Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bagman

I think he means that once the fuel rods are in or near the reactor, the danger of bombing becomes greater due to possible radioactive contamination.


13 posted on 08/17/2010 9:20:35 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (I don't need a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: 2ndDivisionVet

My point is that this assessment is incorrect. The fuel can be sitting in the reactor, but, as long as the reactor has not sustained a chain reaction, the amount of radioactivity is minimal.

When the reactor starts producing power, the radioactive inventory will increase, but, until then, the danger of wide-spread contamination is nil.

Besides, you want to disable the plant? Take out the turbine building with a few well-placed bombs. Unlike the reactor containment building (which is several feet of reinforced concrete and is designed to keep bad things outside from getting in and bad things inside from getting out), the turbine building typically has sheet metal exterior walls. Geez, some plants in the USofA, particularly in hurricane-prone areas, don’t even have walls of any sort.

Turbines take a long time to replace, particularly if the turbine building has been collapsed.

If the plant doesn’t have a turbine, then it cannot produce power (pesky thing, that law of conservation of energy).

Alternatively, take out the switch-yard. If you can’t send the power off site, then you can’t generate it.

I suspect that Ambassador Bolton knows these things.


18 posted on 08/17/2010 9:44:02 AM PDT by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson