http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2016/20160831en.html#en52209
A non-licensed employee supervisor had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been suspended.
Vogtle 3;4 (GA) Under Construction FITNESS-FOR-DUTY
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2016/20160831en.html#en52208
A non-licensed employee supervisor had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been terminated.
[ hard to determine what the job function of these people are. ' non-licensed employee supervisor ' could be the supervisor of the secretarial pool, gardeners or janitors. ]
People get drunk on the job, lie, steal, cheat, whatever in any industry. Why single out nuclear? There are checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteWhy single out nuclear? Well because those plants can blow sky high and at minimum create a sacrifice zone, and likely even destroy an entire country, as happened to the USSR and now happening to Japan.
DeleteSimple we need our best, brightest, and soberest on the job at nuclear. If you drink AT ALL, you should be banned from the plant.
Those plants are not rbmk ex soviet designs. We need our best and brightest in any pursuit.
DeleteBtw exclusion zones are not a sign of definite danger. Just a way to control real estate to zero risk.,
There are far far more hazardous areas that are not controlled. American freeways for one. Learn.
Thats why there are fitness for duty requirements. You only hear of the exception, not the norm. Any pilots drinking before their flight?
DeleteAh the old, We are safe, just Russia is bad.
DeleteAnd ignoring GE's role in Fukushima. Learn
and there is a new lie "the exclusion zones don't have to be there" sheesh
The exclusion zone increases risk by panic and fear. Really, what is the risk of 2 mSv radiation? You'd think you bought into the LNT no safe dose meme. Youll get more dose from indoor radon. An exclusion zone needs to be based on real risk, not oerceived risk. All of this because someone somewhere was overly conservative with regard to source terms to a degree that it wasnt even realistic.
DeleteLook, if 100% of the fissile matwrial in a heterogenous ceramic oxide fueled reactor somehow vaporized leaving no corium, no fuel on site, then no one need be there right? But people are rhere on site, the xorium is there on site, and the fuel is right where we said it would be. You cant cry over spilt milk they say. So really, after 5 years of squawking, what have you accomplished?
Gut check time.
It wasnt Russia. It was the Soviet Union. And the 4-unit station is located in the Ukraine, not Russia. And the dual use RBMKs had a positive void coefficient at low power. Havent you learned anything these past 5 years,
DeleteI have taken all your "lies of nuke" and debunked them.
Now the rest of the world will know how you twisted science.
It starts witb one atom. 6.02e23 of them in 18 grams water. Thats a lot of atoms/cc.
Wben you think about 1e23, a Bq or 3.7e10 disisntegrations per sec that much.
You need to learn scale at the atomic level.
Yes it does help knowing about this stuff formally.
You had your shot. You dont get two bites at the same apple.
When you feel like quitting think about why you started. (y)
ReplyDeleteimarksweb.net