[ RadSafe ] Forwarded to the list: Indian Point License extension.

Jeff Terry terryj at iit.edu
Fri Dec 30 11:08:22 CST 2011

You have to design systems so that you can react and deal with an unanticipated events. 

You cannot design in protection from even all anticipated events. For example, we know that at some point a large body from space will hit the earth, we know that Yellowstone will erupt again. These are events so large in impact that they protection from these events cannot be designed in. 

You either accept the risk in power generation or you do not. 


On Sep 30, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Steven Dapra wrote:

> Dec. 30
>        "every possibility"?
>        Given the limitless imaginations and the lurid fantasies of the anti-nukers I suspect this could become an exquisitely long list.
>        Have you examined all the possibilities of the dangers that go along with driving your car?  Elephant gets loose from the circus, wanders across the road while you're rushing to the reactor in an emergency response.  You broadside the elephant, killing it; and a band of crazed PETA members wielding pitchforks and staves descends on you. . . .
> Steven Dapra
> At 10:19 AM 12/30/2011, you wrote:
>> It's what you don't think about that gets you.  While Indian Point won't
>> have a 130 m  (I'm trying to go metric.) tsunami, I'm not confident that
>> there's some other unanalyzed accident sequence that will cause major
>> problems.  The power reactor major incidents and near misses, e.g., Browns
>> Ferry fire, TMI, Davis Besse vessel failure, etc.) were all unanticipated.
>> How can we be sure that we've looked at every possibility?  A major release
>> from IP would be a disaster for millions of people.  I agree, it's not
>> funny.
>> Bill Lipton
>> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
>> On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 10:40 PM, Steven Dapra <sjd at swcp.com> wrote:
>> > Dec. 30
>> >
>> >        I realize it's not funny.  It seemed to me you were invoking the
>> > China syndrome in jest, and I responded in kind.
>> >
>> >        A 400 foot tsunami does not fall within the realm of "opinion."  A
>> > claim like this bespeaks someone who is utterly out of touch with the
>> > rational world.
>> >
>> > Steven Dapra
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > At 10:52 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote:
>> >
>> >> Steven et al,
>> >> It's really not funny. I think the majority of the public actually
>> >> believe the
>> >> horror scenario of a "China syndrome" is actually possible.
>> >> Unfortunately, so do
>> >> many Washington bureaucrats. Some other "possibilities" that have actually
>> >> received serious consideration in siting studies include, falling
>> >> airplanes,
>> >> meteor impact, and people actually spending their entire life living at
>> >> the site
>> >> boundry at the center of any and all downwind release trajectories. My
>> >> favorite
>> >> occured at the siting hearings for the San Onofre Power Plant. According
>> >> to one
>> >> witness, his seismic analysis indicated that the plant could  be hit by a
>> >> 400
>> >> foot high Tsunami. Such an occurence would make the Fukushima event seem
>> >> trivial
>> >> in comparison. Of course, in such an event, everyone living between Los
>> >> Angelas
>> >> and the Mexican border would likely drown to death, buy the really serious
>> >> consequence might be the release of some I-131, deadly Plutonium, and
>> >> maybe even
>> >> the terrible Depleted Uranium. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, no
>> >> matter
>> >> how absurd, but what law says that it must be taken seriously.
> [edit]
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu

More information about the RadSafe mailing list