Talk:Passive nuclear safety

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Page title 2 History of the page 3 Laws of physics? 4 Relevant information? 5 Article moved

[edit] Page title

Someone please move this to either "Passively-safe" (with hyphen) or "Passive safety" (I can't, probably because my login is < 1 day old), as the current term "Passively safe" implies that the reactor is safe. What the term actually means is that the way the safety it has is achieved, is passive. It's a compound adverb, and it should be hyphenated for clarity. Check a (quality) grammar or style guide if you don't believe me. -- Curmudgeonlyoldman 04:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The current page title 'Passive nuclear safety' is not a valid option, please see my comments on the page [1]. The term has never been in use outside Wikipedia, and again, gives a misleading impression to those who are unfamiliar with evaluation of safety in a nuclear/radiological setting. Perhaps it could be 'Passive (Nuclear safety)' or 'Passive safety feature (Nuclear)'. I have a feeling that the term should not need a page, because it should not be used like this. Again, I can't move the page, dunno why, isn't this 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit?!'. -- Yabbadabbadoo 09:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement with the page title is not a reason to make a mess out of the article; it's sufficient to express your concerns at the talk page. It was previously at Passively safe which doesn't match any of naming conventions in sight, and I moved it to this title, which reflects that it is an aspect of Nuclear safety. Obviously, it is not meant as a neologism, but it merely expresses what the article is about. Perhaps a better title would be Passive safety (nuclear technology), I don't know. You couldn't move the page because your account was too new, which is a Wikipedia's safety measure to prevent inexperienced users to freely rename the pages, which can have numerous side effects if done improperly. Please follow the procedure on WP:RM if you think it should be renamed. Duja 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the page

Instead of moving it to "Nuclear Reactor," it should have its own seperate page. Passive safety, which is more commonly known in academia as Natural Circulation, is a concept that is not in all nuclear reactors, especially the older ones. It is a specific safety technique that heavily utilizes hydrodynamics and isn't directly correlated with generating electricity (such as nuclear fusion or nuclear fission). There doesn't seem to be an article on "Natural Circulation," perhaps someone more knowledgable can create it. It would make sense for the article "Nuclear Reactor" to link to such a safety mechanism.

I too vote for a separate page. This topic is one that should be cited in many articles - also it is worthy of a lengthy article in itself. Containment building has a separate page for the same reasons. Simesa 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I also concur, I will remove the merge notice. Reflex Reaction 15:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Natural Circ is one way of achieving passive safety, but it is hardly the only one. Reactors, such as U-235 Pressurized Water Reactors have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity - thus are passively safe with or without having a thermal driving head.Izuko 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laws of physics?

"[...]Some such reactors use the laws of physics to keep the nuclear reaction under control rather than engineered safety systems.[...]"

Someone has forgotten that the 'laws of physics' are merely a turn of phrase, not a reality.

Dude one: Wow, that was a killer jump man, how'd you do that??

Dude two: I like, totally used the laws of physics man!

Dude one: Kewl!!

It'd be nice to see this re-worded.

Chris 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, such reactors (such as the pebble bed reactor) are better termed inherently safe rather than "passively safe". Simesa 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So then what do we call the SLOWPOKE reactor which is licensed to operate unattended overnight? I would think the older term Fail-safe is the one that should be used, rather that 'inherently safe' or 'passively safe' --DV8 2XL 19:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant information?

I was thinking that the following line is nt really relevant to this particular article. "It is widely believed that such reactors will be important in the future of the industry, since their modularity allows for economies of scale via mass production while the passive-safety aspects address public safety concerns." It should probably be moved to the article on pebble bed reactors. 83.108.144.210 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article moved

I was bold and moved the article to "Passive nuclear safety". The old name, "passively safe" was clearly unacceptable, and Passive safety redirects to Car safety (which is IMO as it should be, as the most common readers' expectation). This title is in line with the main article, "Nuclear safety". Duja 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)