Another black eye for GA

"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, Tom Sixkiller posted:

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

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.

Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road
with _no_ oversight, do you?

If whatever "oversight" that is imposed is insufficient to detect
situations that can lead to catastrophic failures, then what does it
matter? The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

I don't wish to be misunderstood... I am not against nuclear power. I *am*
very much against the deregulation of utilities (too late, though). And
I'm not under any illusions that our best interests are being protected in
any way by the way things are being done.

Neil

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:

The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can explode?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"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.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can
explode?

I've always been under the impression that they certainly could, though
not in the same way a nuclear weapon does, i. e. a chain reaction
fission event.

Wasn't a mechanical pressure explosion possible, with the resultant
widespread release of radioactive material?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

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

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

I've landed at this airport a number of times and I can assure you
that everyone that flys there is flying adjacent to the power plant.
That's why runway 28 has a right hand pattern. If it were a left hand
pattern you would be able to look right down into the cooling towers
while turning crosswind to downwind. This fellow did a lot of things
wrong, but as far as the power plant goes he was the same as any other
pilot flying into PTW.
Rich Russell

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:14 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller"
wrote:


"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"David H" wrote:
Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
This is war!

Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
by fighters and shot down.

Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux. It
will be interesting to see how they top it.

Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You know...the
worst possible security risk?

Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
pre-conceived notions.

"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)