The China Syndrome

[whoaru99]

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

[cmb3366]

Soylent Green is.........

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

[MudPuppy176]

[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.

[BajaGringo]

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...

[70salesguy]

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.

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

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!

[outshined]

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.

[MudPuppy176]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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.

[birddog]

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

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

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by MudPuppy176

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?

[electroking]

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!)

[MudPuppy176]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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?

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.

[70salesguy]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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.

[ManFromPorlock]

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

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.

[MudPuppy176]

Originally Posted by 70salesguy

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.