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: RocketMan who wrote (6464)	10/20/2001 8:58:55 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

a Chernobyl would be bad enough, and that is what would be likely from a WTC-type attack on a nuclear power facility France will set up anti-aircraft missiles around the La Hague nuclear waste recycling facility. It contains 70 times as much Caesium-137 as Chernobyl. Currently the buildings can resist a crash of a plane with up to 5.7 tons. wise-paris.org cogema.fr asn.gouv.fr de.news.yahoo.com Donnerstag 18. Oktober 2001, 13:30 Uhr Frankreich will La Hague offenbar mit Flugabwehrraketen schützen

To: RocketMan who wrote (6464)	10/20/2001 9:12:52 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Rocketman... I personally don't have much fear of what an airliner could achieve against a nuclear power plant. Those containment domes are designed to handle massive INTERNAL explosions of hydrogen or methane, as well a massive heat being produced for long periods of time, both of which required heavily reinforced concrete and hardening techniques. A dome, as a geometric design, is MUCH stronger in repelling external pressures, but requires even more reinforcment to handle an internal explosion. With thicknesses of between 4 and 6 feet, a 747 would just disintegrate against the dome. Afterall, an airframe has to be sturdy, yet light, but have very little rigidity in a crash (look at any crash site of an airliner). I was watching some program the other day where they showed and F4 Phantom being launched against a concrete section the thickness of a containment dome as a test. This jet was going 500 MPH on a rocket sled when it hit this wall, and the concrete was only dented by a couple of inches. Bottom line is that although weighing 400 tons, or whatever it gross weight, it's not a solid object, and much of its mass will spray in every direction but the original heading. wired.com "But today, activity in Tech Area 3 buzzes around the 10,000-foot-long rocket-sled test track. Anti-tank warheads, nuclear shipping casks, missile parts, and a rocket-assisted locomotive have all been shot down its narrow-gauge steel rails. But the mother of all tests was the one involving an F4 Phantom jet: 35 rockets sent it hurtling into a concrete slab at 475 mph. This last experiment was to see whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a crazed kamikaze-piloted aircraft; its spectacular result, according to laconic 35-year Sandia veteran Bill Kampfe, was "pretty damn small pieces." Now yeah... a 747 is obviously bigger. However, most of that size is empty space inside for the passengers to walk around in, and the wings would just fly off in various directions. Furthermore, the Pentagon, from height, is an amazingly small looking target to aim at, and a nuclear plant even smaller. So while the government WON'T GUARANTEE that a containment dome would handle such an impact (wasn't designed for that), common sense pretty much dictates that it would. What's more frightening would be that if a jet hit the control building and knocked out all the capacity to shut-down the reactor. However, I believe most plants are operated with a active control safeguards, which means if they lose a control system, it goes into automatic shutdown mode. What I'm more concerned with is physical security. It's always been a concern and there's never been enough budget to buy the security they require. Hawk

To: RocketMan who wrote (6464)	10/20/2001 9:29:33 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

With all due respect, I think WTC-style hijackings are now the least likely threat. The technique depended on surprise (to take the plane) and cooperation from the passengers. Now that the profile of hijackers has changed from hostage-takers to kamikazes, no one will cooperate with them. They would have to commandeer an empty jet, or completely knock out all other passengers.

To: RocketMan who wrote (6464)	10/20/2001 11:46:09 PM
From: BirdDog	Respond to of 281500

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. I'm sure they stated correctly from an international standpoint. However.... I admit I have only been in one major nuclear generating station. But... The one reactor that was built to these earlier specs you speak of... It had to have a new "canopy" built over it to new specs. Even then...it is now shut down due to age. The two newer ones at that site. I think they were built in the 70's. I know a fully loaded 747 wouldn't phase them. 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. In such an instance. Number one...they have backups on backups. Two...all they have to do is push a button to separate the "rods". The heat source is immediately stopped. The worst that would happen with an operator who isn't a complete idiot is that some people will be out of electricity until they can find replacement sources of generation. I can't speak for all the reactors in the country. I do believe the International committee is speaking correctly for the world. Most don't follow safety and security anywhere near what I saw at the plant I was in. Overall it would probably be a good idea to increase security in every way with nuclear plants. The one I was in, the only thing I could suggest to improve security is to secure the area further away from the outside of the plant. Unless you want guided missles and gattling machine guns? BirdDog