In article 2aad70ea-64c1-476d-8ed3-fea2d95c57b6
@v7g2000vbk.googlegroups.com, says...

some folks here deny how many chernobyl killed , and I was called
chicken little for asking about a shuttle stuck at station right
before the columbia loss...

We're not denying it you ignorant git, we're saying that Chernobyl used
a reactor design (carbon moderator) that no one else, besides the
Russians, ever used. Even the Russians aren't dumb enough to build
another reactor of that design!

Because Chernobyl was fundamentally different than US, Japanese, and
European reactor designs, you simply cannot point to Chernobyl as an
example of what might happen elsewhere.

then nasa decided it should plan for a shuttle stuck at station

To cover their posterior in the very unlikely event that it should
happen. Few people thought it would ever be necessary, and history has
proven that it wasn't necessary.

Was it worth the extra cost and effort to keep ISS stocked for such a
contingency? I'll give you that much even though one could argue that
there were many other, more important, ways that NASA could have used
the up-mass necessary to bring up the extra food, water, O2, and etc.

It's just as important for every household to have a first aid it, a
working flashlight and battery powered radio, and a source for a few
days of fresh water and food. It's extremely unlikely such an emergency
kit would be needed by everyone, but for the few people who do end up
needing it on occasion (due to flood or other catastrophe), it turns out
that such a kit is very useful.

While it would be ideal for everyone to have a proper "emergency kit"
like I describe, most people don't. They'd be forced to improvise in an
emergency (similar to Apollo 13).

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011