CHERNOBYL DESIGN FOUND TO INCLUDE NEW SAFETY PLANS...1986

[Fledermaus]

It had a containment structure designed to cope with a 3 Mile Island event and it failed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPsDCYrlhsE&feature=related
It blew its 1000 ton lid off.

By STUART DIAMOND (The New York Times); Foreign Desk
May 19, 1986, Monday
Late City Final Edition, Section A, Page 1, Column 4, 2620 words

The nuclear power plant that exploded in the Soviet Union last month had more safety features and was closer to American reactor designs than Western experts had assumed in the days soon after the accident, nuclear experts say. Although it probably would not have met United States safety standards, the experts say, the Chernobyl plant incorporated enough of the advanced safety features used in American reactors to raise questions among some experts about the effectiveness of nuclear plant designs in this country. The conclusions are based on technical drawings and other information obtained through Government and international scientific sources by American nuclear experts in recent days. Steel and Concrete Structure The experts say it has become clear that a large structure of heavy steel and concrete surrounded the No. 4 reactor at Chernobyl, and that at least some of this containment structure was designed to withstand pressures similar to those in many American reactors.

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/19/world/chernobyl-design-found-to-include-new-safety-plans.html

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[DCKit]

2. This stream of facts is likely to give Nnewquelur a bad name.

Stop it! Stop it NOW!

[Fledermaus]

3. But, but...because it didn't have containment like ours it therefore had NONE!

The French nuclear industry went as far as to claim that no fallout ever landed on French soil.

[FBaggins]

5. And ours doesn't become suspect just because you use the same label

for an entirely different system

A building does not become a "containment building" just because it's a building and it "contains" a reactor.

A concrete bowl does not become a "reactor vessel" because it's arguably a "vessel" and there's a reactor in there.

Nor does it become a "reactor pressure vessel" merely because it can contain just barely over atmosphereic pressure.

The terms have actual meanings... you don't get to make them up as you go along..

When it was pointed out to you that there was a significant difference in design and you were asked whether you knew what a reactor vessel was... your only correct response would have been "no". :rofl:

[FBaggins]

4. "new safety plans" that did NOT include either a containment vessel or a containment building.

Which is what is meant by "would not have met United States safety standards" (an incredible understatement".

You can continue to madly Google all you like, but you won't find something that helps your position that Chernobyl did have a containment vessel, and are thus merely wasting your time (and that of your readers).

You won't find it, because it isn't there to find. You were (and remain) dead wrong.

Steel and Concrete Structure The experts say it has become clear that a large structure of heavy steel and concrete surrounded the No. 4 reactor

That's nice. A great big concrete and steel structure designed to protect against radiation exposure during normal operations... not as a containment vessel to stop the release of radioactive materials in the event of an accident.

at least some of this containment structure was designed to withstand pressures similar to those in many American reactors.

Lol! "At least some" of it, eh? Just not the reactor core itself. Which has been the point of the entire conversation.

[Fledermaus]

7. Spin it Baby, Spin it!!!...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl:

[FBaggins]

8. Lol. Nuclear Nobel-Laureate on my side...

...a misinterpretation of an 11th grade science project on yours.

Now you add yet another source that was written before the experts reviewed the setup (and which was directly contradicted by those experts)... and this one isn't even written by a scientist.

Laugh all you like kiddo... but the joke's on you.

[FBaggins]

6. When the Nobel-Laureate wrote: **"contrary to some earlier press reports"**

What did you think he was talking about?

[Nederland]

9. GIVE. IT. UP.

At this point you should really just be slinking away in embarrassment, and yet you make it worse by advertising your denial with more posts.

Stop digging. Please.

[FBaggins]

10. Hey! Chill out, man.

Where else can you get this kind of entertainment for free? :)

[NNadir]

12. I'm with you. It's always fun to discuss these things who have no idea what they're talking about.

They're so cute.

[GliderGuider]

11. Too much ego invested in this, it looks like.

That makes it really hard to disengage. I know what being that caught up feels like, it's very painful. Fledermaus actually has my sympathy.

[Nederland]

15. Agreed

And I too have been there. I try to remember what an old Philosophy professor of mine use to say:

"You want to get to a place where you are always right about everything--we all do. The problem is that you'll never get there if you never admit you are wrong."

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Dammit...

...now you've made me realise how omniscient we were in 1986.

Can anyone lend me a copy of Ferris Bueller's Day Off?

Anyone? Anyone?

[NNadir]

14. None of the "journalists" at the New York Times knew what a positive void co-efficient is either.

The number of anti-nukes here who know nuclear science is similar to the number of dumb reporters: Zero.