Posted on 01/30/2007 6:55:19 AM PST by presidio9
The danger to the US public of a September 11-like terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant is low, an official government study said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report that its extensive analyses showed that if attackers like those on September 11, 2001 flew a large aircraft into an American nuclear plant, "the likelihood of both damaging the reactor core and releasing radioactivity that could affect the public health and safety is low."
"Even in the unlikely event of a radiological release due to terrorist use of a large aircraft, there would be time to implement mitigating actions," the commission said.
The NRC made the statement as part of its argument that there was no need to tighten overall rules related to fire risk mitigation in the design and structure of the plants.
It said it had already ordered all plant operators to take whatever measures necessary to contain the effects of fire resulting from explosions in a possible attack.
I'm not either. But I find that "this far" is often a relative term.
--I find that hard to believe. The hundreds of relatives of the so-called "hijacked & crashed" airline flights could never keep a secret like that. (and why would they?)--
Cheney pays them off from the under the table money he gets from Haliburton.
--Be SPECIFIC. --
Your first post.
The danger is low, the cost of failure is extremely high. Optimistic people should stay away from nuclear power, it's a job suitable only for extreme pessimists.
The math behind nuclear safety can't accurately model terrorists working on the inside.
I have to say I'm IN Whitefish as a result of the same sort of calculations.
By the way, did they ever figure out what the "pink liquid" was in those barrels they dug up from "the good ol' days" when they were laying foundations for the star wars gizmos...???
I'm "downwind" from Hanford, but there are several mountain ranges in between....and am likewise insulated from the Air Base in Great Falls.
I figured if I was going to starve to death anyway, it would be nice to do it in a place where I could drink the water and breathe the air....like riding my bike through the scenery and hunting as well.
Mmmmmm.....barbecued antelope.
No, actually, they weren't. Not the way reactor containments are. The WTC design criterion involved a possible accidental collision of a B707, at landing speed, with minimal fuel. The reactor design criterion is a B707 at maximum speed, with full load. The WTC was much wider than a reactor containment, hence absorbed the full impact of a full speed, full load B767 ... and stood. The resulting internal fire brought down the structure. The reinforced concrete structure of reactor is much more resistant to puncture than the skin of the WTC.
I didn't say you did. Never mind. You missed my obvious sarcasm and interjected on a discussion that was not directed to you. I have no quarrel with you or your posts nor do I believe you have a quarrel with my position, once the sarcasm is recognized. Please go back and read all my posts on this thread. Thank you.
--So can we build a whole bunch of these really safe nuclear reactors to help stop global warming?--
Yes.
--The danger is low, the cost of failure is extremely high. Optimistic people should stay away from nuclear power, it's a job suitable only for extreme pessimists. The math behind nuclear safety can't accurately model terrorists working on the inside.--
Obviously you are NOT on the inside nor have any perception of what it is like on the inside.
A radioactive leak of serious proportions is unlikely, but the power plant would be put offline, probably permanently. Roughly the same result would be achieved by flying the airliner, with or without fuel, through a mile of powerline ending in the transformer yard.
My point is that they were brought down by something unexpected.
--The math behind nuclear safety can't accurately model terrorists working on the inside.--
So sayeth a Java Geek in Gay San Francisco ...
--My point is that they were brought down by something unexpected.--
Anything can happen. Sometimes a person's favorite pet will turn on them and chew up their face.
To which "source" do you refer...???
Very snide of you to condescend to actually speak to me, though...thank you.
If you're talking about the RATS page, you might want to realize that some of that info, especially that regarding the Bio-Chemical shenanigans at Detrick/Dugway/Skull Valley are "old information", posted before much else was available as "de classified"
So, since YOU brought it up....perhaps you would like to refute the bulk of the info HERE:
http://www1.va.gov/SHAD/
or HERE:
http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/current_issues/shad/shad_chart/shad_chart_8_3.shtml
Where you find the locales of "fort greely, AK" and "Dugway Proving Ground" mentioned several times. Please also be aware that "test" means SERIES of tests, lasting anywhere from days to weeks to months....
Or, you could digest and report back on:
Environmental Assessment: Fort Greely Installation, Fort Greely, Alaska
Authors: ARMY GARRISON FORT GREELY DELTA JUNCTION AK DIRECTOR OF INSTALLATION SERVICES
Abstract: The purpose of the Proposed Action is to fulfill the planning guidance provided by Army Regulation (AR) 210-20, Master Planning for Army Installations. AR 210-20 establishes a relationship between environmental planning and real property planning to ensure that environmental consequences of planning decisions are addressed. It also includes a requirement that NEPA will be integrated into the master planning process. As a component of the installation master plan. and in accordance with AR 200d, Cultural Resources Management. it is recommended that an Environmental Assessment be prepared to implement Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMP). The need for the Proposed Action is to: (1) Provide an orderly management and development of real property assets, land use, and facilities and infrastructure in order to provide new and upgraded state-of-the-art, efficienUy maintained facilities and infrastructure required to support the installation's critical missile defense test and operations mission; and (2) Execute the ICRMP and the Integrated Pesticide Management Plan (IPMP) to satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements.
http://www.stormingmedia.us/34/3473/A347334.html
Feel free to expound further on YOUR expertise.
If I were a terrorist and I had a small nuke, I'd use it on a nuke plant on the west coast so that radiation fallout would carried across the US by the prevailing winds. Even if the radiation fall-out wasn't very lethal, the resulting panic would be.
My point is that a commercial jetliner being deliberately crashed into a reactor containment is very much expected. In fact, in general terrorist attacks on power reactors are very much expected. If you really want to breach one, your best bet would be to hit it with a nuclear bomb ...
Precisely.
It was fair game to speculate on "weaknesses" in the off hours at the incredibly stressful, but still BORING nuke power school....lots of stats to memorize, less than scenic surroundings. It WAS, however, somewhat entertaining to explain why the NAVY was in the middle of Idaho.
Newbies need to avoid sarcasm. You have to establish a track record before anybody can tell that you are joking.
Critical mass would be achieved instantly in Congress and then in the insurance business and then in the legal system. The entire corporate entity would be paralyzed in court for a hundred years, even longer than those involved in the gunfight at the OK Corral.
Well, I have been on the "inside", and I can tell you one thing about a terrorist who somehow (not likely) happened to get "inside": they would be very, very dead before they could do much of anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.