Re: Why is it...., Part 2

[Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>]

I agree.  I recently had the pleasure of reviewing a

report by Dr. Helmut Hirsch, one of Greenpeace's

"nuclear experts."



His report stated that a meltdown would (not "could"

or "may", but "would" - meaning 100% probability)

occur within an hour of a plane striking a nuclear

plant.  What was so fascinating was that I found

absolutely no engineering justification to support any

of the claims made.  The entire report was comprised

of anectdotal evidence and speculation.



For exmaple, in the section entitled, "Stresses and

Strains" I found no talk about the incidence angle of

the plane, disatnce between engines, etc and how that

affects the damage done to the structure.  In fact,

there was no discussion on the maximum forces imparted

to the containment and how that compared to the

maximum design loading of the structure.  In short, I

found absolutely no discussion of stresses or strains

in the entire section.  One can only assume that such

a discussion plays an integral role in the possibility

of such a conclusion.



Lastly, there was no discussion of why a meltdown

would occur within an hour.  I found no discussion of

thermal hydraulic or transient analysis in the event

of a containment breach.  As a side note, the WTC

office was much less dense and offered much less

resistance to the planes that unfortunately struck it

- yet the planes did not exit the other side of the

building; however, in the event of a similar attack on

a containment structure, the assumption was made that

the multilayerd rebar-reinforced concrete and 3/4"

steel-lined structure would barely impede the path of

the airplane.



The point I want to make is that anti-nuclear

"experts" need not present any real facts or back

their statements with engineering justification - they

need only present a sceanrio that a layperson could

envision happening and then discuss the possible

effects of that hypothetical situation.  Good

engineering practices dictates that one's conclusions

are only as good as the quality of the assumptions. 

GI=GO.



Regards,

Tim Steadham, P.E.





> I see this happen all the time.  One problem is that

> the anti-nuke "experts"

> are rarely "experts" in the sense that they don't

> actually have scientific

> degrees, so they needn't be bothered by facts and

> statistics.

> 

> A second problem is that these issues are brought to

> the media by the

> anti-nukes, who sensationalize their issues to get

> the coverage.  This

> appeals to the media, who then goes out to find a

> "pro-nuke," who doesn't

> particularly want TV coverage, who does actually

> care about facts and

> statistics, and who can't, due to his own integrity,

> bring himself to say

> things like, "nukes are 100% safe!" to balance the

> other side's contention

> that brimstone and hellfire are only a hair's

> breadth away from anyone within

> 100s of miles of a nuclear plant.

> 

> It will never be a balanced debate under these

> circumstances, because one

> side throws facts to the wind and relies on

> hyperbole to get media attention,

> and the other side just has boring facts that don't

> play well on TV.

> 

> Barbara L. Hamrick



__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 

http://auctions.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/