Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: A naval presence in the arctic Message-ID: <2182@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 10:07:50 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.2182 Posted: Mon Sep 16 10:07:50 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 11:19:27 EDT References: <1386@utcsri.UUCP> <5952@utzoo.UUCP> <820@water.UUCP> <793@lsuc.UUCP> <5960@utzoo.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 52 Summary: In article <5960@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >Done well, as with the US nuclear-sub program (and probably the British one >as well), they are safer than nuclear power plants. Not because of any >technical consideration, but because crew training and quality control are >better. The US Navy operates the world's biggest nuclear fleet, with more >reactors than the entire US nuclear-power industry, and has *never* had a >serious accident or radiation leak. > You could be right, Henry. But it is also possible that they have never had a serious accident *reported*. I doubt that the training and quality control are better. I rather expect that standard land based nuclear power plants have quality assurance programs second to none and the training should be tops. (This doesn't mean I think it adequate, however.) Having said this, I will now state that I don't think there would be a direct danger in Canada having nuclear subs in the arctic. In fact it may make the area much safer, since if we were effectively patrolling the area, the Soviets & Americans would have to keep out or face bad publicity at best. The real problem with nuclear reacors on subs is the same problem as with nuclear reactors on land; *waste materials*! 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! They will be around, and still be deadly, long after Canada, the US, and the USSR are long forgotten. Also note that we have been storing the nuclear wastes for about 40 years now. Already we have many cases of leaking dump sites, *AFTER ONLY FORTY YEARS*. What will it be like later? If we were to stop producing nuclear materials today, and not bury any more waste materials, then the current "supply" once leaked out into the environment is sufficient to destroy the genetic pool of all the higher life forms on Earth. At least that's what I heard on TV the other week - I haven't checked it myself, but I don't doubt it. So I don't support any nuclear activity that produces wastes, and spent fuel from nuclear reactors is exactly that. To locate nuclear subs uncer artic ice, there must be other ways. True visibility is impaired, acoustics is not much better due the continual grinding of the ice. Magnetics is short range, only. But accoustics can be improved by use of signal processing techniques. 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*! -- Cheers, Fred Williams, UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!fred BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 318