Before you respond, please read this entire message
*especially* the last.

I see you have been backed into a corner and are
looking for SOME way out - there is none with this.
As far as the Monticello incident, I said that I would
look into it at my leisure becuase of other priorities
of mine.  I don't see how a reasonably prudent person
would assume that this means "oh, it's no big
deal...silly containment, nobody got hurt."  But I
have already established that you are not a reasonably
prudent person...

Moreover, my statement about you bringing up the
30,000+ incidents that happen each year would be quite
boring to read because everyone knows that NPPs are
not perfect.  How in the world does this imply that I
would feel that none of those events might be
significant and warrant a fine?  It doesn't.  Again, a
reasonably prudent person would not assume this, but
you are big into assumptions now aren't you?

Sorry, Russell, there is just no way to justify the
level of integrity you displayed with trying to
portray the way you did.  If you had any question as
to how I felt about a plant not having an operable
containment, you could have just asked.  Then, you
could have taken my response and fabricated whatever
email you felt necessary.  Unfortunately, I have also
seen that simply asking you to perform even trivial
and simple tasks is just too difficult for you.

<snip>
> Now, I've never actually believed this makes much
> difference, myself, for
> two reasons:  First, our containment domes are full
> of holes.  Holes for
> people and material to go through.  Holes for thick
> bundles of electrical
> cables.  Huge holes for vast quantities of coolant
> to go through.
>
> As I said, full of holes.  Where the nuclear
> industry might compare their
> domes to a foot soldier's helmet, I would compare it
> to a cook's spaghetti
> strainer.

Russell, ever hear of containment pressure monitors
and containment hydrostatic test pumps?  Did you know
that containments undergo a series of hydrostatic
tests to ensure their integrity on a regular basis?
Do you not realize that the equipment and personnel
hatches are of higher quality than those used on
submarines and airplanes?  Did you not know that every
single penetration is a safety-related component and
is accounted for?  If the containment was akin to a
spaghetti strianer, then they would not pass the
hydrostatic tests and would not be able to maintain
their negative gauge pressure.

Of course, you will probably expect some PC response
from the NRC filled with test data reports and code
simulations that show the integrity of the
containment.

Your misinformed and misguided euphamisms are funny -
but I do not care to hear any more of them.

Such emails as you sent the NRC really just go to show
that your lack of knowledge about nuclear power and
(simple) engineering fundamentals to boot, is really a
waste of my time.  I simply asked for an opposing view
based on good, sound engineering fundamentals.  I am
yet to hear one and, with comments about spaghetti
strainers, now I know I will never hear one from you.

Your lack of what I consider a minimum amount of
common sense and integirty as you have demonstrated
makes me realize that I am wasting too much time on
conversing with you.  This is the last email you will
receive from me (don't clap too loud).  Your next
email to me will be the last I read.  Make it good.  I
sincerely hope that you manage to squeeze in just a
minute amount of good, sound engineering judgement.

Tim

P.S. Because this Monticello incident seems to strike
a chord with you, I am going to keep my eye on it so
that I know what the problem really is and what
becomes of it.  Who knows, a full investigation may
show that there was no risk to the health and safety
of the public or it may show that the containmnet
would have failed in the event it was called upon to
perform its intended function.  Either way, it has
peaked my curiosity since you seem so interested in it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/