> >> ^ 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.


But that's not what caused the accident.  It didn't help after the fact, but
that's irrelevent.  Had the operators known what they were doing, and not
tried to hurry things, Chernobyl would be still running.

Like it or not, if peak oil is true, then an alternate energy source is
needed.  Nuclear seems to be the only thing capable of filling the gap in
the shortest time.

It may take 50-100 years to put an alternate in place, especially since
there's no 'front runner' in any of the proposed replacements.

This means nuclear should be be a temporary measure, and we all know how
long temporary solutions last...

Tony

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