Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (6429)	10/20/2001 10:23:45 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

BIN LADEN'S NUCLEAR PLOT sunday-times.co.uk Regards, Scott BTW, Tim I appreciate your perspective on 'the safety of our nuclear plants'...I totally agree that security at ALL facilities around the country MUST be increased. This in an area where we can not afford to take any chances.

To: Sully- who wrote (6429)	10/20/2001 7:37:34 PM
From: RocketMan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

I saw an expert on our nuclear facilities who debunked the theory that a fully loaded jumbo jet could cause a nuclear catastrophe. I don't know who this so-called "expert" was, but I am getting tired of the head-in-the-sand approach being taken by some today. True, we don't want to scare the American people, but we also don't need to treat them like idiots who can not appreciate the true nature of the threat, what we have done right to protect ourselves, and what we have failed to do. About a jet crashing into a nuclear power plant. A fully loaded jet crashing into a nuclear power plant could sure as hell cause a catastrophe. Here is an excerpt from an internationa atomic energy commission conference: Most nuclear power plants were built during the 1960s and 1970s, and like the World Trade Center, they were designed to withstand only accidental impacts from the smaller aircraft widely used at the time, the International Atomic Energy Agency said as it opened its annual conference. ``If you postulate the risk of a jumbo jet full of fuel, it is clear that their design was not conceived to withstand such an impact,'' spokesman David Kyd said. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham was among delegates from 132 nations who opened the conference with calls to better safeguard nuclear plants and keep nuclear materials out of terrorists' hands. This "expert" that you quoted says we would not have China syndrome? The China syndrome was an extreme situation set up for a movie, a Chernobyl would be bad enough, and that is what would be likely from a WTC-type attack on a nuclear power facility. Do I think that is likely? No, but not because hitting the core would not cause a serious problem but because the would probably miss. It's not that easy to aim an airliner at a spot that is a few thousand square feet in area, which is what they would have to do. Even at the Pentagon, they hit at a sub-optimal spot. But even if they miss the core, there would likely be a loss of coolant circulation, which would lead to overheating and release of radioactivity. The expert said that there was a greater chance of a determined group of terrorists (that would absolutely need a few nuclear reactor experts among the zealots) that could take over a facility & cause a meltdown from within. He noted that we needed to improve our security at all sites to eliminate the (slim IMO) chance of a successful attack on our nuclear facilities. I agree that we need to improve our physical security from an armed attack, but to discount a WTC attack is irresponsible. The next Atta would love to know that some expert is saying that he could not hit and destroy the core of one of our many older nuclear facilities.