[Date Prev][Date Next]
[cdn-nucl-l] Re: [MbrExchange] RE EnLG 2002dec22 EPRI Aircraft Crash ImpactAnalyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plantís StructuralStrength
The NEI study AS REPORTED seems VERY disappointing. It doesn't seem to
address nuclear power plant safety, just whether the plane can break the
containment, or fuel pool, etc. That's a non-issue. If any analysis said it
could, you would just have to find the error in the analysis, or the idiocy
in the analyst.
But we know how to damage a reactor core, and NEI failed to (is avoiding?)
addressing it. This is enormously damaging to nuclear power, even if
advantageous to NEI corporate interests.
Write this down:
"Break redundant plant systems in aux buildings (by air or ground),
destroying penetrations. Ground-level, unfiltered, release. (In an hour?)"
Evacuate people near the plant, downwind (even just walk away) receiving
doses of no significant adverse consequence. 10-mile EPZ plans fail the
people at risk.)
Chernobyl ejected its core directly to the environment by a fission
excursion, and burned the remainder in open air for 10 days, and people were
not evacuated nor told not to eat contaminated food for days, with no lethal
doses or even acute radiation syndrome. The only significant late effect at
16 years is readily treatable thyroid cancer, with
no-negative-prognosis-taking-thyroid-hormone. Radiogenic causes are
uncertain. But LWR, with containment leakage will produce radioiodine
sources that are trivial in comparison. But just walk away, and don't drink
the milk! :-)
Do you know why we aren't dealing with the real issues of nuclear safety?
Regards, Jim Muckerheide
on 12/31/02 7:32 PM, Gene Cramer at email@example.com wrote:
> Anyone know if the EPRI study considered the fire outside the buildings? Or
> would have the fuel been so scattered it could not support a fire for long.
> REgards Gene Cramer
> EPRI Aircraft Crash Impact Analyses Demonstrate Nuclear Power Plantís
> Structural Strength
> "The analyses indicated that no parts of the engine, the fuselage or the
> wings ó nor the jet fuel ó entered the containment buildings. "
> A comment on this: the damage to the twin towers was not so much from the
> impacts, but from the enormous energy of the fuel they carried, stored fuel
> enough to provide the kinetic energy of the immense aircraft required in
> crossing a continent. Delivered inside the structures, the burning fuel
> brought them down. Altho the studies in the report you sent indicate no
> breach of structure, and thereby no delivery of fuel to burn inside
> structures, what the delivery of so much heat energy to outside of
> structures would do is not covered. Concrete disintegrates from gasoline
> burning (and possibly followed by structural steel failure), and internal
> things could heat up... does water boil inside therby.
> Altho I doubt the studies' scenarios would happen, based on the MO of the
> twin towers etc events, which did not fit terrorist type activity at all,
> as commented at the time by experts (who quickly were silenced). Ref also
> the anthrax events right after 9/11, its source.
> Regards, Jim Cline