>> Well written, complete, detailed, and technically accurate paper on the >> Japanese Nuclear power plants and how they weathered the earthquake. Stay tuned :-(.. One can hope. 5 claims. Choose any 3 :-). We'll see. I read that. It says. Super summary: - Things went wrong.that could reasonably have been planned for and as a=20 direct consequnce of bad planning we very very very nearly had a meltdown,= =20 or few. Staff concerned did well. _____________ Summary: - There were inexcusable failures to provide a proper line of backup=20 powering when more than a typically expected number of things went wrong=20 insequence. - If things had been done inadvance as properly as they reasonably should=20 have been then it all may have worked OK with no great drama at all. - Instead we cam very close to a meltdown (or few). It was a close call and= =20 amelt down was a distinct possibility. - A meltdown would not have been a vast public safety disaster as it would= =20 have been contained by design within tye containment vessel by this design= =20 [[stay tuned]]. - Everything is OK now - a meltdown has been averted and cannot possibly=20 occur [[stay tuned]]. - This design is safe - it can't have a Hydrogen explosion inside the=20 containment vessel as happened at Chernobyl [[stay tuned]]. - We knew that it could have a Hydrogen explosion outside the containent=20 vessel, as happened. That happens all thetime when water ghets so hot that= =20 it dissociates, no great problem, we design it this way, blowing it's outer= =20 layers away in a Htdrogen explosion is no great problem, nothing to see=20 here, these are not the ones you want, move along . - Staff involved did well. >> We should invest in Nukes here in the USA.... Safe, cost effective, >> efficient, and most of all: Non-polluting. >> >> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/ My congratulations to the operators and others involved. Nuclear fission plants may indeed prove to be cost effective if you don't factor in the true cost of waste disposal [as yetunknown and=20 unknowable][anyway it was dug out of the ground - why not just put it back= =20 there?], and if your insurance is free rather than costed at open market=20 rate (as it never ever ever ever ever has been in any market ever ever]. And, may not so prove. Don't forget to cost in the suitably sized squad of guards (3 shfts) and th= e=20 gaggle of black helicopters [hey we pay them anyway, we may as well use the= m=20 for something, right?]. It's not every indusry (or, indeed, ANY other=20 industry) that can have Uncle Sam/Pierre/Boris/Yuri/ ...give you unlimited= =20 FREE security backup, priority access to national security resources (or=20 else), and the guranteed personal attention of the national leader AND all= =20 other top international leaders any to\ime YOU have a security probem of an= y=20 magnitude. Nuclear fission love is when you know you will NEVER hear someone saty "I'm= =20 sorry ma'am/sir, you've just got WAY too many terroriststhere, it would so= =20 blow our protection budgetto get involved, you're just going to have to tak= e=20 the loss of Plutonium on the chin, talk to your insurers on Monday, have a= =20 nice day". Is it fair that such costs need to beconsidered to establish real value for= =20 money? Of course not! But it's reality. Or should be.. ______ Safe for interesting value of safe. Non polluting for interesting values of Cesium (but the hald life is short= =20 so who cares if there is abit of radiation released?. Efficient has no obvious meaning in that context. Relative to what? Note thatdespite the apparently vast deposits available believed stocks of= =20 Uranium are long term limited. If we are to use fission power long term the= n=20 some sort of breederreator is mandatory Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .