Posted: Sat Jul 21, 2007 6:49 pm
If you can do the same paperwork and engineering, and do it flawlessly, then talk.The later stories hinted that most of it was thought to be stuck in the plumbing, though of course, some of it may have gone walkies, its hard to tell for sure if the paperwork isn't all in place.
So because a couple of nuclear engineers refuse to waste their time following idiotic regulations, nuclear engineers ,who know full well what hell they will be in if they mess up, are irresponsibles?All I understand is that waste which should have gone to special landfill did not, and this is an example of breached regulations, who knows what other kind of regulations was breached if this sort of thing went on regularly.
That is like accusing a police officer of being irresponsible because he didn't wax his uniform's shoes.
Nanos, the Soviet Union built Chernobly so badly, that the frick KGB was the one talking how bad it is.The west is no different when it comes to levels of incompetence, we have our 3 mile island, our windscale, they have Chernobyl.
The.motherfucking.KGB. Their own secret service was warning the government that this is not safe. The fact alone that Chernobly was built the way it was anyway, is due to nothing else but the stupidity and unchecked power of the Soviet government.
If even one of the big mistake or shortcoming were corrected, then Chernobly would have been nothing but a footnote in nuclear history.
The frick difference, is that while Chernobly killed allot of people, while Three Miles Island failed to match the body count of Kennedy's car.
As for Windscale, the plant and stuff there is half a frick century old. Have you tried a car that is half a century old? What the hell do you expect? The site should be drastically renewed with modern technology.
To say that there is no difference between incompetence between the Soviet Union and the West is to say that there is no difference between a mental retard with a severe delusions and tendencies of hypocrisity and a surgeon who has three kids and a wife.
Heavy water has various uses, not all of them nuclear. Heavy water is a mundane resource, and even if you have it, you still need heavy metals to enrich heavy metals.The heavy water was an example of something nuclear related that the UK shipped without telling the US at the time.
You do not tell how much Cadbury chocolate you sell to France or Sweden to the USA do you?
So I must take your word for it what does it contain?Link was only to show the document exists, the only way to view it is in person Smile (though they might have got around to digital online copies by now.)
Sounds like an administrative problem, which has nothing to do with it being nuclear.I don't recal what kind of nuclear material in question, only that UK sailers refused to handle the stuff and it eventually had to make its way there on the deck of a US supertanker.
Caution is always advised when handling something dangerous, but what is your conclusion?All manner of rather worrying things go on behind the scenes, that in time we get to hear about, but they do and are happening as we speak, so caution is advised.
And there is no such thing as full proof opposition. We are talking about terrorists here, who have their resources and competence limited.There is no such thing as fool proof security.
Really? I have to look this up. Can you link the source of this? Does Los Alamos mention how possible it is to do this trick in practise with limited resources?Also note that the high neutron activity only limits the size of the bomb you can make. Plus if I were tolerably smart there are ways around the problem. BTW I'm tolerably smart. Also note that the Los Alamos guys have stated that they could do a few tricks to make reactor grade plutonium suitable for a bomb. So Los Alamos and I think you could use reactor grade Pu to make a bomb.
What "burners" are you talking about?Also note: Once these "burners" proliferate what is to prevent the Russians from building one for Iran? How will 40 ton casks help then?