Once and for all...are humans or robots better for Mars?

waste core pools will burn if the exposed cores arent under chilled
water, terroist connected people have worked at us nuke plants.

No they will not. *Your idiotic insistence on 'chilling' being
necessary is the height of ignorance.



when the used cores begin burning they will cause all 6 to 10 other
cores to burn too, thats more fuel than is in a reactor.

1) Everything in the pool is 'used cores'.

2) Only about 1/3 of one core is probably still 'hot' enough to create
a problem.

3) There's no evidence that one rack catching fire will cause the
other racks to do anything at all, despite your delusions otherwise.

4) For ANY racks to catch fire it would be necessary to absolutely and
totally prevent water from getting to the cooling pond FOR DAYS. There
are too many sources of water at a nuclear plant for that to be a
believable scenario for anyone but panicky poultry.



the burning fuel will spread by wind over a far and wide area.....

Except there isn't any burning fuel and 'far and wide' is hardly a
measure.



a waste core fire will kill many and cause legacy cancer problems for
so many.

THE SKY IS FALLING! *THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

no raioactive burnt residue will be falling from the sky. causing more
cancer.....

the minimum that should be done is dry cask storage for as many spent
cores as possible, and move all the dry casks to yucca for temporary
storage. dont allow them to be entombed....

The minimum that should be done is to not let panicky poultry make
decisions. *That's why you work out of your house, Bobbert.



at least this way some of the hazards are contained.

Well, no.

storing dry casks at closed reactors is just plain dumb, no doubt
security is lax.

More lax than it would be with them just sitting around on the ground
at Yucca?


its easier to secure one central area then many spread all over the
country.... put them underground at yucca but dont let them be entombed

On Feb 22, 8:07*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:

waste core pools will burn if the exposed cores arent under chilled
water, terroist connected people have worked at us nuke plants.

No they will not. Your idiotic insistence on 'chilling' being
necessary is the height of ignorance.

when the used cores begin burning they will cause all 6 to 10 other
cores to burn too, thats more fuel than is in a reactor.

1) Everything in the pool is 'used cores'.

2) Only about 1/3 of one core is probably still 'hot' enough to create
a problem.

3) There's no evidence that one rack catching fire will cause the
other racks to do anything at all, despite your delusions otherwise.

4) For ANY racks to catch fire it would be necessary to absolutely and
totally prevent water from getting to the cooling pond FOR DAYS. There
are too many sources of water at a nuclear plant for that to be a
believable scenario for anyone but panicky poultry.

the burning fuel will spread by wind over a far and wide area.....

Except there isn't any burning fuel and 'far and wide' is hardly a
measure.

a waste core fire will kill many and cause legacy cancer problems for
so many.

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

no raioactive burnt residue will be falling from the sky. causing more
cancer.....

Poppycock, Chicken Little.





the minimum that should be done is dry cask storage for as many spent
cores as possible, and move all the dry casks to yucca for temporary
storage. dont allow them to be entombed....

The minimum that should be done is to not let panicky poultry make
decisions. That's why you work out of your house, Bobbert.

at least this way some of the hazards are contained.

Well, no.

storing dry casks at closed reactors is just plain dumb, no doubt
security is lax.

More lax than it would be with them just sitting around on the ground
at Yucca?

its easier to secure one central area then many spread all over the
country.... put them underground at yucca but dont let them be entombed

Uh, just the WRONG way to do it. *You really don't have a clue how
Yucca Mountain works, either, do you?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well naturally entombed over time. its best to have all this hazardous
waste at one central very secure location...

Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
well naturally entombed over time. its best to have all this hazardous
waste at one central very secure location...

Well, no, it isn't. You don't understand the objections to using
Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, either, do you?

and HOW does this keep getting put BACK into r.a.sf.w, anyway?

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeableBLINK
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

and HOW does this keep getting put BACK into r.a.sf.w, anyway?

Dave

whats r.a.sf.w,?

On Feb 21, 6:49*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article da1b704b-55bd-4ff3-8990-e43409b26708
@x11g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...



the uninhabitible for 1000 years is chernobyl

Which would never happen in the west, because we don't use that design. *
The Russians also decided not to build anymore reactors with the same
design.

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

A thorium fueled reactor would have been 100% failsafe, but no weapons
grade fuel created either.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Feb 22, 10:18*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...







" wrote:

\ reactors are at least in containment but not the waste core pools

Because they don't need to be. *They're simply not that dangerous,
despite your repeated ignorant attempts to claim that they are.

fresh corse are 2000 degrees, and normally covered with 30 to 40 feet
of chilled water mix.

Most of them aren't fresh.

cores will burn if exposed at 700 degrees.

Which leaves only getting them exposed and ignoring the situation
until they get to 700 degrees.

now terrorists dont have to puncture and drain a waste core pool, just
disable the cooling system or hit a pump line.

And then all we have to do is sit on our asses for a few days instead
of bringing in a tank truck and dumping more water, or dumping water
from another line, or dumping water from secondary reactor coolant, or
dumping water from a firemain, or...

This is rather silly, isn't it? *This is especially true when you
consider that a nuclear power plant must have a source of water for its
cooling tower(s). *

You do know what a cooling tower is and how it works, right Bob? *

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

- Show quoted text -

hi jeff, japan is a island and yet at least one of their reactors are
in danger of melting down, and the evacuation area has been widened to
20 miles.

sad isnt it they had a explosion and radioactive release

On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:50:00 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
wrote, perhaps among other things:

On 2/5/11 9:18 AM, wrote:
On Feb 5, 5:20 am, Fred J. wrote:
wrote:

can you imagine new york city abandoned because a nearby reactor or
waste core storage pool had a accident.

You really don't have a clue about what can and cannot happen, do you?

that can happen, its a real risk.

show me a cite claiming a reactor meltdown or other accident isnt a
problem.

Hint: What kind of reactor was Chernobyl? Compare it to reactors
"nearby" to NYC.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

chernobyl was a poor design but any reactor can have a melt down if
the operators make mistakes.

Not true. There are a number of failsafe reactor designs, in which loss
of containment or other problems lead to the reactor naturally shutting off.

You can't imagine how much I'm laughing at you now.

since humans make errors, it part of being human.

sooner or later one day a big chunk of our country will be a exclusion
zone... bad enought that mistakes occur but add terrorism

heck the feds wanted to store the nuke waste in yucca mountain a
geologicaly active area......


Over timescales of thousands of years. Which are more than long enough.
Hell, there were natural nuclear reactors which apparently restricted
all their waste products to a very short range around the reactor.

Define "very short range."
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey

On 6 Feb 2011 23:38:53 -0500, (William December
Starr) wrote, perhaps among other things:

In article ,
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" said:

Walter Bushell wrote:
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. wrote:

Yep. There's a fair number of things like that; you absolutely
need it to survive, and if you get too much, it kills you ugly.

Oxygen for one. In fact hydrogen hydroxide is one of the leading
causes of death among humans.

You mean dihydrogen monoxide? DHMO is not even REGULATED!

Man, if ever there was a perfect exemplar of Heinlein's concept
of the "funny-once joke," it's the "dihydrogen monoxide" gag.h

Heinlein gets a lot of credit for a whole lot of stuff he stole from
much wittier writers. Twain, for one, Bierce for another.

(Yes, I said "Man" in the context of a THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS
reference. No, I didn't even realize the potential double-meaning
until I was proof-reading the post.)

-- wds
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 08:39:17 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote, perhaps among other things:

In article e5c8154e-d280-430a-9bd9-
, says...

well all it takes is ONE major malfunction to make a big chunk of our
country uninhabitible for generations.

nothing else humans do is as dangerous, with the possible exception of
building nuclear bombs....

Sorry, but you're wrong.

We'll never have a Chernobyl here because we don't build reactors like
the Russians did with Chernobyl. This isn't a little difference either,
it's a huge freaking fundamental difference. The Russians built 11 of
these light water cooled, graphite-moderated nuclear reactors and
obviously after Chernobyl they will never build another one.

Plus, the Russian reactors didn't have the huge containment structures
found on western style reactors. The Russians focused only on
preventing accidents, not containing them.

Plus there was the human mistake factor. The Russians were running a
test with the automatic shutdown systems disabled. Not exactly a good
idea.

Jeff

How 'bout those Japanese reactors? What were *they* running?
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey

On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:41:00 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote, perhaps among other things:

In article 9b7c32f2-d63a-4ab3-a5bb-
, says...

Are nuclear power plants adequately protected?

Yes.

Amen, Mr. Meltdown.

I deleted the rest of your post which looks like a cut-and paste from a
website. Next time post a link so we can actually go to your "source",
which looked like a lot of hand waving without any real substance.

Jeff
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey