Tony Smith wrote:

>> ^ Cernobal was not a nuclear accident .... it was a weapons
>> accident AGSC ^
> Weapons accident?  Got a reference for that?  I suppose one could always
> blow up the reactor to stop an invader.  A bit extreme, but it might work.
> Maybe they'd been watching 'Blazing Saddles' too often.

Besides generating electric power, Chernobyl's RBMK was producing plutonium 
for weapons use. As a result, critical safety features like a containment 
building were omitted.

>From Wikipedia:

"[...] RBMK reactors were designed to allow fuel rods to be changed without 
shutting down, both for refueling and for plutonium production (for nuclear 
weapons). This required large cranes above the core. As RBMK reactor is very 
tall (about 70 metres), the cost and difficulty of building a heavy 
containment structure prevented building of additional emergency containment 
structure for pipes on top of the reactor. Unfortunately, in the Chernobyl 
accident, the pressure rose to levels high enough to blow the top off of the 
reactor, breaking open these pipes in the process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK

Also, regarding Russell's doubts that a disaster of the same kind may happen 
again:

"After the Chernobyl disaster, all RBMKs in operation underwent significant 
changes, lowering their void coefficients to +0.7 b. This new number 
precludes the possibility of a low-coolant meltdown."

I'm not saying a nuclear accident can't happen again, I'm just pointing out 
that the *same kind* of accident where the high-pressure steam blew the top 
off of the reactor, is theoretically no longer possible.

Best regards,

Vitaliy 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist