On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 01:03:36PM -0700, William Chops Westfield wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Mark Rages wrote: > > > > type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=12613851> > > > > This makes me feel better about my mistakes. > > And a "safety shutoff" that requires 2 weeks of repair after it's used? > I'm impressed, perhaps. Either that, or I feel better about some of the > more questionable design decisions I've made :-) My guess is that the safety shutoff turns everything off, immediately. I've heard a lot of those plants have been upgraded so many times that often no-one really knows how to shut them down completely, it's never been done as they are 24/7/365 operations. I'm sure product starts to cool in the lines and to start again all that stuff's gotta be cleaned out manually. Heck, there is a russian nuclear sub whos name I'm forgetting which was cooled via liquid lead. In the latter part of their lifetime they were run continuously because the facilitis to restart a solidified core via injection of high temperature steam had been broken for years. Each time a sub had to unavoidable shutdown, they'd remove the core and replace it with a spare! -- pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist