Another black eye for GA

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
we're dealing with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation.

_relaxed_ , how?

I'd like to know your definition of "deregulation". Remember: The roughly
same poeple that regulate the nuclear industry also regulate avaition
safety. (shudder!!!)



In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

I'd heard something along that line -- do you have a reference with more
detail?


The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I know howthey're built...and you're right -- most of it is meaningless
scare tactics.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

"Bruce Bockius" wrote in message
om...
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

Would you elaborate on that (the nuclear part)?

Recently, Bruce Bockius posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
have been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Recently, Bruce Bockius posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
have been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention.

Sorry...that's not true. You're confusing a engineer with a scientist (and
one versed in nuclear physics at that).


So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
the investigators.

Hearsay doesn't not enhance your "position as an engineer".

So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

That's what we're trying to find out, but your claim of credibility as a
engineer is rather misstated.

Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Recently, Bruce Bockius posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
have been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers
posed by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that
get upset when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the
exact same about something they don't know about.

I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my
background in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of
attention.

Sorry...that's not true. You're confusing a engineer with a scientist
(and one versed in nuclear physics at that).

Where is the confusion? The problem with the reactor lid was a
*mechanical* one, within the realm of strength of materials and structural
integrity. Guess what? That's what engineers study. So, if you are under
the impression that this was *not* a scenario worthy of attention, then
offer some insights as to why, and why the proposed fixes were rejected,
keeping this plant closed for a couple of years?

So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in
Northern Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly
relieved to know how the release of radioactive steam and the
resultant inability to cool the reactor is not a problem. Both of
these consequences have been stated by the investigators.

Hearsay doesn't not enhance your "position as an engineer".

So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

That's what we're trying to find out, but your claim of credibility
as a engineer is rather misstated.

To begin with, I'm not claiming credibility on the basis of my background
in engineering. I think it helps me to understand the nature of the
problem. Beyond that, people can draw their own conclusions.

What puzzles me about your response is that you're turning it into some
kind of personal matter, rather than dealing with the facts. DON'T take my
word for it. But, for some reason, you don't even go so far as to Google
on "Davis-Besse" to find out for yourself what the circumstances are. It's
not a new situation, and much has been written about it. So, to put an end
to this, here's the first of many pages that turn up with that simple
phrase:

cleveland.com: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
.... Is it safe? Is the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station safe? The Plain
Dealer investigates...
» Latest: Davis-Besse workers slip up during restart preparations. ...
http://www.cleveland.com/davisbesse/ - 36k - similar pages
toledoblade.com
.... JANUARY 16, 2004 Managers changed at Davis-Besse Akron-based
FirstEnergy, which is
still trying to obtain approval to restart its troubled Davis-Besse
nuclear ...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...ategory=NEWS30 - 60k -
Jan 17, 2004 - similar pages
Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head
.... fact sheet Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head The
reactor
core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/n...cfm?pageID=790 -
40k - similar pages
Davis-Besse Retrospective
.... analysis Davis-Besse Retrospective, ... The FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company,
the owner of Davis-Besse, was prepared to contest an order. ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/n...fm?pageID=1133 -
31k - similar pages [ More results from www.ucsusa.org ]
US Nuclear Reactors - Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse Ohio ... PWR= Pressurized Light Water Reactor Description: The
Davis-Besse
power plant is located in Oak Harbor, Ohio, on a site covering 954 acres.
....
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear...avisbesse.html -
15k - similar pages
Davis-Besse nuclear power plant -- Ohio Citizen Action
FirstEnergy and Davis-Besse. Jan 17: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
investigating
overtime at Davis-Besse ... OAK HARBOR -- Davis-Besse plant suffers new
setback. ...
http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns.../nucfront.html - 26k - Jan
17, 2004 - similar pages
Davis-Besse
.... Davis-Besse Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States Pressurized Water Reactor
(PWR) Net Output: 877 MWe Operable. Initial criticality: 08/1977. ...
http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facil...se/index.shtml -
25k - similar pages
Beacon Journal | 12/13/2003 | NRC may observe Davis-Besse test
.... Business. Posted on Sat, Dec. 13, 2003, NRC may observe Davis-Besse
test. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could begin a three-day ...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjourna...ss/7482782.htm - 40k - similar
pages
Scoop: Anger Against Re-Start of Davis-Besse Reactor
.... DESTRUCTION SOON RE-OPEN? Public Anger Mounting Against Re-Start of
Davis-Besse Reactor By Harvey Wasserman http://www.freepress.org. ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00060.htm - 27k - Jan 17,
2004 - similar pages
Ottawa County Emergency Management
.... Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station produces electricity much like a
coal power plant. ... Davis-Besse is a pressurized water reactor. ...
http://www.ottawacountyema.org/davisbesse.html - 16k - similar pages


When you've consumed this material, I'd be happy to hear how you think
this is less of a problem than any threat posed by GA, which is what my
point was to begin with. Or, you can keep your head in the sand. Your
choice.

Neil

What bothers me is that your homeowner's insurance won't cover you, the
plant operator won't cover you, the plant insurance won't cover you, the
state won't cover you, and the federal government won't cover you. However,
should there be a significant release of radioactivity, you WILL be
prevented from going back to your property indefinitely, and you WILL be
obligated to continue paying your mortgage AND even insurance premiums!

It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make
the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an
accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant
owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I
will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can
be done to assure safety.




"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Recently, Bruce Bockius posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
have been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

Neil

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message . net...

It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make
the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an
accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant
owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I
will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can
be done to assure safety.

Is there some kind of law that I don't know about that would make
the plant operators not responsible for damage to others property?
Why do you assume that they will come out OK because their plant is
insured. In real life, I would imagine that the homeowners would sue
them right out of business and everyone would be equally screwed.
There are no winners in a nuclear accident.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)