurd. In addition, by placing such an emphasis on race, you imply that certain races can't really succeed in today's unjust world, and any members that do are just deluded.
Also, wealth creation is quite real, and it continues, even in today's cut throat business environment. If wealth cannot be created, then how is it that the great majority of americans and europeans now live in comfort unheard of even for the aristocracy at the time of the industrial revolution. Even many of today's poor people have cars, televisions, and access to emergency health care (yeah, no insurance, blah blah blah). The number one health problem of the poor people in the united states is obesity. Not starving to death under the jack boot heal of the local noble. So anyway, WHO THE FUCK DID WE STEAL ALL THAT MONEY FROM?
We didn't. We created the wealth. That continues today, as there's been no drastic upheavel of the western civilization that has created all that wealth. Sure, life's tough sometimes for individuals.
Incidentally, the western civilization you think is doomed to the dustbin of history has no viable replacement- most certainly not transnational progressivism, which ignore such blatantly obvious principles as the corruption of unaccountable power (Saddam Husseins brutal regime, UN's oil for food scandal, for starters) It also ignores the fact that there will always be certain individuals in society are morally irredeemable and need to isolated from the rest and that human nature is to act in your own self interest.
Western Civilization, especially the United States implemenation thereof is the best way to do all of the following: 1. Ensure the advancement of science by securing the benefits of research for those who did it. 2. Ensure that people produce goods & services, for the simple fact that they own the rewards for doing so. (property rights) 3. Keep peace between democratic market countries, because they find having a country as a trading partner is more desirable than invading it. 4. Ensure horse shit ideas like yours are thoroughly hosed down by respecting freedom of speech and a questioning attitude. 5. Locking up most bad guys, and keeping most innocent people free by having the rule of law prevail and a mostly fair justice system.
I do not claim the United States system is perfect (far from it), but it's the best the world's got by a longshot. If you don't beleive me, compare the amount of people immigrating to the united states to the amount of people emigrating from the united states.
You've spent far too much time traveling in the ultra left circles at college (sometimes high schoolers pick up on this crap too), where the "Earth-in-crisis:, communism is the best way, surrender our soveirengty to a bunch of countries who aren't half as good as us by any measure you can honestly consider, and make the world into one big commune."
A lot can happen in 12 years. I don't know shit about you, and I don't know shit about dallas schools, it just seems to me you might have been away long enough for things to change drastically.
I'd argue CAFE was hardly the sole driver of the engineering improvements you speak of- for example, not getting slaughtered on the markets by japanese and german imports might have something to do with it.
I appreciate good engineering. I don't appreciate laws that kill people.
In order to meet these goals set by the Feds, car manufacturers, among other things, have to cut mass. That means, in an accident, the proportion of the crash absorbed by you, compared to your vehicle, increases. That's admittedly a simplistic way to look at it, but look here for more information.
One or two of your points is worth it's weight, the rest is statist, the government-is-the-new-god bullshit. See the other replies, I won't bother to repeat them.
ah, yes, you're correct, we actually have equipment in my plant to scrub hydrogen out of the containment atmosphere under accident conditions because of TMI.
I think, however, the explosion was in the containment building, and not in the reactor- hydrogen is created in great quantities when zircaloy- the cladding for the uranium fuel- reacts with water, which only happens under very high temperatures, which they had because of the loss of coolant accident.
I think what happened was that hydrogen was carried out of the Reactor Coolant System through the PORVS and into the Pressurizer Relief Tank, which quickly spilled onto the containment floor and into the sumps. In the reactor vessel, there was mostly steam, but when the hydrogen got out into the building, it made an explosive mixture with the oxygen in the building, and a little spark set it off.
Sorry, slipped my mind before.
Incidentally, we test my plant's containment building to 60 psi ever ten to fifteen years, and get virtually no leakage. It could probably handle an 80 psi peak rather easily.
I don't recall that there was an explosion at TMI, though much of the fuel and the core internals did melt.
The PORV and safeties released their discharges to a pressurizer relief tank, which, when it overfills, starts discharging to the containment building sump.
You are essientially correct in the utility of the containment building, though. Without it, steam, water, and radioctive gases carried by them, would be easily released to the atmosphere.
PS - I have no idea how the operators could have missed a stuck-open relief valve - even a steam relief valve from the top of the pressurize. When those things lift, it sounds and feels like a train going by...
Your first response to this post is correct- the control room is far away from the reactor and it's pressurizer, in different buildings and through several feet of concrete.
Even if you were in the containment building with the reactor, when the PORVs/Relief Valves lift, they are piped to a tank in the basement of the containment building- and they are physically located within a heavily insulated enclosure. You don't want to blow Reactor Coolant (water with some boron in it, and a number of decay products) into the atmosphere.
Another note about missing the stuck open relief valve- my plant was in the planning stages when TMI happened, and a number of modifications where made to the plans- for instance, the valve indication shows actual valve position, not demanded valve position, and we have a system that detects water level in the reactor.
The way the valve position indivation is now set up is interesting- there are two lights- red for open, green for closed. If both are lit, the valve is partially open. (And we have plenty of spare bulbs, incidentally). There are limit switchs on the valves that drive these lights (and the associated logic for automatic actions.) When the valve is fully open, the upper limit switch turns off the light that indicates it's closed. When the valve is fully closed, the lower limit switch turns off the light that indicates it's open.
It's radioactive particles that cause contamination of groundwater, not radiation. You could irradiate water all you wanted, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the people who drank it.
So the question then becomes to make the reactor vessel, associated piping, and the building strong enough to contain radioactive particles under worst case accident scenarios.
This we can do at groundlevel. (groundlevel, meaning near the surface. The top of the uranium fuel at my power plant is 40 ft below ground level, but still above the water table. And there's a whole lot of steel and reinforced concrete between the fuel and the groundwater table)
So why not put it below ground? 1. Cost. 2. No point, as there are other ways to contain the issue.
You don't remember correctly. It's precariously perched on top of whatever is left of the reactor core. If it fell down, and they don't patch the holes in the sarcophagus around the plant, it could kick up enough dust to make the area glow a little more.
Which is why there's a 300km verboten zone around it.
This was probably written by some pansy-ass literature major with too much time on her hands, no technical knowledge, and an activist bent. The kind of idiot who dresses up in pink and does interpretive dance to try to influence matters she hasn't taken the time to really understand.
How such horrible, idiotic poetry could be modded up is beyond me.
Incidentally, TMI's miniscule radiation release was projected to cause less than 1 extra death for the hundreds of thousands of people potentially exposed. INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED THERe, who would get the worst exposure.
I'm guessing because it would take a very, very long time to dissappear, maybe longer than it would take to turn into safe material all by itself.
You'd have to ditch the radwaste casks in the ocean, where they might be prone to leaking in a harsh, high pressure ocean environment. I suppose if the radwaste is significantly heavier than the water so it won't float, and it can be dropped into a trench so any leaking has no chance of washing up, it would be a viable idea.
Compare the Soviets worst accident- dozens dead in the short term, thousands dead early from long term effects- with the United States worst accident- Three Mile Island. The radioactivity release from TMI was projected to cause less than 1 premature death from the hundreds of thousands of people potentially exposed to anything, and in twenty five years since, no one has been able to prove that they were adversly affected by the accident, healthwise.
Including the people who work there. Nuclear Power is perfectly safe when done right, and it's done right in the US. The worst that could happen in the US in an accident condition is that parts of the power plant are destroyed. And for even that to happen, so many very closely watched things would have to go wrong that it's basically not going to happen.
So shut off your lights if you don't like nuclear power, and go back to your cave.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess all that about loving your enemies and turning the other cheek was just bullshit huh?
Historical context:
The custom at the time to insult someone lower than you was to slap them on one side of the face. To insult someone who was your equal, you slapped them on the opposite side of the face.
Thus if you were slapped on the 'lower' side of the face, Jesus's advice was to turn so that any further insults would require the belligerent admitting equality with the insultee.
Ghandi would probably make a much better example of this "extreme."
Actually, I'm gonna have to give ghandi an N/A for this affair. What Ghandi realized, and pretty much every modern pacifist who invokes his name doesn't, is that pacifism only works against a moral enemy.
To quote, for example: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look
upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
Yeah, Ghandi said that, indicating he believed violence was of us at times.
He used pacifism against the British because they were morally restrained, and wouldn't violently put down a non-violent protest. The one British General who did was relieved of command on rather short order.
You never hear of any Ghandi or MLK types from Iran, former Iraq, Syria, as they where all captured and murdered as soon as they opened their mouths, because their brutal regimes had no qualms about killing anyone given the slightest reason.
Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.
The media, except for fox news (and they're still in the camp that no news is good news) is largely from the american left, and seem to now consider it their sworn duty to do whatever they can to defeat GWB in the upcoming election, instead of actually reporting the news over there.
This means that anything that makes the US look like a failure and incites anger against the US gets widespread airtime, and anything that makes the US look good or reminds folks just how barbaric our enemies are gets little play, or regulated to the back page.
The Belmont Club offers a more balanced view, with soldier's opinions.
The media has a political agenda, and it colors everything they report, sometimes to an incredible degree. The same is true of Fox News, of course, but at least they wear that bias on their sleave for all to see, instead of pretending it isn't there.
"... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." Jesus,
Luke 22: 36
Scandinavians are proud that they have the freedom to enter the property of others.
The same is true in the US, freedom is the presumption. That is, anything not specifically prohibited is allowed.
This extends to private property. Unless someone has posted their property 'no trespassing' or told you to leave/don't enter personally, you are free to cross their land without fear.
Like instead of magnificent-for-TV testing of weapons against the main side wall, approaching it with a lockpick set and set of spanners or something...
No one ever said they couldn't be opened. It's quite likely they can opened with rather standard tools. The point was that these things do not open under the most extreme accident conditions.
Now, suppose you did sneak up to one, past the guards (or you killed them) and managed to open it...
You'd die within minutes of opening it. You sure as hell couldn't handle the stuff directly.
Most of this material cannot be handled safely without a huge capital investment (that would be noticed), and sure as hell can't be shipped around in anything less than a huge container.
Even if you had plenty of suicidal jihad types to handle each stage of the work until they got sick or died, the suicidal types, for the most part, aren't intelligent to do anything useful with the material in the time they have with it.
Basically, this material's lethality is also perversly a safety feature for the rest of us.
Yes, thank you for making me clarify.
They did release radiation to the public, but it was such a ridiculously small amount that the projected increase in cancer deaths was 0.6- and thousands of people where potentially exposed.
There have been lawsuits, of course, but all thrown out of court because of a complete inability to prove that the accident caused any harm.
Oh, and the operators did try- well, not to release radiation, but they shut down a number of accident mitigation systems because they misunderstood the situation. Had they simply let them run, they would have been back online a few weeks later.
Wow. What a bunch of Jack booted thugs.
At my powerplant, there's a manned guardhouse with a few jersey barriers you have to weave around before you get anywhere security even remotely cares about. You come in unexpected, 999 times out of 1000, the guard politely turns you around at the gaurdhouse and gives you the best directions he can.
If you go barrelling past the guardhouse (no gates at the outer perimeter of the site) then you'd get that kind of response. Of course, only people who where trouble- certainly not a family of four- would weave past Jersey barriers and then zoom past a guard waiting for you 15 ft afterwards.
As for the 1 time out of 1000 when some poor misdirected soul wasn't treated kindly at the gate, his arrival coincided with the start of a security alert, and he was seen as potentially a part of it. He was thrown on the ground and handcuffed by about 40 state troopers who were already on their way to respond.
Turns out the security event was likely caused by a turkey setting off a few proximity alarms. After several hours of searching the power plant from top to bottom- and the guy probably shitting himself the entire time- he was sent on his merry way.
Some time ago, post september 11th, the Nuclear Regulatory commission decreed that the security at nuclear power plants was not enough, and that it should be increased.
Ok, that's all well and fine, as much as I hate the nanny state, that's what they're there for, and we have to deal with it.
So, these security upgrades, required by the NRC if we are to continue generating nuclear power, where initially scheduled to be done by this coming october.
This was a reasonable timeframe at the initial order.
Except every month or two, they'd increase or change the theoretical attack our security would have to be able to repel.
And then never move the completion date back to allow time to make adjustments for their continual meddling.
So now, at my plant, we have a huge security capital project that needs to be done in 5 months, because the NRC just finished up their requirements, finally, two months ago. The engineering and construction firms obviously need time to design a system to meet the NRC standards, and prepare for it's construction.
So basically we're spending 15 million dollars on a rush job because the NRC has no fucking clue how businesses work, and allow no time adjustment for their indecision.
And the funny part is that even if a team of terrorists got past our already substantial security (both physical and personell), they'd have no fucking clue how to cause any damage that would extend beyond the plant or spread radiation to the public- figuring out such a thing requires years of studying the plant's most intimate workings.
Fuckin NRC.
Sorry but you just can wriggle out of this one.
I'm not trying to wiggle out of this one. France and Spain are trying to wiggle out of the islamofascists war with the west, and it's not working out for them too well right now, is it?
They have brought open war to us. Our response is their death. Even, if as you suppose, we brought war to them, the result is the same- they are the enemy, they pose a risk to our lives, and must be dealt with as such. Such a basic instinct of self defense is lost on people like you through generations of European-style neutering.
The WTC and airline guys were "people and businesses" in general. Do you propose they were part of a great zionist conspiracy holding down the poor, disenfranchised arab? Or that the towers some how held some great industrial military complex production facility? Whatever makes you think that they people in those towers weren't, in general, hardworking honest Americans is horseshit, and you spit on their graves by implying such.
There is no hiding spot for the US, or western civilizations, or any derivative thereof, that does not put plain old US citizens at risk of islamic terrorism. The only option is to meet them in their lair and put down our enemies like dogs- which is what we're trying to do in Iraq and Afgahnistan. Those who are not our enemies in those countries have little to worry about.
And again, I don't give two shits about this insurance analogy you keep trying to make. I could offer a counter analogy, but it seems plain speaking is lost on you as it is, so it would be an even greater waste of my time.
On what basis do you demand that he not pay for the cost of protecting his asset against assault by said suicide attacks?
...and then runs around the world doing things that inflame the hatred of people who are known for engaging in suicide attacks.
Against simple attacks that take place more or less on his own grounds, he should pay for his own security.
On the other hand, the 9/11 attack was an act of war, insomuch as a backwards, parasitic society can carry out on us. They attacked American Airlines, the citizens on board, the Trade Centers, and the business people therein. Not just some guy with a building. It was moreover clearly an assault on symbols of western dominance and our culture. We're far past protecting property here, buddy.
On what basis do you interpret a desire to have him pay the costs of his protection to a desire to steal from him?
Please reframe this question so it makes sense.
On what basis do you attribute wealth that is created, while he is not payig the aforementioned costs, to hs initiative/creativity, as opposed to his being subsidized by those paying the costs of his protection?
This question makes no sense either, but fortunately it's worded enough that I can explain why.
Being subsidized? Instead of wealth creation? Maybe you're posting from some Cuba or something, but the way it works in the United States, People & corporations generate wealth, and the government takes a portion of it. Therefor, the only way the government gets money to subsidize anything is by the creation of wealth by private individuals or corporations.
Sure, there's plenty of subsidizing going on, and I'm not going to argue it on a case by case basis with you. But my statement about wealth creation clearly stands.
It's time we stop worrying about how they will react to our actions, and time to make them start fearing how we will react to theirs. You can't please everyone, no matter how hard you try.
So tell me, do you believe saying the most idiotic things in a complex way makes you appear intelligent, and will put people off of questioning your basic, flawed premise?
You believe that people are irrelevant, only the treatment of the group matters, and individuals who happen to be doing well should take a step back and realize that they're really being held down.
Your entire main paragraph stank of the "white man holding me down" attitude that's absurd. In addition, by placing such an emphasis on race, you imply that certain races can't really succeed in today's unjust world, and any members that do are just deluded.
Also, wealth creation is quite real, and it continues, even in today's cut throat business environment. If wealth cannot be created, then how is it that the great majority of americans and europeans now live in comfort unheard of even for the aristocracy at the time of the industrial revolution. Even many of today's poor people have cars, televisions, and access to emergency health care (yeah, no insurance, blah blah blah). The number one health problem of the poor people in the united states is obesity. Not starving to death under the jack boot heal of the local noble. So anyway, WHO THE FUCK DID WE STEAL ALL THAT MONEY FROM?
We didn't. We created the wealth. That continues today, as there's been no drastic upheavel of the western civilization that has created all that wealth. Sure, life's tough sometimes for individuals.
Incidentally, the western civilization you think is doomed to the dustbin of history has no viable replacement- most certainly not transnational progressivism, which ignore such blatantly obvious principles as the corruption of unaccountable power (Saddam Husseins brutal regime, UN's oil for food scandal, for starters) It also ignores the fact that there will always be certain individuals in society are morally irredeemable and need to isolated from the rest and that human nature is to act in your own self interest.
Western Civilization, especially the United States implemenation thereof is the best way to do all of the following:
1. Ensure the advancement of science by securing the benefits of research for those who did it.
2. Ensure that people produce goods & services, for the simple fact that they own the rewards for doing so. (property rights)
3. Keep peace between democratic market countries, because they find having a country as a trading partner is more desirable than invading it.
4. Ensure horse shit ideas like yours are thoroughly hosed down by respecting freedom of speech and a questioning attitude.
5. Locking up most bad guys, and keeping most innocent people free by having the rule of law prevail and a mostly fair justice system.
I do not claim the United States system is perfect (far from it), but it's the best the world's got by a longshot. If you don't beleive me, compare the amount of people immigrating to the united states to the amount of people emigrating from the united states.
You've spent far too much time traveling in the ultra left circles at college (sometimes high schoolers pick up on this crap too), where the "Earth-in-crisis:, communism is the best way, surrender our soveirengty to a bunch of countries who aren't half as good as us by any measure you can honestly consider, and make the world into one big commune."
You've got a four digit slashdot ID.
That makes you what, 30 years old, probably?
A lot can happen in 12 years. I don't know shit about you, and I don't know shit about dallas schools, it just seems to me you might have been away long enough for things to change drastically.
Your ford dealership was run by pricks. My local dealership fixed an odd problem on my 14 year old crown vic last year quickly & expertly.
I'd argue CAFE was hardly the sole driver of the engineering improvements you speak of- for example, not getting slaughtered on the markets by japanese and german imports might have something to do with it.
I appreciate good engineering. I don't appreciate laws that kill people.
Or get rid of CAFE.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy.
In order to meet these goals set by the Feds, car manufacturers, among other things, have to cut mass. That means, in an accident, the proportion of the crash absorbed by you, compared to your vehicle, increases. That's admittedly a simplistic way to look at it, but look here for more information.
One or two of your points is worth it's weight, the rest is statist, the government-is-the-new-god bullshit. See the other replies, I won't bother to repeat them.
ah, yes, you're correct, we actually have equipment in my plant to scrub hydrogen out of the containment atmosphere under accident conditions because of TMI.
I think, however, the explosion was in the containment building, and not in the reactor- hydrogen is created in great quantities when zircaloy- the cladding for the uranium fuel- reacts with water, which only happens under very high temperatures, which they had because of the loss of coolant accident.
I think what happened was that hydrogen was carried out of the Reactor Coolant System through the PORVS and into the Pressurizer Relief Tank, which quickly spilled onto the containment floor and into the sumps. In the reactor vessel, there was mostly steam, but when the hydrogen got out into the building, it made an explosive mixture with the oxygen in the building, and a little spark set it off.
Sorry, slipped my mind before.
Incidentally, we test my plant's containment building to 60 psi ever ten to fifteen years, and get virtually no leakage. It could probably handle an 80 psi peak rather easily.
I don't recall that there was an explosion at TMI, though much of the fuel and the core internals did melt.
The PORV and safeties released their discharges to a pressurizer relief tank, which, when it overfills, starts discharging to the containment building sump.
You are essientially correct in the utility of the containment building, though. Without it, steam, water, and radioctive gases carried by them, would be easily released to the atmosphere.
PS - I have no idea how the operators could have missed a stuck-open relief valve - even a steam relief valve from the top of the pressurize. When those things lift, it sounds and feels like a train going by...
Your first response to this post is correct- the control room is far away from the reactor and it's pressurizer, in different buildings and through several feet of concrete.
Even if you were in the containment building with the reactor, when the PORVs/Relief Valves lift, they are piped to a tank in the basement of the containment building- and they are physically located within a heavily insulated enclosure.
You don't want to blow Reactor Coolant (water with some boron in it, and a number of decay products) into the atmosphere.
Another note about missing the stuck open relief valve- my plant was in the planning stages when TMI happened, and a number of modifications where made to the plans- for instance, the valve indication shows actual valve position, not demanded valve position, and we have a system that detects water level in the reactor.
The way the valve position indivation is now set up is interesting- there are two lights- red for open, green for closed. If both are lit, the valve is partially open. (And we have plenty of spare bulbs, incidentally). There are limit switchs on the valves that drive these lights (and the associated logic for automatic actions.) When the valve is fully open, the upper limit switch turns off the light that indicates it's closed. When the valve is fully closed, the lower limit switch turns off the light that indicates it's open.
It's radioactive particles that cause contamination of groundwater, not radiation. You could irradiate water all you wanted, and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to the people who drank it.
So the question then becomes to make the reactor vessel, associated piping, and the building strong enough to contain radioactive particles under worst case accident scenarios.
This we can do at groundlevel. (groundlevel, meaning near the surface. The top of the uranium fuel at my power plant is 40 ft below ground level, but still above the water table. And there's a whole lot of steel and reinforced concrete between the fuel and the groundwater table)
So why not put it below ground?
1. Cost.
2. No point, as there are other ways to contain the issue.
You don't remember correctly. It's precariously perched on top of whatever is left of the reactor core. If it fell down, and they don't patch the holes in the sarcophagus around the plant, it could kick up enough dust to make the area glow a little more.
Which is why there's a 300km verboten zone around it.
This statement is surely in jest, but for those who do think like this, remember that's where the material came from in the first place.
Ashes to Ashes, Dust to Dust, useful energy extraction in between.
This was probably written by some pansy-ass literature major with too much time on her hands, no technical knowledge, and an activist bent. The kind of idiot who dresses up in pink and does interpretive dance to try to influence matters she hasn't taken the time to really understand.
How such horrible, idiotic poetry could be modded up is beyond me.
Incidentally, TMI's miniscule radiation release was projected to cause less than 1 extra death for the hundreds of thousands of people potentially exposed. INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO WORKED THERe, who would get the worst exposure.
I'm guessing because it would take a very, very long time to dissappear, maybe longer than it would take to turn into safe material all by itself.
You'd have to ditch the radwaste casks in the ocean, where they might be prone to leaking in a harsh, high pressure ocean environment. I suppose if the radwaste is significantly heavier than the water so it won't float, and it can be dropped into a trench so any leaking has no chance of washing up, it would be a viable idea.
Compare the Soviets worst accident- dozens dead in the short term, thousands dead early from long term effects- with the United States worst accident- Three Mile Island. The radioactivity release from TMI was projected to cause less than 1 premature death from the hundreds of thousands of people potentially exposed to anything, and in twenty five years since, no one has been able to prove that they were adversly affected by the accident, healthwise.
Including the people who work there.
Nuclear Power is perfectly safe when done right, and it's done right in the US. The worst that could happen in the US in an accident condition is that parts of the power plant are destroyed. And for even that to happen, so many very closely watched things would have to go wrong that it's basically not going to happen.
So shut off your lights if you don't like nuclear power, and go back to your cave.