🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Added.sYC327y00UkT0Wc09Z@andrew.cmu.edu> SCOTT@GACVAX1.BITNET (Scott Hess) writes:
>and towards use of it. Else, why was everyone so freaked about Three Mile
>Island? There was such a small chance of explosion there that it was almost
>unworthy of talking about. 

An explosion no, but the chances of a meltdown were quite good. Most average
folks are pretty well informed that an explosion isn't the real danger
after seeing the "china syndrome", which broke at around the same time.

If you've ever read the transcript of what took place at TMI
it boggles the mind. The fact that the core was "rubblized" and nothing
worse happened is pretty much blind fate. Lots of stupidity in evidence.

For example, once the core was exposed (water level too low due to
human error) the control rods are exposed to oxygen and started to burn.
Anyone in the control room could have deduced this was happening as the
temperature of the steam in the vessel was superheated. Looking
at the pressure and temp of the steam, and referring to any set of 
steam tables would have told them so. Why didn't they pick up on this?
Why, there wasn't anyone in the building, at the time, with more than a
high school education. Also, I don't think there were any
steam tables to be had. (Nor a computer to do it for you.) 

Millions of valves, gauges and dials, and not enough neurons to
deal with all that information.

----------------

The point of this reply is actually to underscore my agreement with some
of what you say. But, 3 Mile Island *was* a dangerous fiasco, in my opinion,
because of the moronic engineering for human factors, and the cavalier
attitude toward licensing reactor control room personell. Both however
may have roots in more basic problems.



    Paul K. Rodman 
    rodman@mfci.uucp
    __... ...__    _.. .   _._ ._ .____ __.. ._