Dealing with Nuclear Disaster

Sorry, but more than a bit of engineering at university tells me otherwise. Probabilistic risk assesment indicates to me that many nuke power stations and a quite a few storage sites are ripe for long-term social choas from breach of radiative material storage integrity.

A very little bit, evidently. Your PRA is faulty. Most realistic PRAs I've done and/or validated indicate that while the risk is not zero, it is quite small, especially when compared with risks we commonly accept every day. You've got to go a bit beyond Engineering Graphics 101 to do a valid PRA. The first one I did was when I was working with a consulting group doing work for the ACRS. That was after 4 years as an undergrad and 5 years post grad, studying physics and engineering. Quite a lot more than more than a bit, yes?

Destruction of energy producing rods to 'China syndrome' is not the only plume source, but 4 or 5 feet of concrete can be pierced.

What is this gibberish? "Energy producing rods"? Do you mean fuel assemblies? "'China syndrome' is not the only plume source,"? What are you babbling about? "China syndrome" is a Hollywood term for total core meltdown and penetration of the containment below ground level, something that is so unlikely its hard to even express the chances in terms that can be grasped. And that wouldn't result in a plume release anyway. Plume dispersion (not source) is a model for post-accident releases under certain conditions, generally involving accident models that describe a relatively long time-course accident with a limited source term.

Concrete isn't the only thing you have to breach, and in many plants the missile shield (concrete) is thicker than what you specify. You've then got to breach the containment itself, a welded steel shell that lines the inner surface of the containment structure. If you get through that, you've then got to either breach the pressure vessel (not easy considering its an eight inch thick chunk of steel) or do something to disable redundant and reliable systems such that a large-scale release occurs. All of those barriers reduce the chance of success. Just getting through the missile shield is a challenge enough. Yes, it can be penetrated, perhaps with a tactical nuclear warhead. But, if you've got one of those, you're better off detonating it where it will do some real damage, maybe in lower Manhatten (e.g., take out the stock exchange and the federal reserve bank). If you don't, then I think you're stuck, because a truck bomb won't break it open, nor will a missile launcher, or hand grenade, or airliner crash, or bazooka, or a .44 magnum, or a ...

With regard to an ant-tank gun, it is possible to do significant damage to a power plant... With a tactical thermonuclear ("suitcase") nuke? Definitely. However, I would doubt, from a strategic standpoint (in a terrorist's eyes) that nuking a nuke power plant would be the best bang for the proverbial buck.

Probably right, a few RPG's would do the same thing for less money.

If one had access to a live nuke warhead, one wouldn't necessarily want to attack such a relatively mundane target.

What if they had ALOT of live nukes? How many nukes have the Russians/Chinese lost?

A far more juicy way to approach the problem would be to vaporize the center of a major metropolitan area- Wall Street, Washington D.C., Chicago, L.A., etc. Why bother spreading radioactive fallout in an out-of-the-way location (where power plants are located)

Isn't there a nuke plant near Savanah. If that was hit the river would glow for a decade.

when you could have a much bigger impact- especially in the media- by wreaking havoc on a major city???

I think spilling nuclear waste in a river would get plenty of media coverage.

You seem to forget a major aspect of radioactive material- it's heavy metal, which means it's very difficult to disperse it in such a way as to be dissolved into the water table. And, what does make it into a major river, will be not only be difficult to diffuse in water, but that which might make it into a river will be diluted in concentration. Simply put, it's a very difficult proposition you propose.

Could an anti-tank gun do the trick? Possible, because it's a high-explosive, armor-piercing round. A cheapie RPG? Highly doubtful.

Again, simply not enough bang for the monster bucks required to obtain such a weapon. The aspect of contaminating a river would be ugly, but the blood factor associated with vaporizing a dozen square blocks of a major city, would be far more tantalizing for the media, which would be on such a story like flies on sh!t.

Regards,

Your "technical expertise" arrogance reveals a common, myopic flaw of insider techies.

Social/political panic resulting from a serious attack will happen as a radiological threat will be seen through 6 decades of Hollywood's/green's propaganda, an industry not to be trusted. Remember Chernobyl? Bhopal (chemical)? American civilians will. Wat parent would believe government declarations of "The crisis has passed." when Yucca Mountain storage must be secure for 10,000 years?

Radiation, or its threat, is perfect as an area denial strategy. No one without appropriate instrumentation can safely detect contamination or its absence. Do you think that soccer moms and '90's kinds of guys will go about their daily lives quietly after a major security breach, especially when images of structural damage is broadcast and any radioactive "material" released, or suspected to have been released? Erin Brockovich/Julia Roberts, be quiet? Prove a technical negative to millions amid their instinctive flight response.

Local chaos with economic calamity will not depend on alpha and gamma data or any other ground truth. "Evacuation in place" orders will enrage "sheeple", many of whom will stampede from the area of suspected, potential contamination, "for the children". Mass hysteria will in and of itself overwhelm local health care providers and "authorities". Clinical presentations of injury do result from hysteria.

Fearful politicians will pander or be replaced by their fearful voters. Remember the billion$ given away because of 9/11?

I've developed 4-D air/water chemical and radiological plume contamination models indicating short-term/long-term "real estate" and social distortions from real and feared contamination. Socio/economic/political/infrastructure changes can be starkly illustrated with the GIS format. There is always a "black" hole in the donut.

You underestimate mass hysteria and I suspect overestimate installations' containment.

Fear, like radiation, can have a very long half-life.

What arrogance? Your post used a lot of techno-babble and we called you on it. The latest post does the same with reference to "4-D" "plume contamination models". I hope you mean time-dependent 3-D dispersion models because that's all that makes sense for these kinds of analyses. If you're going to engage in technical discussions with knowledgeable people at least use the commonly-accepted language, as it makes much more sense for the reader/listener. No need to try to baffle us with bravo sierra, we know what we're talking about here.

I do not overestimate the containment capabilities. I use known data from actual plant designs, along with standard engineering principles and the laws of nature. I know what those containment structures can do. The kind of stored energy release they are designed to contain for the maximum credible accident completely bounds the kind of stresses and overpressures one would reasonably expect from almost all external events, including the most powerful conventional explosives. Like I said, a tactical nuke probably would get through, and certainly a warhead in the yield range of strategic weapons would do it, but if you've got those, you're probably stupid to waste it on a nuclear plant located far from population centers. You can do much more damage, both actual and psychological, if you set those off in the middle of a densely populated area, especially one with strategic/economic value.

Common jargon, relied on by our pop American media, is what I use for this FR format. A claim of "calling me on it" is silly. Your words are bigger than my words?

Maybe not bigger but just more accurate and appropriate for the context of the discussion. Don't use the media's language, you'll just be less accurate. Use commonly-accepted engineering and scientific terms, if you understand them, tha is.

Techno-buzz words have their place; IMO, not here. My intent is to be a bit inexact as "Loose lips sinks ships."

Ah ha. Well, good excuse. Congrats. I haven't heard that excuse before...

My original statement was about establishing bristling site defenses because of the extreme economic and social costs of containment failures. I stand by my insinuations.

The definitaion of an insinuation is "a sly, subtle, and usually derogatory utterance". Hardly something one would want to stand by or take credit for in the context of a technical discussion among knowledgeable people of reasonable maturity. Try again. Say something like "I believe that nuclear plant containment structures are more vulnerable to penetration from an external explosive event than previously thought. Here are my analyses..." And then list your modeling assumptions, and what you include in your finite element analysis. Then stand by your statements, not insinuations.

You underestimate mass hysteria and I suspect overestimate installations' containment.

Think what you like. Given your statements blatantly based in a combination of delusions of grandeur and technobabble (based in assumptions pulled out of a rectal orifice), we have overestimated your intelligence, at least where this subject is concerned.

I've developed 4-D air/water chemical and radiological plume contamination models indicating short-term/long-term "real estate" and social distortions from real and feared contamination. Socio/economic/political/infrastructure changes can be starkly illustrated with the GIS format.

Big deal. I could make a statistical correlation between the rainfall in Zimbabwe, and the GNP of the USA. Of course, it doesn't pass the ***sniff*** test, any more than your "containment models."

Bottom line is, you're a person who may be educated, but haven't an ounce of common sense in your entire body... What a waste of student loans...

Nicely done, on your slapping sevendays (should be "aprilfool"), on his "factually challenged" claims. However, I would respectfully point out that explaining the facts of life to a rabid anti-nuke activist (like the ones I have to face on a daily basis) is an exercise in futility. They believe what they wish to believe, regardless of facts, reason and logic.

I was never involved on the design side, and received enough schooling to understand the engineering concepts, BFPL curves, neutron embrittlement issues, radiological principles, etc. Certainly enough to throw the BS flag down on the sevendays clown... Regardless of his models, if it still can't pass the sniff test (for primary rupture) then all the models he develops are inherently flawed, and therefore useless.

Be well,

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.