Monday, June 27, 2011

Never say never

After Fukoshima disaster it's safe to say that, in the vane of Murphy*, anything can happen or in his case go wrong. I think that's what has kept me alive all these years. I've always assumed and planed for the worst. A few times worse hit but I was prepared for it. Once again we may be seeing worse in action with the fires that are now in New Mexico. Let me title this then: Fire a ticket to burn
Once can plan for a bad situation but it's the truly deranged mind that can plan for multiple Armageddon events. And as we continue to let our infrastructure fall apart this thinking just might not be as deranged as one might think. I'm sure the Japanese were not expecting multiple bad happenings when the earthquake and tsunami hit. After all the plant was built to withstand a 7.5. Too bad Murphy gave them a 9.0 and the tidal wave that followed.

Now with the fire in New Mexico headed for Los Alamos there may be little worry about the fire reaching the core of any reactor but it may be another story if it hits the control infrastructures not protected by concrete several feet thick. I've seen films of tests where they flew a 707 into the side of a similar test structure and while the aircraft was totally obliterated it left barely a mark on the concrete. Impressive no? But all the best laid plans are no match for Murphy because when conditions are just right he rears his ugly head and wrecks havoc on our seemingly mundane lives.

* Murphy / Murphys's Law = What ever can go wrong will go wrong.


jadedj said...

Mankind's arrogance is pathetic. This is the real meaning of Murphy's Law.

Anonymous said...

Most reactors are built next to water needed for the secondary cooling heat exchanger. If the fire boils that water off, presto no secondary heat exchange. Therefore presto no primary heat exchange either.
Therefore the core overheats.

Even when the chain reaction is shut down, the thermal neutrons still produce several megawatts of heat, maybe 10-15% of the reactors peak capacity.


BBC said...

There is a reactor at Los Alamos? I thought it was just a research center.

Oh well, over population isn't helping any, it just puts more ignorant idiots on this rock.

BBC said...

Do you know how many reactors there are in the Pudget Sound area?

The Blog Fodder said...

Murphy was an optimist.
I have become anti-nuclear generators this past week. Ran into an article that said 1) you cannot plan nor built for ALL the weird things that might happen and 2)even if you could human ignorance, greed, stupidity and carelessness will eventually do you in anyhow.
Telling me that something is as safe as human technology can make it is NOT reassuring.

Demeur said...

Stu you overwhelm me with your knowledge of reactors. I only had some basic training in protective equipment about nuclear plants. Wasn't planning on doing work there either.

How many plants? Only two that I know of and they are both at Hanford.

Well that's easy Fodder when they try to make something foolproof they always come up with better fools. :-)

BBC said...

No, there are reactors on Navy ships and subs on the sound.

BBC said...

If the Navy can make small reactors that will run something like a large aircraft carrier, a city in it's own right, it sorta makes sense to make make lots of small reactors instead of a few big ones.

Small ones may be easier to control when something goes wrong. I don't think we'll ever see the end of that energy, they will keep pushing it at us.

Randal Graves said...

If a meltdown happens, sure, terror and death, but what if we get some of these? Cool!