Posted on 01/30/2007 6:55:19 AM PST by presidio9
THANK YOU to someone who recognized my "highly stressful" comment on living/working conditions there. Man, the town of Idaho Falls has GROWN....Arco, on the other hand, appears to be in some weird time warp.
I don't recall the "designator" on the rig [big chunk of sub in a very LARGE swimming pool. Will you PLEASE confirm that there are at least 20 [mostly defunct] reactors at what USED TO BE CALLED, "NRTS" or National Reactor Testing Site....???
[Somebody who REFUSES to offer any "evidence" of their military experience and/or MO is nipping at my heels...working my inclination to "report any abuse". All she's got is personal attacks....???....can't condense a SINGLE substantive answer from the fog in her brain, evidently.]
By the way, did they make you watch that "reefer madness" style film about the bonehead that HAND RAISED a control rod and blew himself up against the ceiling....???
All in all, with my stint at Mare Island.....which no longer exists...OK, the TOWN is there, but the base is evidently gone like Treasure Island....no, NOT the one with Wallace Beery.....sheeesh....
I guess a lot has happened since 1970....
But, even THAT doesn't excuse some anxiety ridden web denizen attacking me personally with NO substance whatsoever. Too bad there's such a childish aspect to this site...evidently CONDONED....???
People in general have a set optimist/pessimist level they apply to all things. However someone's optimism should actually vary based on one thing: the cost of failure. When the cost of failure is low it's to someone's advantage to be optimistic. When the cost of failure is high, they should increase their pessimism accordingly. For example, walking across a fallen log resting 1 foot above ground has a low cost of failure so the walker should be optimistic they can do it. But mount that same log over a 500 foot fall, the cost of failure becomes very high, and the walker should become very pessimistic about attempting it.
Nuclear power is extremely safe. The problem is with the cost of failure. Even if a catastrophic failure can only happen 1 out of 100 million chances, the cost of failure can be 100,000 square miles of prime American real estate made unlivable, not to mention the loss of life and birth defects. Because of this high cost of failure, no matter the odds, optimism has no place in nuclear power, ever.
People who are optimistic by nature tend to be somewhat detached from cold hard reality. Being that there is nothing humans do with a higher cost of failure than nuclear power, the optimists should look elsewhere for employment.
Nice elaboration.
I concur.
However, somewhere in the midst stands the pragmatist.
We DO need power.
If only the green weenies would lay off trying to destroy EVERY meaningful attempt at being productive by our farmers, ranchers, loggers, miners, and oil & gas explorers in the Western states.
I'm sorry, I just don't WANT to own a wood-fired laundry system.
--I guess a lot has happened since 1970.... --
Yes. Since 1970, I have spent 26 years operating, testing and designing nuclear power plants.
I see where you are headed but most of the people that I work with are optimists. Pessimists don't make it in this industry.
You're thinking of S5G (ER in the pool). It was hard on blocks when I was there (cracks in the bottom would have flooded it) but at one time could float.
And yeah--CPP, EG&G West, Arrgonne Natl Lab, they're all out there.
Even Arco...and all six people that live there.
The Apollo astronauts used to train out in that area for the "realism" prior to the moon landings. Good place for it, if you ask me.
And as far as "hand raised"? You're thinking of SL-1, right? I think at one time you could actually see the remains of that place from the highway out to the site.
I know it's unwise to discuss specific security vulnerabilities, but doesn't mean you're any less of a jive turkey.
And I say set your decoder rign to B-5. Transmission follows: Klaatu barada niktu shama-lama-ding-dong. Transmission ends.
O Great Mod, I think this guy needs to be sniffed.
The WTC fires melted the steel because the fireproofing on the girders (which was not the best available) was taken off by the impact.
I've read that...again, unexpected.
True, but nobody said, "there could never be an incident at a nuke plant." they said that crashing a large aircraft into a plant will not lead to a radiological catastrophe.
If electric cars weren't such a kludge we could go to nuke plants and electric cars and then waht would the greenies do?
So were the 737s that spun in when their rudder systems failed, but nobody would say flying isn't safe because there were a few 737 crashes.
Electric cars are not necessarily kludges. The motors have tremendous torque for their size/horsepower. It's just that they can't carry enough energy with them. A couple of advances in batteries and charging systems and we are there.
You're simply blowing smoke.
All engineers I've ever spoken to were completely unsurprised that the WTC collapsed. They weren't made to be gutted that way by fire. Their pancaking was totally predictable given the way those floors were burned out.
And by the way, the metal did NOT melt. It softened due to the high temperatures and thus lost a high percentage of the strength it has at normal temperatures.
WTC was not made to withstand a bomb blast, either.
Nuclear containment buildings are.
Huge difference.
I don't blow smoke.
Very simply, I'm saying 'expect the unexpected.'
What are your plans if the sun don't shine.
Somehow sniffing seems rather suitable for someone named after a gorilla.
Like the AROMA...???
perhaps I can help.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.