June 01, 2005

What if Chernobyl had had billions of gallons of coolant available?

Would Chernobyl have had the impact that it had if it had had a nearly endless supply of water available to keep cool?

Russian scientists appear to be well on the way to answering that question.

From "World’s First Floating Nuclear Power Plant to Be Constructed in Russia":

...RosAtom head Alexander Rumyantsev said earlier that floating power plants are absolutely safe. The reactors "will be the same as those that are used by our submarines and nuclear ice-breakers," he said, stressing that after the Kursk submarine that sank in August 2000 was lifted from the bottom of the Barents Sea, its reactors were still in an operational condition.

However, many critics say the main objective of nuclear plants all over the world is enrichment for building nuclear weapons, and after RosAtom first announced the building of the floating plant in the early 2000s, foreign media immediately called it a "floating Chernobyl"...

Previously: "Lonewacko, Art Bell taken for ride through Chernobyl" (Ukrainian Elena on her motorcycle).

Posted to Miscellania at June 1, 2005 11:55 AM

Comments

Lonewacko

Non-"liberal" coverage of immigration, Iraq, terrorism, multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...

« Jeb, Laura, Noelle, Rutger, Wilbur, Cletus, or their clones? «

» While we're de-Klannifying things... »