Nuclear Power

[Dang Ho <dangho@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>]

> I don't think Vietnam should need to have nuclear weapon at this point.
> The fact is that it's very costly and very immoral to play with this
> stuffs. We should not creat a second Manhattan Project. Instead we need a
> good Pressurized Water Reactor than can provide at least 1500MWe power to
> serve the country's economy. Most of the power plan was getting old and
> can't keep up with the high demand of city people. Look around, how many
> power plant are there in the country? Not much, right? This is what's we
> need a Nuclear Power Reactor. A typical power reactor takes very long time
> to build but it's very safe if we know how to operate it right, not making
> mistake like the Russian did in Chelnobyl in 1985.
> 
> I'm a Nuclear Engineer myself. I'm opposing building a weapon is good
> choice to do. Scientists who worked under the Manhattan project (The Fat
> man and the Little boy) were the 2 nuclear bombs dropped over Japan,
> these scientists did not know that they make a bomb at the time. We should
> not need these stuffs again in the modern world. The U.S. is now having
> almost 200 metric tons of Plutonium weapon grade of this stuff that need
> to get rid of from the cold war.
> 
> I can go on forever on this stuffs but I have to get back with by works.
> I'm sorry that I could not write in Vietnames phonetic code.  
> 
> On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 Yurong@oes.itri.org.tw wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Cha`o ba'c dang @ quickturn.com
> > >-Die^^`u ba^^'t ha.nh nha^^'t cu?a VN co' le~
> > >la` bi. la`m la'ng gie^^`ng vo*'i chu' kho^^?ng lo^^` Ta`u\.  Mo^^.t nga`y na`o
> > >chu' Ta`u kho^^ng "diet (gia?m ca^^n)" thi` VN mi`nh co`n bi. a(n hie^^'p da`i
> > >da`i\.  Vi` va^^.y QA nghi~ ra(`ng mi`nh pha?i ti`m ca'ch pha^^n nu*o*'c Ta`u
> > >tha`nh nhie^^`u nu*o*'c con con\.  Ne^^'u mi`nh co' ca'ch na`o khuye^^'n khi'ch
> > >da^^n thie^^?u so^^' o*? Ta`u no^^?i le^^n -do`i quye^^`n tu*. tri. thi` hay bie^^'t
> > >ma^^'y\.
> > U+`, chuye^^.n na`y thi` ai cu~ng bie^^'t, My~ Nha^^.t ddang la`m ma`\. Chuye^^.n
> > Peaceful Evolution (Die^^~n bie^^'n hoa` bi`nh- chu+~ "Hoa` bi`nh" dda^^y la`
> > "im la(.ng, -a^^m tha^^`m, -kho^^ng tie^^'ng su'ng, -e^^m dde^^`m, -bi`nh an, -tu+`
> > tu+`",
> > "Die^^~n bie^^'n" la` bie^^'n ddo^^?i, bie^^'n da.ng, bie^^'n ra- Nguye^^n chu+~ Ta`u
> > cu?a 4 chu+~ na`y la` "Hoa` bi`nh die^^~n bie^^'n") na`y cu~ng ddang die^^~n tie^^'n
> > dda^^'y\. Nguye^^n ca? kho^^'i USSR tan ra~ cu~ng vi` va^^.y\
> > O+` ma` chi? nhu+ va^^.y, VN mo+'i so^^'ng no^^?i, chu+ Ta`u ma` lo+'n ra, ddu+`ng
> > no'i chi? VN so+., ai cu~Ng so+.
> > 
> > >Mo^^.t ca'ch nu*~a la` mi`nh co' -du*o*.c va`i qua? bom nguye^^n tu*?\.  Mi`nh
> > >chi? vie^^.c ca('m 1 qua? o*? Hoa`ng Sa, 1 qua? o*? Tru*o*`ng Sa, va`i qua?
> > >o*? bie^^n gio*'i VN-Ta`u, thi` mi`nh cha? co' gi` pha?i so*., cu`ng la('m la`
> > >che^^'t chung\.  70 trie^^.u -do^^?i 1 ty? mi`nh lo*`i cha'n!  Kho^^ng bie^^'t co'
> > >ba'c dhs na`o ho.c ve^^` nga`nh va^^.t ly' nguye^^n tu*? kho^^ng\?  Co' le~ VN
> > >ne^^n ho.c ca'ch che^^' bom nguye^^n tu*?\.
> > >
> > Kho^^ng lo+`i dda^^u ba'c o+i. Ba'c co`n nho+ ca^^u no'i ru`ng ro+.n cu?a Mao
> > Tra.ch
> > DDo^^ng kho^^ng nhi?, "O+? dda^^u co' ma(.t tro+`i, o+? ddo' co' da^^n Ta`u"\.
> > 70T da^^n Vie^^.t che^^'t he^^'t, da^^n Ta`u va^^~n co`n ma`\. Va? la.i no^^? bom
> > nguye^^n tu+?, ca'c nu+o+'c kha'c che^^'t la^^y, ho. dda^^u dde^^? ye^^n cho ta\.
> > 
> > Cha`o tha^^n
> > Vinh
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>