"Vandergraaf, Chuck" wrote:
> Mr. Hammond,
> You write, "...A 757 at 500 mph could probably dive right through the
> containment building and explode the core all over the place causing the
> evacuation of millions and radioactive contamination for hundreds of miles.
> Hitting 4 of them at once would have done
> a half a trillion dollars in damage."
> A debate on energy supply would benefit more if it were based on fact and
> not on assumptions and preconceived ideas. Unless you can show convincingly
> that a 757 @ 500 mph can penetrate a concrete containment enclosure around a
> nuclear reactor, your statement is little more than scare mongering and
> that's the last thing we need, especially in this time of crisis. CANDUs
> and PWRs have concrete enclosures, not flimsy metal structures like that
> surrounding the RBMK reactors at Chornobyl. Could a 747, 757, or 767
> penetrate a concrete shell around a PWR or CANDU? I don't know but I aim to
> find out.
> Fusion reactors are no solution to our energy problems. Even after throwing
> billions of dollars into research on fusion, there is little to show for.
> Wishing for fusion reactors will not materialize them, no matter how tight
> we close our eyes and wish. In addition, contrary to popular opinion,
> fusion reactors generate lots of radioactive waste.
> If no fission reactors, then what? "Curse the darkness?"
FWIW US News & World Report had an article on security & safety problems
with power reactors in its 17 September issue - done before the 11 Sept
attacks. There are problems, though not of an apocalyptic scale.
I used to be very enthusiastic about fusion, but then I'm a theorist.
We need to get a fusion reactor that actually works before we start projecting
fusion as a solution.
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 03 2001 - 20:08:16 EDT