From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-20 11:30:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!uio.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada)
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:30:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PVV
Message-ID: 
 <slrnbrq5jj.105.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <Az7ub.3669$ZF1.458179@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <bebbba07.0311171432.3424e821@posting.google.com>
 <_eydnYB-uYJw1yeiRVn-vg@comcast.com>
 <bebbba07.0311182136.51a828b6@posting.google.com>
 <49cbf610.0311190728.6e290415@posting.google.com>
 <-cidnS2XwM-GUSai4p2dnA@comcast.com>
 <slrnbrp2d0.tf.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <ds2dnSd9HK-TTiGiRVn-vg@comcast.com>
 <slrnbrplf9.jud.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bpimdo$1odbr6$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.241.83.78
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1069356657 4807 129.241.83.78 (20 Nov 2003
 19:30:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:30:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2765
Date: 2003-11-20T19:30:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2003-11-20, Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com> wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>
>>> 2) If they crashed into the containment building, the plant could keep 
>>> operating.  If they crashed several planes into the same containment 
>>> building, they might penetrate it.  That doesn't mean the reactor would 
>>> be damaged, but that the containment building around it could probably 
>>> be breached by several fully-loaded 747s hitting the same spot. (The 
>>> requirement for US nuclear plants is that they survive ONE crash of a 
>>> jetliner full of fuel, not several in succession.
>>
>>Haven't we heard this before?
>
> Hmm. I agree, we should try it. Just to be sure. Any volunteers? :->
>

No thanks. But just that the requirements say it should isn't a
guarantee

At any rate I'm more concerened about the nuclear power plants closer to
my country.

-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."