From: ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Another NUKE bites the dust ...
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:38:00 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA

In article <rhoward.718317620@matd> rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard) writes:
>ems@michael.apple.com (E. Michael Smith) writes:
>
>A few points.....

>>JAPANESE PLANT BARELY AVERTS CORE MELTDOWN
>
>"Barely"  What does that mean?  The headline warns me right away
>that this may be sensationalized.

Just a (meta?)explanatory note:  I'm not able to 'explain' the article.
It is what it is, whatever the author of it meant.  

Neither am I endorsing it nor denying it.

I posted it only as an example of what is 'typically' written in
the general press about a nuclear accident.  If it has errors, please
point them out (as if encouragement was needed ...).  But also note
that this is what has to be overcome for nuclear to be accepted
in every back yard ...

>>TOKYO (AP) -- A mistaken flip of a switch by a nuclear power plant
>>worker caused a reactor's cooling pumps to fail, a government official
>>said Wednesday, but an emergency system took over and prevented a
>>nuclear meltdown.
>
>Well, the emergency system worked...

Maybe part of the problem is terminology.  'Emergency' system?  If
it is a 'normal' activity of the plant, then should it be called
an 'emergency' system?  Would anyone be nearly as worried if it
were called 'secondary cooling system'?  'Redundant cooling system'?
'Spare cooling system'?  'Passive cooling system'?  ...

>>Local officials sharply criticized the Tokyo Electric Power Co., the 
>>plants owner, for not notifying residents for hours about the 
>>emergency shutdown of the 18-year-old reactor.
>
>What are they supposed to do?  Have strobe lights and klaxons
>go off everytime some reading wavers?  The emergency backup 
>systems worked!  Everyone was safe!

Ahh... but it is a 'rare' event for the ECCS to be used.  Not exactly
and everyday reading wavering ...  AND it was an 'emergency', by
definition ...  The analogy is like a 747 that loses 2 engines and
still limps back to the airport.  Not quite a 'normal' situation
and, by implication, close to disaster.  If that isn't the case,
then why feed the analogy with terms like Emergency Core Cooling System?

>>It was the first shutdown using the emergency system since Japan's
>>worst nuclear accident, at Mihama in western Japan in February 1991,
>>when a small amount of radioactivity was released into the atmosphere.
>
>Aarrgghhh....radioactivity!  We're all going to die!
>
>What is a small amount?  Even TMI's releases wer pretty insignificant.

I read 'small' as 'not to worry, but there could have been more if
things got really radical, then you should really worry' which causes
some folks to start worrying right now...  If 'small' doesn't imply
that 'large' is possible, then there is another PR issue to work...

>[ This is EMS speaking ]
>
>>There you have it.  All the things that cause one pause about
>>a nuclear plant in the back yard.
>
>>One guy makes a mistake, and per the article, the plant is one system
>>away from a meltdown.  Then the folks who are in charge don't bother
>>to tell the public for the better part of a day...
>
>Well, that's why they had that system too.  The system worked, I
>don't see any point in notifying people (or calling out the
>national guard, etc.)

Is the article correct that there was no additional system after this
to prevent a core meltdown?

Is the article correct in the implication that a core meltdown is
a Bad Thing and would cause people to suffer Bad Things?  If not,
then how do you communicate that a core meltdown is not a Bad Thing?

Perhaps we have a failure of terminology here, too?  Instead of 
core meltdown, would things be as 'bad' if it were 'core overheat'
or 'fuel integrity loss'?  Would it even be possible to substitute 
a new term without suffering terrible PR flak for 'NewSpeak'?

>>The article may be wrong, but that type of article is why the non-nukers
>>take a bit of a circumspect view of a nuke in every village ...
>
>Considering, I'd much rather have the nuke plant than about a hundred
>other kinds of industrial facilities I can think of...

Can you explain WHY the article doesn't cause you concern and WHAT
the article said that is wrong or misleading?  (Or just panders to
a misperception by the public?)  Then you will have a handle on 
where to begin to salvage the future for nuclear power.

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
>| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
>| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
>| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |

I LOVE this!  Great .sig!  An excellent example of how Econ is corrupted
in the hands of GovtSpeak.  (WE create jobs, YOU squander wealth ...;-)

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it.  Boldness has
 genius, power and magic in it.'  -  Goethe

I am not responsible nor is anyone else.  Everything is disclaimed.