Talk:Containment building

message: Is this very specific section about the detailed american requirements necessary in a general article about containment buildings? Maybe it can be slimmed down or something?
83.255.187.141 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements section 

message: I do believe Chernobyl did have a containment building. It was what I had learned, and confirmed with this source: (Can anyone else confirm it?)
"At Chernobyl, this reactor containment building was a very simple, thin-metal-walled building, not like the three-to-six-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete containments we have in the United States and all countries other than Russia and the former Soviet Union countries."
http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1462.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slythfox (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chernobyl accident Containment building 

message: Who says you need as many as 20 atttackers? The design basis attack is 4 people: 3 outsiders + 1 insider using nothing more than hand-held automatic weapons approaching on the ground. See http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf02hirsch. Security by obscurity is a joke -- all of the details you mentioned (and far more) are documented in Plant Data Books, which may be read at your leisure in the NRC's reading room.
* I find the idea of attacks on a nuclear plant to be pretty pointless at best. When Greenpeace activists tried to enter the plant at Borssele the security system kicked in and they were simply locked out and subsequently apprehanded. They claimed a victory though (but then again, it's Greenpeace, hard to take seriously) even though they did not get past any of the security measures (excluding the fence around the terrain). What good would a strike against a plant do? Force a meltdown? Blow something up? Steal weapon's grade material? I think the threat is being severly overrated under the flag of fearmongering. Something which seems to be happening all to often these days sadly enough. --Jimius 17:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Design Basis Threat was revised  but the details have been kept secret - 9/11 was pulled off by 19 guys with boxcutters, which is why the concern is 20.  There are (or at least were) places to find detailed information regarding each US plant, but I won't say where.  Aircraft, beyond the pdf, I won't discuss. Simesa 05:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design Basis Threat 

message: So can we remove the odd-sounding phrase, and just accept that User:216.164.138.57 doesn't want to talk about the design? Ojw 20:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless he knows something that is not public knowledge or otherwise classified/etc, I see no reason for it to be witheld from the article. Simesa is of course free not to add it, but then the article shouldn't state that he left information out. --Jimius 17:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 'components not discussed' note 

message: The article seems to say that drywell only refers to a certain kind of boiling water containment building. Is it also used as a generic name? -- Kjkolb 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, no. The drywell is a specific structure only within the boiling water reactor that holds the Reactor Pressure Vessel (the RPV - the reactor itself), the recirculation pumps, and related piping. It's sealed and kept dry during reactor operation. The purpose is isolation, to eliminate corrosion, and also for diagnostic purposes - if the pressure inside the drywell changes, then the BWR's computers know that either a safety valve went off or a pipe broke, so the reactor will automatically shut down while the ECCS is spun up. Beyond the drywell, there are several rather thick layers (the containment structure and the reactor building itself) that surround it. Katana0182 (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drywell 

message: > The Russian VVER design is mostly the same as Western PWRs in regards to containment, as it is a PWR itself.
This is bullshit. There only two VVER vessels in the world protected by "free world" definition containment buildings. They both stand in Finland and they are soviet-czech made VVER-440 vessels, which were installed under honest concrete bunkers from the first minute, at the special insistance of the finns. (If the reactor blows up, the finns can never again export their wood or paper due to pollution and that's economy domesday scenario for them.)
All other VVER vessels, as they stand in ex-WARPAC/COMECON countries, are located inside large barns/sheds with very limited over-pressure resistance and zero missile repelling capability. Some of them, however, like those at Paks, Hungary are equipped with an auxillary emergency tower, wich has huge trays of boric cid water in them. If the reactor blows up, that water is supposed to absorb a large part of the radiactive product. However, it would be an outright lie to call that containment.
Admit no containment can stop a full-speed impacting An-124 giant cargo plane loaded with a 109-ton diesel locomotive in its belly, but COMECON-standard VVER-440 reactor housing sheds are penetrable by african swifts on a good summer day... 8-( 82.131.134.203 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet bullshit 

message: This topic is well outside of my field, but I saw a citation was needed.  I did a brief search and came up with a couple of sources that might be useful, but don't know if they would apply.  They suggest a design limit of 60 psi and, in the Sandia experiment, held until 145 psi.  Hope this is helpful. 
http://books.google.com/books?id=dQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=containment+building+psi&source=bl&ots=kTSZzzpjCA&sig=KTc4wEv-YNSQynQsJPE5GIpZbXU&hl=en&ei=LDyFTa-mIKu90QHlmPXSCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%20psi&f=false
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/3940804083/possible-cause-of-reactor-building-explosions
MartinezMD (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure limit design 

message: While it is unarguable that the containment system failed, it did so with the worst earthquake in recorded history. The system that should have supplied cooling water, failed. The latter is more of a problem, but not really a engineering design problem, per se. A "simple" (on Monday morning) matter of locating the backup so it would be less vulnerable. Don't know where this would be in Japan, but most places don't have either the earthquake threat, nor the tsunami threat. Student7 (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for discussion of the article, and is not a forum for amateur failure analysis of the Japanese installation.  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you are making these points in support of some changes you would like to make to the article.  I would suggest that you state directly what you wish to discuss about the article, to ensure that people don't get the impression that you are abusing the talk page.  Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Containment

message: When I read the following paragraph:
:From a distance, the BWR design looks very different from PWR designs because usually a square building is used for containment. Also, because there is only one loop through the turbines and reactor, and the steam going through the turbines is also slightly radioactive, the turbine building has to be considerably shielded as well. This leads to two buildings of similar construction with the taller one housing the reactor and the short long one housing the turbine hall and supporting structures.
I cannot tell with complete certainty which type of plant --  BWR or PWR  -- has the "slightly radioctive" steam going through the turbines.  Within the context of the article, I think I can see which was meant, but this can and should be made much clearer within this single paragraph.  It is certainly a critical distinction.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.216.176 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguous statement 

message: From http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Containment_building (thought this was interesting) --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peaks in page view statistics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Containment building. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929124508/http://canteach.candu.org/library/19990108.pdf to http://canteach.candu.org/library/19990108.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129121008/http://www.pplweb.com/NR/rdonlyres/F63D7386-A57E-46C6-90A5-857D513B0254/0/seic_plantguide.pdf to http://www.pplweb.com/NR/rdonlyres/F63D7386-A57E-46C6-90A5-857D513B0254/0/seic_plantguide.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051030014727/http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut_maaraykset/fi_FI/katsaukset/_files/71194755735753017/default/radiation3_4.pdf to http://www.stuk.fi/julkaisut_maaraykset/fi_FI/katsaukset/_files/71194755735753017/default/radiation3_4.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050914184715/http://www.microsimtech.com/pbnc/default.htm to http://www.microsimtech.com/pbnc/default.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As I understand it early nuclear reactors think 40s and early 50s did not have containment domes or at least if they did were less robust. Can a historical section be added which lead to regulations followed today? 98.176.234.143 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History