[ RadSafe ] Forwarded to the list: Indian PointLicenseextension.

Fri Dec 30 13:04:56 CST 2011

A book well worth reading in its own right, "Lucifer's Hammer"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer%27s_Hammer), discusses the effect
of one of those "when, not if" mega-disasters; Earth being hit by a
comet.  The authors included a nuclear power plant in the San Joaquin
Valley, which fairs much better than the civilization around it (OK,
Niven and Pournelle played with reality a little to have it survive, but
only a little).  The book won a Hugo Award, and Walter Alvarez (one of
the people who figured out what put paid to the dinosaurs) described it
as the best description of a comet impact that he ever read.  

While I don't expect nuclear power plants to actually survive "the big
one", I don't expect any other parts of the power system to do so,
either.  As a great Canadian philosopher once said, "Sometimes you're
hosed, ay?"

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 10:27 AM
To: franz.schoenhofer at chello.at
Cc: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Forwarded to the list: Indian
PointLicenseextension.

I believe that was my point. We accept risks by doing anything. Either
we do the best we can do given rational constraints or we don't. I don't
think that it is surprising at all that humanity has survived until now.
Humans used to accept reasonable risk to ensure the betterment of the
species. Hunting, mining, etc. were dangerous but were done. 

It is now that the species had become so risk averse that I fear for its
survival. 

Maybe I went overboard with my examples. Let me give a more common
example, in the US we do not protect underground lines from backhoes.
People routinely did in to these causing gas leaks, etc. 

You design to accommodate failure whatever its cause, anticipated or
not. 

Jeff

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 30, 2011, at 12:03 PM, franz.schoenhofer at chello.at wrote:

> Jeff,
> 
> The risks you describe are not at all restricted to nuclear power.
Ever heard of landslides, inundations, tornados? You as an American
citizen should know much better than me! 
> 
> So what? The human race is subject since millions of years to all kind
of "environmental" impact and especially disasters. Surprisingly it
survived until now.....
> 
> 
> ---- Jeff Terry <terryj at iit.edu> schrieb:
>> 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. 
>> 
>> Jeff
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> --
> Franz Schoenhofer, PhD, MinRat
> Habicherg. 31/7
> A-1160 Vienna
> Austria
> mobile: ++43 699 1706 1227
> 
_______________________________________________
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