Nuclear Power Plants are susceptible to a terrorist attack from aircraft. This short video describes the threat and a solution to the threat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrHmf8YVtI&feature=related
Report to Congress on Nuclear Power Plants Vulnerability to Terrorist Attacks:
"Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of radioactive fission products which, if dispersed, could pose a direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation, and be ingested by humans and animals. Human exposure at high enough levels can cause both short-term illness and death, and longer-term deaths by cancer and other diseases." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf
"Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of radioactive fission products which, if dispersed, could pose a direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation, and be ingested by humans and animals. Human exposure at high enough levels can cause both short-term illness and death, and longer-term deaths by cancer and other diseases." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf
More evidence of negligence and failed Nuclear Reliability on the part of the U.S. Government, Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its contractors. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010304442.html?hpid=topnews This article is extremely bothersome. The security guard reported a serious security breech, no one believed him, to include Federal Officials, he video tapped contracted security guards sleeping on the job. What happened to Department of Defense Police at Nuclear Facilities? This is another factor in failed Nuclear Surety on the part of agencies responsible for Nuclear Regulation. There is a continued line of Nuclear Surety failures which calls into question the reliability of nuclear security programs in the United States. A contracted Nuclear Security Force, this is the epitome of stupidity concerning high level security, Wackenhut does not care about anything other than its bottom line. It has a dismal employee labor relations record. What is the most bothersome concerning this revelation is the fact that NRC and Homeland Security officials would allow a private security company to perform critical Nuclear Security Functions outside of the U.S. Government. What is next, NRC dissolved and contract its functions out to Halliburton? A financially bankrupt country and its nuclear program is a danger to its citizenry.
7 comments:
Figures it would be narrated by super-Lib Martin Sheen...that says it all. Nuclear containments are already designed to withstand a direct hit by a 747 jumbo jet. You need to find other scare tactics to mislead the public. Try the 50' sci-fi picture again, that was hilarious.
You are wrong concerning the impact of an aircraft into a nuclear facility. Nuclear plants are not designed to take an impact from a passenger jet, according to the governments own studies. Just as you are wrong about the picture. When you complain about the picture in the archives you can also complain about the security study. What else are you wrong about? Lets see, if you think nuclear power is an economical, safe energy source you are also wrong about that.
Containment buildings in the U.S. are subjected to Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Tests (CILRTs) on a periodic basis, both to identify the possible leakage in an accident and to locate and fix leakage paths. [9]
In 1988, Sandia National Laboratories conducted a test of slamming a jet fighter into a large concrete block at 481 miles per hour (775 km/h) [10][11]. The airplane left only a 2.5-inch deep gouge in the concrete. Although the block was not constructed like a containment building missile shield, it was not anchored, etc., the results were considered indicative. A subsequent study by EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute, concluded that commercial airliners did not pose a danger. Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building It took less than 5 minutes to find this info. Garry, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of someone like me that's been in the nuclear industry for 35+ years. "You can't fool all the people all the time." Your turn, try more false scare tactics, but please stop insulting my intelligence. I'm beginning to think that my little finger has more knowledge about nuclear power than your entire body.
"Vulnerability from Air Attack. Nuclear power plants were designed to withstand
hurricanes, earthquakes, and other extreme events, but attacks by large airliners loaded
with fuel, such as those that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, were not
contemplated when design requirements were determined. A taped interview shown
September 10, 2002, on Arab TV station al-Jazeera, which contains a statement that Al
Qaeda initially planned to include a nuclear plant in its 2001 attack sites, intensified
concern about aircraft crashes." Report to Congress Concerning Security Vulnerabilities of Nuclear Facilities. This report is linked in my title story.
You do display that you are able to cut and paste. That ability has nothing to do with facts or your knowledge in the subject matter you are discussing. If you had thoroughly read the article you site then you must realize that the study is indicative of crashing an aircraft into an unanchored block of reinforced concrete and it is not a containment structure. The study states that fact, it also states, "...the results were considered indicative." It states nothing of what it is indicative of. Except an aircraft was crashed into an unanchored reinforced concrete block which is not a containment structure. The Congressional Report I linked and quoted above covered the subject. Try again, you failed in your attack on my character and arguing whatever point you were attempting to argue or demonstrate. As an alleged person "that has been been working in the nuclear field for 35+ years" you seem to indicate a failure of reasoning. It is you Mr. Anonymous who is making false allegations toward my character. Your argument proves nothing, except at this point I doubt your stated credentials; your comprehension and reasoning in this matter is seriously lacking. However, you are capable of making attacks and performing a "cut and paste" job. It would benefit yourself to stick to the facts instead of your feeble attempts at an attack.
The last time I checked, jet fuel had a hard time burning through concrete...much less 4 - 6 feet thick rebar reinforced concrete. Anyway, it appears that nothing is going to change your mind...even common sense isn't in play with you. The reason that al-Qaeda would consider attacking a nuclear power plant is for the terror aspect...get it, they're "terrorists", they deal in terror. They would get much more publicity out of hitting a nuclear power plant and doing little damage to a containment building than if they hit a coal fired plant and completely destroyed it. You know yourself that if there was an incident at Browns Ferry of minor concern it would make the evening news every time. However, if there was a similar incident up at Widows Creek (plant trip, steam leak, etc.) we'd hear little to nothing about it. The media is much more attracted to news at a nuclear plant than a coal fired plant because of folks like you that are afraid of something you don't understand (nuclear power). My stated credentials are accurate and not exaggerated. I'm a former Navy nuclear power plant operator on submarines and worked for a company for 30+ years designing nuclear plants. I can tell you how every aspect of a nuclear power plant works, right from the absorption of a slow neutron to make a fission all the way to power going out on the grid. Are you that educated on the subject or do you need to do a little more studying? It is you that that seems to have a problem with reasoning and common sense. What's wrong with "cut & paste" as long as you give the reference, as I did. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to attack you. I think you're a good guy that's just a little misguided on this issue. I just have a problem when someone with limited knowledge on a subject tries to pass himself (or herself) off as some sort of an expert. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this nuclear containment thing...
I have never passed myself off as an expert. You are making another character attack, and a false one. You however are attempting to pass yourself off as an expert. An alleged expert with no name. I list links and present information. If you have a problem with my abilities to assimilate information from the U.S. Government and experts in the stated fields such as the NRC, UCS, BREDL, NIRS, Congressional Testimony, etc. send them a letter of concern. But you Mr. Anonymous will stick to no flaming and state your case, arguing your case if you will. But I will no longer tolerate any further personal flaming attacks from you in any form.
Again your argument fails. Jet fuel at high impact is extremely explosive, and hot enough to melt structural steel, coupled with the energy from the speed you have an extremely dangerous missile and explosive projectile as indicated in the Congressional Report.
Once again any further personal attack will result in your comments ending in the trash. No further warnings pal.
Garry, I'm sorry if you have taken my comments personally. Like I said in my last message, I'm not trying to attack you. I think you're a good guy who just happens to disagree with me on some issues. The NRC is doing a good job, as witnessed with their recent rating of Browns Ferry. If Bellefonte is to be built, I have to think that they will do an equally good job in reviewing and approving it.
Post a Comment