Just saw it and loved it....

Most of the rest of my class thought it was BORING......:scratch2:

Just saw it and loved it....

Most of the rest of my class thought it was BORING......:scratch2:

yeah... boring :yes:
sorry, David
:D

yeah... boring :yes:
sorry, David
:D

That's perfectly OK.

:smlove:

It's not for everyone...

Just saw it and loved it....

Most of the rest of my class thought it was BORING......:scratch2:

Unless it's like watching a video game, it's not a movie anymore. As far as I am concerned this is brainless. The lost people born in the digital age. :sigh:

Just saw it and loved it....

Most of the rest of my class thought it was BORING......:scratch2:

Fair entertainment, but as someone that worked in the Nuclear Power Industry for 14 years and started up numerous plants, terribly inaccurate,

How inaccurate? Consider as accurate as Airplane is about the airline industry!

Fair entertainment, but as someone that worked in the Nuclear Power Industry for 14 years and started up numerous plants, terribly inaccurate,

How inaccurate? Consider as accurate as Airplane is about the airline industry!

I did not think that it was accurate, either......but I still liked it.

BTW, the power plant interior (IE the pump) looked as if it was made of Styrofoam...

The interior and layout of the control room was pretty accurate.

The biggest joke of the whole thing was when they were going through all the prints trying to figure out how to shutdown the reactor from outside the control room.............................................. ................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:screwy:

The interior and layout of the control room was pretty accurate.

The biggest joke of the whole thing was when they were going through all the prints trying to figure out how to shutdown the reactor from outside the control room.............................................. ................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:screwy:

I was laughin to myself during that part......I just thought that it was funny that they would use THAT gauge of wire to short out a gnerator for a nuclear plant......and an o-scope that didn't change readouts.....:D

I thought you would enjoy the little Ludacris joke. :D

How inaccurate? Consider as accurate as Airplane is about the airline industry!

Surely you aren't saying that Airplane is not factual?

I thought you would enjoy the little Ludacris joke. :D

I did. :yes: :D

Surely you aren't saying that Airplane is not factual?

Shirley not. You don't mind if I call you Shirley, do you Victor? :D

Try "The Andromeda Strain" or "Soylent Green" :naughty:

It put a damper on nuclear proliferation.

It put a damper on nuclear proliferation.


I feel about that statement about like the Turks feel about Midnight Express!

"It KILLED tourism", they always tell me at work.

vinyldavid, check out "Soylent Green". Will blow your mind.

And don't any of you old-timers do Sir Charleton's final statement at the end!


Don't wanna ruin it for ol' david!:yuck:

It put a damper on nuclear proliferation.

The term "nuclear proliferation" generally refers to nuclear weapons, their development, research and deployment, not peaceful use for power production.

Although it is debatable whether or not the movie had any effect on the slowdown and eventual stop of the construction and operation of nuclear power production facilities, it certainly was a reflection of an attitude held by a certain group of people who opposed nuclear power as a concept.

Looking back all these many years, what did they accomplish?

They DID accomplish the eventual halt of several plants in the planning stage and several more in the early phases of construction. All that they hoped to accomplish through their protest and spread of disinformation with their campaign of fear and ignorance did not directly stop the industry. However, the greatly increased burden of onerous regulations shifted the economics of commercial power production to a point where at the time, the long term picture did not justify the expense.

As a result of this, we have built untold numbers of fossil plants which carry a much higher burden to the environment as well as left ourselves dangerously short of "rolling reserve", that amount of additional electrical production capacity that is available when needed for peak periods of use. This peak capacity has been ever increasingly provided by CT units, combustion turbines which are actually specially designed jet engines to run generators for short periods of high demand.

In the event that the electric car becomes viable for large numbers of people, where is this power going to come from? A major shift to electric vehicles will create a huge demand for electric power to charge these vehicles,

Fortunately, several domestic utilities have began the long and arduous process to attempt to build new commercial nuclear power facilities. Currently, France produces over 80% of electricity via nuclear power.

In a world with an ever increasing demand for energy, I hope that the US is successful in building new commercial nuclear power facilities, unless many of you folks have amplifiers that run on solar power! (I know that we have at least one AKer that has raised the question).

The term "nuclear proliferation" generally refers to nuclear weapons, their development, research and deployment, not peaceful use for power production.

.

True but the distinction is often blurred: folks who want to develop nuclear weapons usually claim that that they are just want to build a station or two for peaceful purpose. After the film nobody wanted a nuclear facility in their backyard.

And don't any of you old-timers do Sir Charleton's final statement at the end!

The "You maniacs....you blew it all up!" one?

:D

Try "The Andromeda Strain" or "Soylent Green" :naughty:

Or "A Clockwork Orange" if you've not already seen it.

Or "A Clockwork Orange" if you've not already seen it.

I have not seen any of those 3.........Only thing I kow about any of them is that Michael Crichton wrote the book The Andromeda Strain was based off of, and there is a Transcriptors TT in A clockwork Orange.

The "You maniacs....you blew it all up!" one?

:D

THAT was the Planet of the apes........... we were talking about Soylent Green.....

True but the distinction is often blurred: folks who want to develop nuclear weapons usually claim that that they are just want to build a station or two for peaceful purpose. After the film nobody wanted a nuclear facility in their backyard.

After I read the book Lucifer's Hammer I WANTED to live NEXT to a Nuclear Power Plant.

Of course a lot of the consulting jobs I worked in the past, few wanted to take because they somehow involved radiation. My cumulative lifetime exposure is STILL zero, and I DO own an operative Geiger Counter. So the words that scare the crap out of people don't bother me in the least bit.

It put a damper on nuclear proliferation.

I think Three Mile Island, which melted down two weeks after the movie was released may have had more to do with it. :D

The events at TMI certainly were a factor.

The irony is that the TMI proved that the the "safety in depth" design worked. In spite of an equipment failure AND errors in judgement by operations personnel, no one was hurt and no significant release of radiation occurred.

As far as public opinion was concerned, the events at Chernobyl were a factor as well. Of course, most people had no sense of understanding that we don't have reactors in the US designed to produce both power and weapons grade plutonium.

Another movie that did its part to damage the nuclear industry was Silkwood.

Speaking of the NIMBY philosophy (not in my back yard), I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant as a neighbor than a fossil fuel plant. Of course, Senator Kennedy has stood in the way of wind power mills being placed near Nantucket Sound!

Bringing this back closer to the original intent of this thread, movies definitely can have an effect on public opinion when the subject has any controversy attached to it. Thank goodness we have Oliver Stone to tell us how and why JFK was actually killed! :rolleyes:

David, some excellent movies were suggested by the others (Although "Clockwork Orange" may be a bit much for your tender young mind. You will never be able to listen to classical music again with conjuring up images from the film) and I have one to ad to the mix.

Try to find a copy of "RollerBall", the original version, not the crappy remake from a few years ago. Great statement of social/corporate reality in a future world, with the violent sport of "RollerBall" as the vehicle that drives the film.

Another fantastic flik is "Westworld" with Yul Brenner as a malfunctioning robot gunslinger in a futuristic adult theme park, a must see in my book, along with the other films mentioned!

"Death Race 2000" is another flik about a violent future sport, about a televised coast to coast race where points are earned for running down pedestrians, and eliminating other drivers from the race. The underground resistance is trying to sabotage the race, and underneath the bad acting, hoky costumes, and strange cars, there is some poignant social commentary that make this a film worth seeing. Sylvester Stallone as "Machine Gun Joe Viterbo" is worth the price of admission alone, just so you can see how little his acting has improved since 1975!

"A Clockwork Orange": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/

"RollerBall": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/

"Westworld": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/

"Death Race 2000": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072856/

David, some excellent movies were suggested by the others (Although "Clockwork Orange" may be a bit much for your tender young mind. You will never be able to listen to classical music again with conjuring up images from the film) and I have one to ad to the mix.

Try to find a copy of "RollerBall", the original version, not the crappy remake from a few years ago. Great statement of social/corporate reality in a future world, with the violent sport of "RollerBall" as the vehicle that drives the film.

Another fantastic flik is "Westworld" with Yul Brenner as a malfunctioning robot gunslinger in a futuristic adult theme park, a must see in my book, along with the other films mentioned!

"Death Race 2000" is another flik about a violent future sport, about a televised coast to coast race where points are earned for running down pedestrians, and eliminating other drivers from the race. The underground resistance is trying to sabotage the race, and underneath the bad acting, hoky costumes, and strange cars, there is some poignant social commentary that make this a film worth seeing. Sylvester Stallone as "Machine Gun Joe Viterbo" is worth the price of admission alone, just so you can see how little his acting has improved since 1975!

"A Clockwork Orange": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066921/

"RollerBall": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073631/

"Westworld": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070909/

"Death Race 2000": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072856/

I will check these out as son as I can (-:

Thanks for the recommendations. I love movies. It's theonly time my TV ever gets turned on.

oliver stone....laffing if he did a documentary about lava i would no longer believe in volcanos

Rollerball was a great movie.

I was working at Detroit Edison's Fermi II plant when the movie came out and it helped me stay working for several more years as they triple checked everything....

I used to haul spent fuel for a living back in the 80's. Had to deal with uninformed protesters all the time. They didn't realize my glow in the dark hands on my watch were emitting more radiation than the load I was transporting. The containers were designed to take a direct hit from a train and survive intact.

http://darkstar.org.uk/dark-star.jpg

if you like a bit trashy SF movies, don't forget "Dark Star" by Carpenter of 1974........
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/


Dialog:

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bombe 20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bombe 20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bombe 20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bombe 20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bombe 20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bombe 20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!
Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.
Bombe 20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bombe 20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bombe 20: Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bombe 20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bombe 20: To explode, of course.
Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?
Bombe 20: That is correct.
Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?
Bombe 20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bombe 20: Yes...well...
Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.
Bombe 20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.
Bombe 20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.
Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.
Bombe 20: Hmmmm....
Doolittle: So, if you detonate...
Bombe 20: In nine seconds....
Doolittle: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.
Bombe 20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bombe 20: I must think on this further.

Toccata and Fugue in D minor fit just right in Rollerball.

Soylent Green is.........:nono:

Excellent movie, give it a watch when you get a chance.

[QUOTE=70salesguy;1928115]
Of course, most people had no sense of understanding that we don't have reactors in the US designed to produce both power and weapons grade plutonium.

Explain to me how any power plant produces weapons grade plutonium, please.

I saw Soylent Green in Argentina back in 1973 if memory serves me. One of those movies on my list I would like to see again...

Funny how many of us here do/have worked around Nuclear Power Generation. I did as well and because I saw the writing on the wall, got out and went onto other things. People are much more easily swayed with symbols and images that touch their deepest fears than with arguments based in fact and reality.

I witnessed the change in public opinion with most buying into the anti-nuke rhetoric. Although a campaign was made to "enlighten" the public by the nuclear energy, their reaction reminded me of monkeys covering their ears proclaiming, "Stop Making Sense!"

The reality is that the movie Airplane was much closer to reality than the movie you watched David. Obviously someone still has an agenda...

The Soviet built RBMK units produce electricity and plutonium. The units at Chernobyl were (are) RBMKs and are water cooled graphite rod moderated slow neutron reactors. The US reactors that were used to produce plutonium for weapons are also graphite rod moderated slow neutron reactors, but in the US we do not attempt to produce electricity with these reactors.

Most commercial power reactors in the US are light water cooled and moderated and as a result are far less dangerous to operate.

The Soviet RBMKs were designed to be refueled on line.

Funny how many of us here do/have worked around Nuclear Power Generation. I did as well and because I saw the writing on the wall, got out and went onto other things. People are much more easily swayed with symbols and images that touch their deepest fears than with arguments based in fact and reality.

13 years for me.

After it became very obvious that there would be no new plants built and I worked for a few months on one of the last 2 commercial nukes to be started up, I as well decided to get into another industry.

I picked one that would constantly be expanding as long as the population was growing, especially in the NC/SC area!

Certain film makers have an agenda, political or otherwise, and make films that are utterly inaccurate and even border on paranoia. Those who don't bother to check the facts will be swayed by the pap.

I didn't freak out over "The China Syndrome" I knew it was all phony, but I also thought it was an entertaining film. A classic example of nuclear energy paranoia, however misguided it is.

The Soviet built RBMK units produce electricity and plutonium. The units at Chernobyl were (are) RBMKs and are water cooled graphite rod moderated slow neutron reactors. The US reactors that were used to produce plutonium for weapons are also graphite rod moderated slow neutron reactors, but in the US we do not attempt to produce electricity with these reactors.

Most commercial power reactors in the US are light water cooled and moderated and as a result are far less dangerous to operate.

The Soviet RBMKs were designed to be refueled on line.

Partially correct, mostly incomplete. ALL reactors produce plutonium (from uranium). None produce "weapons grade" plutonium. It takes a great deal of refining to extract pure plutonium from "spent" fuel. US commercial power reactors get around half their power output from plutonium at the end of a fuel cycle. Using graphite versus water as a moderator doesn't make RBMK's unsafe. The poor design (positive void coefficient) certainly does. Canadian CANDU's are also refueled online, another non safety issue.

Hey David, another great 70's flik I forgot to mention.... "Network"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Partially correct, mostly incomplete. ALL reactors produce plutonium (from uranium). None produce "weapons grade" plutonium. It takes a great deal of refining to extract pure plutonium from "spent" fuel. US commercial power reactors get around half their power output from plutonium at the end of a fuel cycle. Using graphite versus water as a moderator doesn't make RBMK's unsafe. The poor design (positive void coefficient) certainly does. Canadian CANDU's are also refueled online, another non safety issue.

And other than the small aspects of technical details about void coeffiecient and degree of enrichment which is probably causing most other peoples eyes to glaze over, what exactly is your point?

Do you disagree that most people had no idea of how different U.S. Commercial Power Reactors are from the Sovet RBMKs at Chernobyl?

Or is there another agenda here? :scratch2:

It was stated earlier in this thread that we were lucky we had a guy
like Oliver Stone to tell us the truth about JFK's assassination.

In Stone's movie, there is the idea that a newspaper was published in
Australia, including coverage of the late president, that hit the newsstands
so soon after the events that it must have been prepared in advance.

Is this true, or is this just Oliver Stone's agenda at work?

Nearly 45 years after the facts, can this simple question be answered
with any kind of reliability?

(Moderator, this is not politics, this is history!)

And other than the small aspects of technical details about void coeffiecient and degree of enrichment which is probably causing most other peoples eyes to glaze over, what exactly is your point?

Do you disagree that most people had no idea of how different U.S. Commercial Power Reactors are from the Sovet RBMKs at Chernobyl?

Or is there another agenda here? :scratch2:

These are not small aspects by any means. You stated their reactors produce weapons grade plutonium which is absolutely false. There are many different reactor designs throughout the world, none I'm aware of that are inherently as unsafe as RBMK's due to their design. No agenda, simply facts. Using graphite as a moderator is not unsafe, refueling online is not unsafe and any US commercial power reactor's "spent" fuel can be used to make a bomb.

Of course, most people had no sense of understanding that we don't have reactors in the US designed to produce both power and weapons grade plutonium.

This is the original quote.

Do you disagree with the point that in the U.S. we DO NOT attempt to produce materials to be used in weapons AND electricity in the same reactor, such as the Soviet RBMK units were.

Do you disagree with this very basic point, or do you just enjoy wallowing in the technical details like "void coefficient" and the details of any further enrichment that may be required to produce "weapons grade" materials?

Note to moderator(s) : This is a technical discussion. I beg your indulgence as long as all discussion is moderate.

I witnessed the change in public opinion with most buying into the anti-nuke rhetoric. Although a campaign was made to "enlighten" the public by the nuclear energy, their reaction reminded me of monkeys covering their ears proclaiming, "Stop Making Sense!"

A point I've always found amusing - if that's the word - is that almost exactly one year after TMI killed no one, a North Sea oil platform collapse killed 123 people. Ah, the dangers of nuclear power.

This is the original quote.

Do you disagree with the point that in the U.S. we DO NOT attempt to produce materials to be used in weapons AND electricity in the same reactor, such as the Soviet RBMK units were.

Do you disagree with this very basic point, or do you just enjoy wallowing in the technical details like "void coefficient" and the details of any further enrichment that may be required to produce "weapons grade" materials?

Note to moderator(s) : This is a technical discussion. I beg your indulgence as long as all discussion is moderate.

Wow, touchy aren't we? I simply disagree with your quoted statement that ANY reactor produces weapons grade plutonium (with or without electrical output). As to the wallowing in "technical details" I was merely responding to your technical inaccuracies. You incorrectly implied graphite moderation and on-line refueling are dangerous as well. Nuclear power scares most people, I prefer an honest and accurate portrayal even though I am no longer in the field.

The Moderators prefer that posts remain on topic, which is a MOVIE, not the pros & cons of nuclear power generation, nor the technical merits of diverse design techologies for same.

THAT was the Planet of the apes........... we were talking about Soylent Green.....

Really, no foolin'? I was certain there were chariots, pyramids, Yul Brynner, and perhaps albino mutants in the Heston flick attributed to that quote......

Just saw it and loved it....

Most of the rest of my class thought it was BORING......:scratch2:

The ones who were bored, was there discussion afterwards and they related why they felt that way?

The ones who were bored, was there discussion afterwards and they related why they felt that way?

Ummm.....the ones that liked it discussed the errors in it (generator looked fake, but they had a REAL nagra...).....

Everyone did not like it because they thought it had no message and the topic was boring....

ya gotta remember it's TEENAGERS here...:tears: How many teenagers that you know would find a dated movie about nuclear reactors that had almost no violence or sex interesting?

The Moderators prefer that posts remain on topic, which is a MOVIE, not the pros & cons of nuclear power generation, nor the technical merits of diverse design techologies for same.

I will take your suggestion as a good idea and will post no further in this post concerning the issue. My point was simply that most people in the US equate our Commercial Nuclear Power Plants with the Chernobyl units, and I believe that Mudpuppy176 will agree that the general public is grossly under-educated about the radical difference between the two.

Again here we see a good example of how most AKers can disagree without being disagreeable. Thank you Mudpuppy176 for a good discussion.

With best regards, 70salesguy :)

One of the reasons why the French and Canadians have been so successful with nuclear power is the common design each uses. This makes for evolution of the design and controlled changes. They also get cheaper over time. Despite the name "Ontario Hydro" with the addition of the Bruce Penninsula plant they probably produce more power with nuclear than hydro.

Ummm.....the ones that liked it discussed the errors in it (generator looked fake, but they had a REAL nagra...).....

Everyone did not like it because they thought it had no message and the topic was boring....

ya gotta remember it's TEENAGERS here...:tears: How many teenagers that you know would find a dated movie about nuclear reactors that had almost no violence or sex interesting?

I may just have to watch it again. I saw it on release, my senior year in HS, and the reason I haven't watched it since was that my impression was that it was preachy. I don't recall being bored though. Oh, and IBTL!

Comanche Peak Station in TX was still under construction when the movie was released (it was under construction FOREVER, for that matter). The Control Room was redesigned to remove a large panoramic viewing window similar to the one in that movie where people could look down on the room from outside. How do I know this? I as-built the redesigned structure that replaced it.

Comanche Peak Station in TX was still under construction when the movie was released (it was under construction FOREVER, for that matter). The Control Room was redesigned to remove a large panoramic viewing window similar to the one in that movie where people could look down on the room from outside. How do I know this? I as-built the redesigned structure that replaced it.

Wow so many Akers were associated with Mr. Nuclear!

Ummm.....the ones that liked it discussed the errors in it (generator looked fake, but they had a REAL nagra...).....

Everyone did not like it because they thought it had no message and the topic was boring....

ya gotta remember it's TEENAGERS here...:tears: How many teenagers that you know would find a dated movie about nuclear reactors that had almost no violence or sex interesting?

I highly recommend "Three Day's Of The Condor", and "Network". Also check out Redford's, "The Candidate". All should be seen in every high school.
Okay, I know, I am off topic. :smoke:

I don't recall if it has been mentioned, but Fail Safe would be highly recommended viewing from me. :yes:

The Moderators prefer that posts remain on topic, which is a MOVIE, not the pros & cons of nuclear power generation, nor the technical merits of diverse design techologies for same.

Yeah, but the movie, its plot, the dialog, the actors' personal views that shaped their characterizations of the roles they played --the whole movie package --was advocacy for a certain view of the nuclear energy industry at that time. It is impossible to intelligently discuss China Syndrome without commenting on its view of the technology that formed the basis for the movie's message.

I would imagine that most movies that deal with very technical subjects have the same shortcomings that are most easily spotted by people who are in that field.

"Hollywood" and "reality" are often different things.

Yeah, but the movie, its plot, the dialog, the actors' personal views that shaped their characterizations of the roles they played --the whole movie package --was advocacy for a certain view of the nuclear energy industry at that time. It is impossible to intelligently discuss China Syndrome without commenting on its view of the technology that formed the basis for the movie's message.

Then the further suggestion is to go discuss something else.

Well, back to the movie....

I saw it in the theater when it originally came out, and I was less nuclear educated than I am now (or I would have been snickering a LOT more), and while everybody seemed agahst at the ending, my take was that while the greedy bean counters had pushed the equipment beyond any reasonable limits, the engineers that designed it and the hardhats that had put it together had won out since the mistreated equipment had done what was needed, and it was now time to roast the bean counters on a slowly rotating spit over a low fire.

For a REALLY scary real-life account of a reactor accident in 1961, google sl-1 idaho. It was over in milliseconds....

And as for the initial China syndrome premise, there are always solutions, and to understand how narrow a range of conditions are necessary to get it to happen and STAY happening (melt, not vaporize and disperse) gets me :gigglemad: almost as steamed as their little horror story....

I received my initial reactor training at Bettis Labs - Naval Reactors in Idaho, not far from the SL1 site. We were given a tour of the facility and as I recall, it happened during reactor maintenance, not operations. For reasons not known (or I can't remember) they pulled a rod (they were not motorized) and took the reactor super-critical.

As I recall, one of the maintenance workers was impaled by the rod itself...

I highly recommend "Three Day's Of The Condor", and "Network". Also check out Redford's, "The Candidate". All should be seen in every high school.
Okay, I know, I am off topic. :smoke:

What about "Catch 22"?

What about "Catch 22"?

Already own it.

What about "Catch 22"?

All three of the movies I mentioned were made over 30 years ago. And they are right on with what is going on in the world today!!! Catch 22 is a good movie, but it doesn't resonate like the others.

I received my initial reactor training at Bettis Labs - Naval Reactors in Idaho, not far from the SL1 site. We were given a tour of the facility and as I recall, it happened during reactor maintenance, not operations. For reasons not known (or I can't remember) they pulled a rod (they were not motorized) and took the reactor super-critical.

As I recall, one of the maintenance workers was impaled by the rod itself...

One was impaled, I believe 3 died. The one impaled was launched into the ceiling by the control rod where his body was found. We saw the training video when I went through operator licensing. No one knew why he pulled the rod up, but he had to do it quickly to get the steam generation required to eject the control rod. I saw the video around 1983, kinda foggy by now....

One was impaled, I believe 3 died. The one impaled was launched into the ceiling by the control rod where his body was found. We saw the training video when I went through operator licensing. No one knew why he pulled the rod up, but he had to do it quickly to get the steam generation required to eject the control rod. I saw the video around 1983, kinda foggy by now....

My training took place in 1976, so you can imagine how foggy my memory is. There are some pretty cool sites out there in the Idaho desert. Because of my security clearance and bilingual ability, I was asked to accompany a tour from Spain to visit a few of the areas that were normally off-limits, including the spent fuel handling facility and others.

The one I found most interesting was a test site where they were setting up to see if a water cooled thermal fuel core would simply go sub-critical and shutdown if the all water were rapidly drained, simulating a major loss of coolant accident. The theory was that there would be some minor meltdown but that overall the core would remain intact, going against the popular "China Syndrome" scare.

I listened to the project lead explain the theory and it sounded feasible. Unfortunately the actual testing was scheduled to begin after my training at Idaho.

I suppose it wasn't something that would make the news. I still am curious as to what happened...

The one I found most interesting was a test site where they were setting up to see if a water cooled thermal fuel core would simply go sub-critical and shutdown if the all water were rapidly drained, simulating a major loss of coolant accident. The theory was that there would be some minor meltdown but that overall the core would remain intact, going against the popular "China Syndrome" scare.

I listened to the project lead explain the theory and it sounded feasible. Unfortunately the actual testing was scheduled to begin after my training at Idaho.

I suppose it wasn't something that would make the news. I still am curious as to what happened...

I'm sure it would go sub-critical without moderation, let alone doppler's effects. Fast fission alone wouldn't yield a Keffective over 1. The decay heat however would pose problems....
We've already been warned by moderators that this thread is about a nuclear power movie, and not about nuclear power. We should discuss cardboard and styrofoam to keep the thread on track.

Move along.