Jonathan_S wrote:Article claims this is the worlds first floating nuclear reactor. Even ignoring all the reactors used to power ships they overlook the MH-1A - a pressurized water reactor the US built into a converted Liberty ship in the 60s and used to provide power to the Panama Canal zone into the mid 70s.
So the Russian's new floating pressurized water reactors are hardly the first. That doesn't mean that Russia will operate them safely; even ignoring Chernobyl the USSR and Russia have had a worse nuclear power safety record than the US - but it does mean the writers of the article didn't do their research.
Hell no they won't operate them safely. The Russians oftentimes act like a third world country. Dilandu charges me with holding the present Russia capable of the chaos of the past. I didn't know there was a difference. How quickly we forget. Budget cuts was responsible for sinking the pride of their nuclear fleet? What happens when these same budget cuts affect this Floating Chernobyl? Not too far-fetched when it affected the pride of their fleet.
MY WHOLE PROBLEM is they cannot be trusted to operate safely, certainly not with their track record. And even if they do, permanently operating on the ocean is asking mother nature to slap the shit out of them while the Demon Murphy laughs.
Not in the Arctic, where pristine fish live. AND. AND, if a problem does occur. We can't count on the Russians' morals, scruples and values to give the world full disclosure.
Refusing foreign help to rescue the doomed soldiers onboard Kursk, is just about how much WE can trust them. Their own soldiers could not trust them. Was Russia still in a state of chaos in the year 2000? Palease.
Why why why, in such a pristine piece of land historically free from the foibles of man. I hear you sea life ...
"There goes the neighborhood."
You first heard the news here on W-CTHIA of an inevitable disaster.
