Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic
Message-ID: <5965@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 14:23:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5965
Posted: Mon Sep 16 14:23:06 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 14:23:06 EDT
References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 60

> ...  I doubt that the [US Navy nuclear-reactor] training
> and quality control are better.

You're letting your biases show, Fred.  The general air of mismanagement
and bungling of the US military is not universal.  The Navy nuclear program
is one of the few areas that *are* well run.  They train their technicians
much more thoroughly than commercial reactor technicians, and are extremely
fussy about quality control on reactor systems, even when said fussiness
shows up in the price tag.

> I rather expect that standard land
> based nuclear power plants have quality assurance programs second to
> none and the training should be tops.

In a word, it ain't so.  Commercial power plants, by and large, spend as
little on operator training and quality assurance as they can -- they're
in business to make a profit, dontcha know? :-[  The Three Mile Island
incident would not have been one-tenth as serious if the stupid operators
had simply kept their hands off and let the automatic machinery do its job!

> ...  I don't believe
> that products from coal burning power plants are more dangerous. If
> I am wrong on this count, then I can at least state that they will
> not remain that dangerous for thousands of years. High grade radio-
> active wastes do!  ...

The arsenic compounds and other chemical toxins in stack-scrubber sludge
are composed of stable elements; they will be around *forever*!!!  The
decay of high-grade reactor wastes is a feature, not a bug.  As to how
dangerous the various compounds are, this depends on the details of the
comparison, but that stack-scrubber stuff is *nasty*; you don't want it
buried anywhere near where you get your water from.  The overriding fact
of waste disposal, though, is that the quantities involved are enormously
different:  reactor wastes come by the ton, stack-scrubber sludge comes by
the thousands of tons.  It is far easier to give a few tons of radioactive
waste special treatment than it is to give thousands of tons of toxic sludge
special treatment.  Almost any comment you can make about reactor wastes is
worse for coal-power wastes, once you factor in the difference in quantity.

> We could drop mines that respond to the accoustical, (and other),
> properties of nuclear subs. Then all we do is warn people to keep out.
> The system is automatic & self policing.  If the sub goes through, it
> get blown up.  This is effective and *cheap*!

"Drop" mines?  Much of the area we are talking about has year-round ice.
For that matter, except in relatively deep areas, the ice generally scrapes
the bottom on occasion (this is a very serious concern for underwater oil
and gas pipelines, by the way).  This means that the mines may get moved
at random.  This is especially bad news when international waters are
nearby, because mining international waters except in wartime is a big
no-no, practically an act of war.  And don't forget that mines, while
individually cheap, have to be deployed in horrendous numbers to deny a
large area to the opposition.  They don't last forever, either.

And let us not forget the cynical military comment that "nobody ever got
promoted for commanding a mine".  This is not a trival issue when we
have to work with real people and real organizations.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry