NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm mainly here to rant about anti-nuclear people, but terrorism is also a main component.

Anyway, some soccer moms "down the shore" are stirring up trouble because the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is planning to apply for a license renewal soon. These soccer moms think terrorist could drive a plane into or something and release radiation. They claim the structure is weak and the containment is weak. Also, nuclear waste is held in water in a tower 70ft above ground.

My side: Let's define terrorism or terror-intense or overwhelming fear...terrorism being an act to cause fear for political gain. Now, if a plane or bomb were to destroy the plant, and it released radiation like Chernobyl...we'll say 90,000 deaths are caused by it like Chernobyl. This happens over 20 years and is largely do to cancer slowly sucking life away. 90000/20=4500 per year...about 12 deaths per day...that's how many people are murdered each day in NYC. jk. People don't notice slow deaths by cancer...it's overlooked. So why would terrorists bother. We should be more worried about whackjobs stealing uranium.

Terrorists go after targets that will cause a lot of quick death: 9/11...killed 3000 people in a day. The most likely things now are mass transit and places where many people gather...tall buildings, theatres...(although this isn't mid-eurasia, so theatres probably won't be attacked). So, stop whining about how terrorist could blow up a nuclear plant: they could, but they won't. They'd more likely try to steal uranium...and even that's not that likely.

Back to nuclear power plants...people always want them shut down...sure they have long-term problems like storage, but we need a buffer until we can get renewables going and nuclear is a great buffer because there is plenty of research and plenty of fuel. So again, stop whining and shut up.

Have a nice day.

Now, if a plane or bomb were to destroy the plant, and it released radiation like Chernobyl...we'll say 90,000 deaths are caused by it like Chernobyl. This happens over 20 years and is largely do to cancer slowly sucking life away. 90000/20=4500 per year...about 12 deaths per day...that's how many people are murdered each day in NYC. jk.

Where did you gets your stats from?

You do know that the vast tract of land in the area near Chernobyl and also into Belarus will be uninhabitable for several thousand years right?

And you do know that less then 10% of the radiation in the facility was released in the initial explosion?

Imagine what that would do to a major city.

Where did you gets your stats from?

You do know that the vast tract of land in the area near Chernobyl and also into Belarus will be uninhabitable for several thousand years right?

And you do know that less then 10% of the radiation in the facility was released in the initial explosion?

Imagine what that would do to a major city.
Where did either of you get any of your information?
As of 2005, according to a UN report, <50 deaths were attributed to Chernobyl and almost all of those were the initial rescue workers.

I never mentioned anything about numbers killed.

As for the percentage of radiation released initially: During the maximum credible accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station on 26 April 1986, an estimated 50 to 250 million Ci of radiation was released (5.3; 8.3). Many publications compare the accident with the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Chernobyl the destructive potential of at least one hundred atom bombs was unleashed. So far, the majority of experts have assumed that the explosion released only part of the reactor fuel. Most estimates give the amount as between 3.8 and 20 per cent. At the time of the accident there were 200 tonnes of uranium in the reactor (3.12).


The Ukrainian government agency Chernobyl Interinform, however, contends that studies of the reactor over 15 years indicate that 95 per cent of the fuel still remains within the reactor

source (http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=13110150&navID=15&lID=2)

Think people have an alternative to nuclear power? Something that is safer and cleaner and just as cheap?

Terrorists could potentially attack about anything, I wouldn't let paranoia take you. Especially if a plane crashing into it would even make the reactor overload to begin with. It would have to be lucky for the core not to shutdown.

I wouldn't let paranoia take you.
Why not? Keeps 'em occupied, anyway... it just gets out-of-hand if their paranoia is indulged and they seek/attain/retain positions of authority.

Aren't most reactors underground and surrounded by tons of concrete and thousands of gallons of cooling water anyway? It would take one hell of a concerted effort to seriously damage one of them, and hitting the cooling tower doesn't do anything except maybe force them to shut down the reactor with no real damage.

I would say gas-fired power plants are a bigger risk than nuclear, since those pipelines are a lot easier to blow up than the nuclear reactors.

Regardless, Jersey's got a 20% renewables law on the books that will provide plenty of power so even if you lost the plant it won't be too serious. Plus, you've got plenty of sites for renewables so it might not be necessary even in the short term.

But I seriously hope those soccer moms won't bitch about electricity being expensive if the nuke plant needs to be replaced by gas-fired plants; there's nothing worse than people who complain about the dangers of nuclear power but then whine when its replacements are more expensive.

Oh, and I support nuclear power but support renewables even more. If you can do the same with renewables that you can with nuclear, then go with the renewables. Otherwise go nuclear; there's nothing worse than forcing the construction of another generation of gas fired plants when we don't have to.

I don't know about the nuclear plants in your area, but the ones in my area are designed to withstand a direct hit from an F4 tornado (F5 is the worst, and we don't get very many tornados here in CT).

Anyway, some soccer moms "down the shore" are stirring up trouble because the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is planning to apply for a license renewal soon. These soccer moms think terrorist could drive a plane into or something and release radiation.

And the relevance of these people being "soccer moms" (whatever that means) is what, exactly?

I have to say, that is an irrational fear, and I'm a die-hard nuclear power opponent. Those soccer moms really've got nothing to back what they say.

I don't know about the nuclear plants in your area, but the ones in my area are designed to withstand a direct hit from an F4 tornado (F5 is the worst, and we don't get very many tornados here in CT).

Yeah well, Sellafield was designed not to leak shit into the ocean- but it does.

And the relevance of these people being "soccer moms" (whatever that means) is what, exactly?
That they are a stupid, typical, overreacting, middle-class American woman who’s understanding of science is limited to made-for-TV movies on Lifetime.

And the relevance of these people being "soccer moms" (whatever that means) is what, exactly?

I think I understand what he means by it...SUV-driving "environmentalist" women from the rich suburbs are protesting the nuclear plant.

Add in the fact that 99.99% of them have no idea what the fuck they're talking about as well as a comfortably elitist and secure social clique and you've got what he's going for.

I think I understand what he means by it...SUV-driving "environmentalist" women from the rich suburbs are protesting the nuclear plant.

And their class background and wealth automatically invalidates their opinion?

Add in the fact that 99.99% of them have no idea what the fuck they're talking about as well as a comfortably elitist and secure social clique and you've got what he's going for.

99.99% of any group has no idea what the fuck their talking about.


So: the whole 'soccer mom' malarky is just an ad hominem on the part of Sel Appa?

And their class background and wealth automatically invalidates their opinion?

It doesn't invalidate it but places it at a lower standard because they have little or no knowledge of what they're talking about and tend to be openly hypocritical about it.

These are the same kind of people who tried to censor the "pornographic rock" of the early 90's or GTA last year.

And their class background and wealth automatically invalidates their opinion?
Well, I think he's talking about the stereotype here...a bad thing to do but...if he is talking about the stereotype, yes. Does that answer your question?

Where did either of you get any of your information?
As of 2005, according to a UN report, <50 deaths were attributed to Chernobyl and almost all of those were the initial rescue workers.

However it should be noted that debate surrounds those numbers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,,1739339,00.html

99.99% of any group has no idea what the fuck their talking about.

They also don't go and protest things that would benefit a lot of people while still complaining that nothing is being done to address our energy problems.


So: the whole 'soccer mom' malarky is just an ad hominem on the part of Sel Appa?

Yeah, but I also know exactly the kind of people he means...it's an ad-hom, but it's also true.

It doesn't invalidate it but places it at a lower standard because they have little or no knowledge of what they're talking about and tend to be openly hypocritical about it.

These are the same kind of people who tried to censor the "pornographic rock" of the early 90's or GTA last year.

Stupid people. The government would be much better off if it did have to worry about the opinion of people.

It doesn't invalidate it but places it at a lower standard because they have little or no knowledge of what they're talking about and tend to be openly hypocritical about it.

So because they are wealthy, and thus likely well educated, they are going to have little knowledge and few skills to inform themselves?

I'm mainly here to rant about anti-nuclear people, but terrorism is also a main component.

Anyway, some soccer moms "down the shore" are stirring up trouble because the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is planning to apply for a license renewal soon.

I suppose maybe they'd prefer a coal plant. OH NO THEY WOULDNT. Ok ok, maybe they'd prefer their housing tracts and soccer fields be demolished to make way for wind turbines. OH NO, not that either.

I hate the mindless anti-nuclear power crowd. They won't be satisfied until we figure out a way to make matter/antimatter generate more power than it takes to create it. OOPS, no, they'd oppose that TOO, since terrorists could steal antimatter and blow up their minivans.

Stupid people. The government would be much better off if it did have to worry about the opinion of people.

Those same people who want to tell me what is right or wrong and attack my freedom of speech? They can say what they want, but it doesn't mean it deserves attention or equal consideration by me.

People like this just complain but do nothing to solve the problem and stop anything that might be able to help because of their devotion to their ideology. It's not just them, it's a lot of people but they're the ones involved in this case.

So because they are wealthy, and thus likely well educated, they are going to have little knowledge and few skills to inform themselves?

They don't bother to inform themselves...they just take whatever bullshit their social clique feeds them, load up on a few partisan sites and then go to protest. And not only that, they proceed to complain when their plan succeeds and (in the case of electricity) electricity prices soar or blackouts occur.

Another great one is when they oppose refineries, pipelines, and LNG terminals and then whine about how the evil oil companies are gouging them and making it oh-so-expensive to fill up their SUVs...and then don't want an ethanol plant or biodiesel refinery near their homes to supply them.

And their class background and wealth automatically invalidates their opinion?
The fact that they are ignorant, overprotective, paranoid, hypocritical buffoons invalidates their opinion.
Stupid people. The government would be much better off if it did have to worry about the opinion of people.
The people are okay with banning gay marriage. The people were for the war in Iraq when it started. The people reelected George W. Bush. The people suck.

Those same people who want to tell me what is right or wrong and attack my freedom of speech? They can say what they want, but it doesn't mean it deserves attention or equal consideration by me.

You have evidence that these very same people want to tell you what is right or wrong and are attacking your freedom of speech? Or are you just making windy generalisations?


...and even if these individuals voicing their opinions about the plant had differing views to you about freedom of speech, how would this indicate that they were in the wrong with regard to nuclear power?

The fact that they are ignorant, overprotective, paranoid, hypocritical buffoons invalidates their opinion.


Evidence? So far I have seen little attempt to actually refute these individuals' claims, instead just a tirade attacking them on the basis of their social status.

Hang on? Not wanting to be exposed to another nuclear incident the like of Chernobyl counts as being 'overprotective'? Gee.

You have evidence that these very same people want to tell you what is right or wrong and are attacking your freedom of speech? Or are you just making windy generalisations?

I'm not even describing these people in particular.

I'm describing the bloc people like them who have done similar things and hold those opinions. "Soccer mom" refers to a particular political bloc of socially-conservative women, and it was socially conservative women (and men) who were responsible and continue to be responsible for attacking personal freedoms.


...and even if these individuals voicing their opinions about the plant had differing views to you about freedom of speech, how would this indicate that they were in the wrong with regard to nuclear power?

It wouldn't, I just don't like them and tend to view their opinions with less credibility than I would qualified people given these kind of protestors' penchant for hypocrisy.

Modern power plants, like the ones we have in France, are self-stable, they just can't explode in a Tchernobyl way.

Crashing a plane into them would kill the ones who live there, and spread some radiation from the combustible around the plant, but it'll in no way create a Tchernobyl-like explosion.

If the plants are built far enough from cities, the number of deaths will be very low, some hundred at most, which is far less than you can do with crashing a plane.

Terrorists may still want to do it, sure, because it'll disrupt the electrical network, and the cleaning/rebuilding will be expensive.

You do know that the vast tract of land in the area near Chernobyl and also into Belarus will be uninhabitable for several thousand years right?

Its still inhabited!!!

Modern power plants, like the ones we have in France, are self-stable, they just can't explode in a Tchernobyl way.

Crashing a plane into them would kill the ones who live there, and spread some radiation from the combustible around the plant, but it'll in no way create a Tchernobyl-like explosion.

If the plants are built far enough from cities, the number of deaths will be very low, some hundred at most, which is far less than you can do with crashing a plane.

Terrorists may still want to do it, sure, because it'll disrupt the electrical network, and the cleaning/rebuilding will be expensive.
What the f* happened in Pierrelate after EDF closed the plant?
3 degres centigrades more in the waters, invasion of bugs etc...
And the plant is closed for ever.

You are working with EDF to have such a speech!

Where's the neutral stance option (on the terrorism thing I agree with - it's not very likely they'll blow up a nuclear power plant, but environmentally, I don't support nuclear fission)?

I'm mainly here to rant about anti-nuclear people, but terrorism is also a main component.

Anyway, some soccer moms "down the shore" are stirring up trouble because the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is planning to apply for a license renewal soon. These soccer moms think terrorist could drive a plane into or something and release radiation. They claim the structure is weak and the containment is weak. Also, nuclear waste is held in water in a tower 70ft above ground.

My side: Let's define terrorism or terror-intense or overwhelming fear...terrorism being an act to cause fear for political gain. Now, if a plane or bomb were to destroy the plant, and it released radiation like Chernobyl...we'll say 90,000 deaths are caused by it like Chernobyl. This happens over 20 years and is largely do to cancer slowly sucking life away. 90000/20=4500 per year...about 12 deaths per day...that's how many people are murdered each day in NYC. jk. People don't notice slow deaths by cancer...it's overlooked. So why would terrorists bother. We should be more worried about whackjobs stealing uranium.

Terrorists go after targets that will cause a lot of quick death: 9/11...killed 3000 people in a day. The most likely things now are mass transit and places where many people gather...tall buildings, theatres...(although this isn't mid-eurasia, so theatres probably won't be attacked). So, stop whining about how terrorist could blow up a nuclear plant: they could, but they won't. They'd more likely try to steal uranium...and even that's not that likely.

Back to nuclear power plants...people always want them shut down...sure they have long-term problems like storage, but we need a buffer until we can get renewables going and nuclear is a great buffer because there is plenty of research and plenty of fuel. So again, stop whining and shut up.

Have a nice day.

Parliament has rejected the proposal to build a new generation of nuclear fission power plants because they will not be available for use in time and the problems of waste. Therefore, I vote 'No'.

Answering the question in the OP,

I guess the people are easily scared..what with the popular media always friggin scaring them with this and that...it is almost like a competition among channels on who can scare you more...

Parliament has rejected the proposal to build a new generation of nuclear fission power plants because they will not be available for use in time and the problems of waste. Therefore, I vote 'No'.
People still don't comprehend what the General forum means. Must be related to soccer moms...ahahahahahahahahaha!

Americans are a giant load of pussies. It's that simple. I dont know what ever happened to "live free or die" or "give me liberty or give me death", but now its "please daddy Bush save us from the big bad terrorist."

I'm mainly here to rant about anti-nuclear people, but terrorism is also a main component.

Anyway, some soccer moms "down the shore" are stirring up trouble because the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant is planning to apply for a license renewal soon. These soccer moms think terrorist could drive a plane into or something and release radiation. They claim the structure is weak and the containment is weak. Also, nuclear waste is held in water in a tower 70ft above ground.

My side: Let's define terrorism or terror-intense or overwhelming fear...terrorism being an act to cause fear for political gain. Now, if a plane or bomb were to destroy the plant, and it released radiation like Chernobyl...we'll say 90,000 deaths are caused by it like Chernobyl. This happens over 20 years and is largely do to cancer slowly sucking life away. 90000/20=4500 per year...about 12 deaths per day...that's how many people are murdered each day in NYC. jk. People don't notice slow deaths by cancer...it's overlooked. So why would terrorists bother. We should be more worried about whackjobs stealing uranium.

Terrorists go after targets that will cause a lot of quick death: 9/11...killed 3000 people in a day. The most likely things now are mass transit and places where many people gather...tall buildings, theatres...(although this isn't mid-eurasia, so theatres probably won't be attacked). So, stop whining about how terrorist could blow up a nuclear plant: they could, but they won't. They'd more likely try to steal uranium...and even that's not that likely.

Back to nuclear power plants...people always want them shut down...sure they have long-term problems like storage, but we need a buffer until we can get renewables going and nuclear is a great buffer because there is plenty of research and plenty of fuel. So again, stop whining and shut up.

Have a nice day.
Terrorists would be happy to hit a nuclear power plant. The economic damage and the panic it would cause would, in their minds, further their cause just as much as a big body count.

Terrorists won't be able to effectively hit Oyster Creek. There are armed guards and security has been beefed up since 9/11. It's not nearly as easy to hijack a plane anymore either. Before 9/11 airline crews were instructed to comply with hijackers. Now they're not. Also the people on board the airplane might have something to say about some dickhead with a box cutter trying to take over the plane. Oyster Creek isn't Chernobyl either. It won't blow up the way Chernobyl did.

That they are a stupid, typical, overreacting, middle-class American woman who’s understanding of science is limited to made-for-TV movies on Lifetime.
Sad but true. There is an ever-growing middle class throughout the West which believes that their wealth should buy them a certain comfortable ignorance, insulation from the realities of life.

People still don't comprehend what the General forum means. Must be related to soccer moms...ahahahahahahahahaha!

This decision was made by the British Parliament. However, just to play the game, I believe that they have the right to be scared by irrational fears. After all, if they believe all of the rubbish that Bush feeds them about "international terrorism" then we have to give them something in compensation, poor things.

its absurd thet people are so paranoid about terrorism that they want to do away with things terrorists might attack. how about tall buildings, or planes, or any of the other great things we have? goddamn it.

Its clear that the terrorism thing is stupid. But as for the environmental problems, nuclear power produces a lot of electricity that would otherwise have to be produced by filthy coal power plants or hydroelectric dams. I think it is better for the environment to have radioactive waste lying around than it is to be choking on dirty air and suffering from global warming due to CO2 emissions.

Look. You all have the wrong idea. Obviously the terrorists are going to nuke the nuculear power plant. Where will they'll get the uranium? They're going to steal it from the power plant they're gonna nuke with it. Duh.

Look. You all have the wrong idea. Obviously the terrorists are going to nuke the nuculear power plant. Where will they'll get the uranium? They're going to steal it from the power plant they're gonna nuke with it. Duh.

That's not a bad idea if you think about it. After all, why not just steal the nuclear fuel and then give it back peacefully. That way, instead of another Hiroshima you get all of the panic without the inconvenience of mass death and destruction.

a plane crashing into a nuclear reactor would just crush the plane

http://www.nci.org/02/06f/18-02.htm


there is a video online somewhere of an F-16 fighter jet crashing into a reactor, its pretty cool.

That's not a bad idea if you think about it. After all, why not just steal the nuclear fuel and then give it back peacefully. That way, instead of another Hiroshima you get all of the panic without the inconvenience of mass death and destruction.

but the terrorist would want the deaths as well as the panic. i mean think why just cause fear in people when you could take them out and scare even more people. this doesn't even touch on the amount of suffering the victems familes would go through, and the terror it would send to the county cause then it would have to worry about another attack and send resources to prevent it from happening again. thus taking away abilities it would have in different circumstances. (like waging war for instance.):rolleyes:

but the terrorist would want the deaths as well as the panic. i mean think why just cause fear in people when you could take them out and scare even more people. this doesn't even touch on the amount of suffering the victems familes would go through, and the terror it would send to the county cause then it would have to worry about another attack and send resources to prevent it from happening again. thus taking away abilities it would have in different circumstances. (like waging war for instance.):rolleyes:

True, but it would also cause a great deal of panic due to the fear that someone could do it in the future. After all, if no one had died on September 11th 2001 then everyone would be saying: "Hey, this Bin Laden bloke has a point" instead of kill, maim, torture.

a plane crashing into a nuclear reactor would just crush the plane

http://www.nci.org/02/06f/18-02.htm


Uh-huh.

"Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, questioned the methodology of the report funded by U.S. utilities and said his group's review has found that a Boeing 767 airliner could crash through a reactor.

However, Lyman's group based its conclusions on an airplane flying at maximum cruising speed of 530 mph. Such a high speed just a few hundred feet off the ground would make it difficult to accurately strike a nuclear plant."

Difficult, but not impossible. You did actually read the page you linked to, didn't you?

Uh-huh.

"Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, questioned the methodology of the report funded by U.S. utilities and said his group's review has found that a Boeing 767 airliner could crash through a reactor.

However, Lyman's group based its conclusions on an airplane flying at maximum cruising speed of 530 mph. Such a high speed just a few hundred feet off the ground would make it difficult to accurately strike a nuclear plant."

Difficult, but not impossible. You did actually read the page you linked to, didn't you?

What if they go that fast, higher up, set up a diving run, and then dive straight down onto the reactor?

So again, stop whining and shut up.


Aren't you kind of whining yourself?

but the terrorist would want the deaths as well as the panic.

You obviously have little knowledge of the frequent bomb hoaxes that occurred in Northern Ireland at the height of the conflict here. Disruption in itself is also part of a campaign.

How come no one ever remembers 'Three Mile Island'? You know, the meltdown that occured on the US mainland? It 3 hours before anyone realised anything was wrong. There were lax safety measures. Everyone with a 10-mile radius got the a minimum equivalent of a chest x-ray despite the fact that the reactor remained intact. The clean up took over two decades and over $1 billion, again despite the reactor remaining intact. In fact, I think, it was during the cleanup when the majority of the radioactive gases were released. The gases, instead of being collected were just vented straight into the atmosphere.

Don't quote me on this, this is just whatI remember. That's quite a lot to remember though. :D

Uh-huh.

Difficult, but not impossible. You did actually read the page you linked to, didn't you?
u obvioulsy didnt read the entire report... :upyours:

I'm in favor of nuclear power plants because they will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which actually funds terrorism.

How come no one ever remembers 'Three Mile Island'? You know, the meltdown that occured on the US mainland? It 3 hours before anyone realised anything was wrong. There were lax safety measures. Everyone with a 10-mile radius got the a minimum equivalent of a chest x-ray despite the fact that the reactor remained intact. The clean up took over two decades and over $1 billion, again despite the reactor remaining intact. In fact, I think, it was during the cleanup when the majority of the radioactive gases were released. The gases, instead of being collected were just vented straight into the atmosphere.

Don't quote me on this, this is just whatI remember. That's quite a lot to remember though. :D
Nowadays, nuclear power plants are much more safer.

u obvioulsy didnt read the entire report... :upyours:

'fraid I did: it details the report and then describes the reaction to it from others and lays out the findings of other similar investigations which didn't operate within the strict parameters that the NEI decided to operate within.

To sum up: 'The report was viewed skeptically by other experts.'

I'm in favor of nuclear power plants because they will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which actually funds terrorism.

Huh? How does buying oil from the largest importing nation support terrorism?

Nowadays, nuclear power plants are much more safer.And who told you that? The people who originally told you that nuclear power plants are safe? The nuclear industry? And what do you mean nowadays? No new nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since Three Mile Island.

Where did you gets your stats from?

You do know that the vast tract of land in the area near Chernobyl and also into Belarus will be uninhabitable for several thousand years right?

And you do know that less then 10% of the radiation in the facility was released in the initial explosion?

Imagine what that would do to a major city.

First off, I want to point this out, Chernobyl nuclear power plant was quite possibly the worst architectural design ever! It was all tin. The same tin, people use to make crappy metal houses and pig pens. Since then, Russia has started making powerplants like we do.

The example I'll use is Wolf Creek Powerplant in Kansas. It is made of Steel-reinforced concrete. On the top of the ractor core, the concrete is about 33 feet thick. Quite literally, a 747 can hit it itself and will not destroy the core. On the sides, it's about 17 feet thick. This isn't nearly as much as on the apex, but it could still take a hit from a 737 and not be harmed.

The three mile island accident was poor planning too. They had no backup electricity grids. When the system failed, things went terribly wrong. But at Wolf Creek, there are 5 backup electricity grids. They're completely seperate and in no way interact. If one shuts down,another takes charge. Past those five, there's an emergency grid. We've learned a lot from the two nuclear accidents that happened. The three mile incident also for te record, has not been responsible for a single illness or death

And who told you that? The people who originally told you that nuclear power plants are safe? The nuclear industry? And what do you mean nowadays? No new nuclear power plants have been built in the USA since Three Mile Island.
Since Three Mile Island, safety regulations have improved partly as a result of lessons learned at Three Mile, and also technology has greatly improved over the last 27 years. All over the world, recent nuclear plants are safer, but not over here, because, as you said, no new plants were built after Three Mile.

:cool: First off, I want to point this out, Chernobyl nuclear power plant was quite possibly the worst architectural design ever! It was all tin. The same tin, people use to make crappy metal houses and pig pens. Since then, Russia has started making powerplants like we do.

The example I'll use is Wolf Creek Powerplant in Kansas. It is made of Steel-reinforced concrete. On the top of the ractor core, the concrete is about 33 feet thick. Quite literally, a 747 can hit it itself and will not destroy the core. On the sides, it's about 17 feet thick. This isn't nearly as much as on the apex, but it could still take a hit from a 737 and not be harmed.

The three mile island accident was poor planning too. They had no backup electricity grids. When the system failed, things went terribly wrong. But at Wolf Creek, there are 5 backup electricity grids. They're completely seperate and in no way interact. If one shuts down,another takes charge. Past those five, there's an emergency grid. We've learned a lot from the two nuclear accidents that happened. The three mile incident also for te record, has not been responsible for a single illness or death
Wow, you've sure done your homework!!

:cool:
Wow, you've sure done your homework!!

Thanks, Our chemistry teacher this year was a nuclear engineer in the army. He taught us a lot of that stuff. My uncle works at Wolf Creek too. He was on the nuclear submarines, but now he just works at Wolf Creek.

Another thing to point out is the vast economic impact of a nuclear powerplant. The county Wolf creek is in was the poorest county in Walnut. Now with Wolf Creek, they are one of the richest 10 counties in the US. That's a pretty big improvement.

Since Three Mile Island, safety regulations have improved partly as a result of lessons learned at Three Mile, and also technology has greatly improved over the last 27 years. All over the world, recent nuclear plants are safer, but not over here, because, as you said, no new plants were built after Three Mile.Safer is such a lovely word. Mainly because it doesn't have to mean 'safe'. But unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any other option but nuclear for the next generation of power plants. I'm deeply distrusting of nuclear power and if I thought there was another feasible option for the next generation then I'd go with that instead.

I don't like it when people say nuclear is cheap. Sellafield, the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the UK, is estimated to cost about £70 billion to clean up when it is decomissioned. What's more worrying is that estimate seems to keep on rising.

Well normally im smart enough to keep quiet but here's what this seems to look like to me. The ultimate attack that terrorists could do on a nuclear power plant is to drive a nuclear wepon up to it then detonate it (especially near a city) and claim credit for it. This would actually destroy the plant (which everyone seems to agree anything short of a plane crashing into it basically will just leave a black mark), do massive damage to the area, make everyone think that nuclear power plants aren't safe (there by shutting them all down)

Well normally im smart enough to keep quiet but here's what this seems to look like to me. The ultimate attack that terrorists could do on a nuclear power plant is to drive a nuclear wepon up to it then detonate it (especially near a city) and claim credit for it.

If you already have a nuclear weapon then why bother targetting a reactor?

If you already have a nuclear weapon then why bother targetting a reactor?

One main reason off the top of my head would be to shut down our third most pevalent power source in the US(About 18%), even furthering our dependence to the oil company own by the terrorist's uncle, Ahkmed. Sounds reasonable to me.

I must say, it's difficult to believe that some people here believe that a Chernobyl-scale meltdown is even POSSIBLE with a US nuclear reactor. The Three Mile Island reactor in the US, by comparison, had an insignificant effect on the environment and only happened because of FOUR security features simultaneously failing. Take a look at a diagram (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/bwr.jpg) of a modern US reactor: the water used for cooling is completely isolated from the radioactive materials.

The only thing that prevents a nuclear-powered US is the irrational, ignorant fear caused by Chernobyl. It's like the Hindenburg; despite the fact that modern dirigibles use helium, a NOBLE GAS, which doesn't explode like the hydrogen in the Hindenburg, today the only such vessel you see is the Goodyear blimp.

The same ignorance is responsible for preventing us from transporting nuclear waste to a central site in Nevada. People say, "OH NOES!!!111 NUKULUR RADIAYSHUN IN MY TOWN!!!!" Learn about nuclear power. Waste is transported in enormous concrete casks. These casks can withstand over 30 minutes of immolation at 1000 kelvins. Nothing will leak.

Well normally im smart enough to keep quiet but here's what this seems to look like to me. The ultimate attack that terrorists could do on a nuclear power plant is to drive a nuclear wepon up to it then detonate it (especially near a city) and claim credit for it. This would actually destroy the plant (which everyone seems to agree anything short of a plane crashing into it basically will just leave a black mark), do massive damage to the area, make everyone think that nuclear power plants aren't safe (there by shutting them all down)
People already think nuclear plants aren't safe. When was the last time you heard of news of a new nuclear power plant being constructed? The number of nuclear power plants in the United States is decreasing, not increasing.

One main reason off the top of my head would be to shut down our third most pevalent power source in the US(About 18%), even furthering our dependence to the oil company own by the terrorist's uncle, Ahkmed. Sounds reasonable to me.

Now, that makes more sense to me than the previous poster's example. However, given that you would only be targetting a single plant wouldn't conventional explosives or similar non-WMD be suitable to get the job done? You may not be able to breach the structure, but if your were to damage it somewhat it would presumably need to be offline for some to to test, check and repair.

Of course it should be noted that the top three oil importers into the US aren't anywhere near the middle east...

It's like the Hindenburg; despite the fact that modern dirigibles use helium, a NOBLE GAS, which doesn't explode like the hydrogen in the Hindenburg, today the only such vessel you see is the Goodyear blimp.


Are you claiming that lack of widespread use of dirigibles today is primarily caused by safety fears?

I must say, it's difficult to believe that some people here believe that a Chernobyl-scale meltdown is even POSSIBLE with a US nuclear reactor. The Three Mile Island reactor in the US, by comparison, had an insignificant effect on the environment and only happened because of FOUR security features simultaneously failing. Take a look at a diagram (http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/bwr.jpg) of a modern US reactor: the water used for cooling is completely isolated from the radioactive materials.

The only thing that prevents a nuclear-powered US is the irrational, ignorant fear caused by Chernobyl. It's like the Hindenburg; despite the fact that modern dirigibles use helium, a NOBLE GAS, which doesn't explode like the hydrogen in the Hindenburg, today the only such vessel you see is the Goodyear blimp.

The same ignorance is responsible for preventing us from transporting nuclear waste to a central site in Nevada. People say, "OH NOES!!!111 NUKULUR RADIAYSHUN IN MY TOWN!!!!" Learn about nuclear power. Waste is transported in enormous concrete casks. These casks can withstand over 30 minutes of immolation at 1000 kelvins. Nothing will leak.

It actually wasn't the hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg to go down, the paint was very flammable.

It actually wasn't the hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg to go down, the paint was very flammable.

Is that the stuff which was effectively thermite?

Now, that makes more sense to me than the previous poster's example. However, given that you would only be targetting a single plant wouldn't conventional explosives or similar non-WMD be suitable to get the job done? You may not be able to breach the structure, but if your were to damage it somewhat it would presumably need to be offline for some to to test, check and repair.

Of course it should be noted that the top three oil importers into the US aren't anywhere near the middle east...
Maybe. But seeing that nuclear power is in decline in the US, a terrorist with that motive would only be hastening its demise. Maybe a smarter strategy would be to attack a hydroelectric dam?

One main reason off the top of my head would be to shut down our third most pevalent power source in the US(About 18%), even furthering our dependence to the oil company own by the terrorist's uncle, Ahkmed. Sounds reasonable to me.NYC would be a 'better' target. I'm pretty sure a nuclear explosion in NYC would trigger a global recession. Byebye major financial centre of the world.

First off, I want to point this out, Chernobyl nuclear power plant was quite possibly the worst architectural design ever! It was all tin. The same tin, people use to make crappy metal houses and pig pens. Since then, Russia has started making powerplants like we do.

The example I'll use is Wolf Creek Powerplant in Kansas. It is made of Steel-reinforced concrete. On the top of the ractor core, the concrete is about 33 feet thick. Quite literally, a 747 can hit it itself and will not destroy the core. On the sides, it's about 17 feet thick. This isn't nearly as much as on the apex, but it could still take a hit from a 737 and not be harmed.

The three mile island accident was poor planning too. They had no backup electricity grids. When the system failed, things went terribly wrong. But at Wolf Creek, there are 5 backup electricity grids. They're completely seperate and in no way interact. If one shuts down,another takes charge. Past those five, there's an emergency grid. We've learned a lot from the two nuclear accidents that happened. The three mile incident also for te record, has not been responsible for a single illness or death


I never said anything about slamming a plane into it. I didn't base my answer on that assumption.

I based my answer on someone getting inside and causing a meltdown- security can never be 100%. Look at Sellafield. Its pathetic.

Are you claiming that lack of widespread use of dirigibles today is primarily caused by safety fears?
No, I don't know all the factors, but I know that it contributed greatly. That was the reason my history teacher gave, I haven't researched it on my own.

It actually wasn't the hydrogen that caused the Hindenburg to go down, the paint was very flammable.
Are you claiming that the hydrogen within the Hindenburg did not explode?

What a tease. I thought that was a link.

I never said anything about slamming a plane into it. I didn't base my answer on that assumption.

I based my answer on someone getting inside and causing a meltdown- security can never be 100%. Look at Sellafield. Its pathetic.Aye, and there's 30kg of plutonium missing from Sellafield as well.

Aye, and there's 30kg of plutonium missing from Sellafield as well.

Now, that I did not know.

Are you claiming that the hydrogen within the Hindenburg did not explode?

What a tease. I thought that was a link.

One of the theories is that the conflagration was triggered by the paint on the skins, which were a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide (in other words a single step away from thermite).

People already think nuclear plants aren't safe. When was the last time you heard of news of a new nuclear power plant being constructed? The number of nuclear power plants in the United States is decreasing, not increasing.

The point was if people thought they could be destroyed easily (I'm assuming the terrorists are smart enough to not say they've used a nuke) every nuclear power plant would probably be shut down immediately. Since I guess I have to spell things out for you, what do you think would happen to our electricity if all those reactors were shut down in a very short period of time? Here is what would happen: energy prices would soar, constant blackouts, energy rationing. These in turn would weaken our economy (it's a gloabal economy if you haven't noticed) and generally cause about as much problems as 9/11. 9/11 wasn't bad just because 3,000 people died it was horrible because it was the World Trade Center and that grieviously wounded our economy

One of the theories is that the conflagration was triggered by the paint on the skins, which were a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide (in other words a single step away from thermite).
But if there was helium inside and not hydrogen, no huge fireball.

Now, that I did not know.It's enough for a 600 kiloton bomb or 3 200 kiloton bombs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4272691.stm
They're trying to make out that it's only a clerical error, but really they're just trying to keep the public calm. If they're so sure it's a clerical error then they could have found the error easily. They have no idea if it's a clerical error or not.

But if there was helium inside and not hydrogen, no huge fireball.

It wasn't the fire that killed most of the people on lost, rather the fall (or more properly, hitting the ground).


EDIT: sidenote - apparently more people were killed when Akron, a helium filled airship, crashed in 1933 than died on the Hindenburg.

The point was if people thought they could be destroyed easily (I'm assuming the terrorists are smart enough to not say they've used a nuke) every nuclear power plant would probably be shut down immediately. Since I guess I have to spell things out for you, what do you think would happen to our electricity if all those reactors were shut down in a very short period of time? Here is what would happen: energy prices would soar, constant blackouts, energy rationing. These in turn would weaken our economy (it's a gloabal economy if you haven't noticed) and generally cause about as much problems as 9/11. 9/11 wasn't bad just because 3,000 people died it was horrible because it was the World Trade Center and that grieviously wounded our economy
Apologies, I thought you were the poster who thought that the motive to destroy nuclear plants was to increase our reliance on foreign oil. I pointed out in my reply to his post that a terrorist strike would only hasten the end of nuclear power in the US. I'm not saying it won't.

It's enough for a 600 kiloton bomb or 3 200 kiloton bombs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4272691.stm
They're trying to make out that it's only a clerical error, but really they're just trying to keep the public calm. If they're so sure it's a clerical error then they could have found the error easily. They have no idea if it's a clerical error or not.

Ho-ly shit. On top of that...

The figures also showed that 16.4kg of naturally-depleted uranium was also unaccounted for....

In 2003 BNG revealed 19kg of plutonium was unaccounted for at the plant.

That is extremely worrying. 'Losing' dangerous material?

It wasn't the fire that killed most of the people on lost, rather the fall (or more properly, hitting the ground).
The fall would not have occurred so quickly if it had been filled with helium rather than hydrogen.

The fall would not have occurred so quickly if it had been filled with helium rather than hydrogen.
Source: http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues/2004-12-17/project1/index.html

The fall would not have occurred so quickly if it had been filled with helium rather than hydrogen.

Those that stayed in the basket underneath the fireball descended safely and relatively slowly for the most part, whereas others decided to jump, and they were the ones killed by the fall. If you watch the footage you will see that the gondola actually goes groundwards quite slowly.

Aside from which: given that the skin ignited, the helium would have been released and the descent would have been at the same rate.

Nothing to see there. You can use theory to calculate what you should get out of the process, with a certain degree of accuracy, and you can measure what you actually get out, with a certain degree of accuracy. But when a chunk of your calculations relies on say, indirect measurements of the mass of a dissolving metal with a tomographic instrument, you're going to be out by several percent. When you're processing tonnes of waste, the limits of your accuracy reach multiple critical masses quite easily.

Those that stayed in the basket underneath the fireball descended safely and relatively slowly for the most part, whereas others decided to jump, and they were the ones killed by the fall. If you watch the footage you will see that the gondola actually goes groundwards quite slowly.

Aside from which: given that the skin ignited, the helium would have been released and the descent would have been at the same rate.
Well, I watched the footage and it didn't seem extremely rapid, but I don't know if it would be considered safe. I'll concede that, but if you had a gigantic fireball burning over your head, you might jump too. If it was a smaller fire, maybe not. And IIRC there were fatalities caused by severe burns.

As to your second point, if you read the article I linked to, experiments have shown that the fabric takes hours to be destroyed by fire.

Apologies, I thought you were the poster who thought that the motive to destroy nuclear plants was to increase our reliance on foreign oil. I pointed out in my reply to his post that a terrorist strike would only hasten the end of nuclear power in the US. I'm not saying it won't.

Sorry for getting on your case then, i thought you were one of those people who don't think at all that I have to show my whole train of thought to. I find this very annoying as this sometimes may take pages. As far as the person that thinks that a good reason to attack power plants is to increase our reliance on oil is not thinking very much. First, it is far too indirect for terrorists, who are almost always looking for how to directly affect whatever their after. Second, any that do think that far ahead will realize that that will just force us to increase our presence in that hell hole they call the Middle East.

As to your second point, if you read the article I linked to, experiments have shown that the fabric takes hours to be destroyed by fire.

I can't argue with their results, and I have labelled the iron oxide/aluminium thing as only a theory, but I do seem to remember one set of experiements which did produce rapid conumption.

sidenote - apparently more people were killed when Akron, a helium filled airship, crashed in 1933 than died on the Hindenburg.
Just because an airship has helium in it doesn't mean that nothing will ever happen to it. But a hydrogen-filled dirigible is less safe than a helium-filled one. You cannot dispute that fact. Hydrogen-filled dirigibles such as the Hindenburg do have a very low rate of explosions (the german engineers were so confident that they even built room with a cigarette lighter inside the Hindenburg), but the point is the fear. When people watched the Hindburg explode, they associated that disaster with all airships, even though using helium would prevent a similar explosion.

I can't argue with their results, and I have labelled the iron oxide/aluminium thing as only a theory, but I do seem to remember one set of experiements which did produce rapid conumption.
Well, I'll settle for an impasse then. We can't really definitively say what happened anyway.

I never said anything about slamming a plane into it. I didn't base my answer on that assumption.

I based my answer on someone getting inside and causing a meltdown- security can never be 100%. Look at Sellafield. Its pathetic.

Well, I'm guessing that the biggest fear about this would be some Al Queda Person getting inside and doing something. The fact is though that this is quite literally impossible.

No Middle-Eastern person is even allowed withing a milw radius of a nuclear power plant. This isn't because of Racism or an awesomely all-seeing background check. It's because it's in their genetics. The only people allowed near a nuclear powerplant are white (Specifically from Europe or surrounding few nations.) Middle-aged Males. Anyone from African or any country near Mediterannean decent aren't allowed for fear of Sickle-Cell anemia. Likewise, no women are allowed for fear of a mutated egg causeing some funky children.

Of course, there could always be some person like Timothy McVay, so I'm not ruling this out. I'm just saying that it would be incredibly difficult for Al Queda to get into a nuclear power plant.

No Middle-Eastern person is even allowed withing a milw radius of a nuclear power plant. This isn't because of Racism or an awesomely all-seeing background check. It's because it's in their genetics. The only people allowed near a nuclear powerplant are white (Specifically from Europe or surrounding few nations.) Middle-aged Males. Anyone from African or any country near Mediterannean decent aren't allowed for fear of Sickle-Cell anemia. Likewise, no women are allowed for fear of a mutated egg causeing some funky children.... I'm just saying that it would be incredibly difficult for Al Queda to get into a nuclear power plant.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

They do have nuclear power in India, you know. India? Non white? allowed near a nuclear power plant? Who'd have thought it.

I've read some crap on the internet but this takes the biscuit!

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

They do have nuclear power in India, you know.

And for that matter South Africa, China, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Brazil and Argentinia, or so I believe.

A pasenger airliner would just crumple on the cooling tower. Twenty feet of reinforced concrete.

Well, I'm guessing that the biggest fear about this would be some Al Queda Person getting inside and doing something. The fact is though that this is quite literally impossible.

No Middle-Eastern person is even allowed withing a milw radius of a nuclear power plant. This isn't because of Racism or an awesomely all-seeing background check. It's because it's in their genetics. The only people allowed near a nuclear powerplant are white (Specifically from Europe or surrounding few nations.) Middle-aged Males. Anyone from African or any country near Mediterannean decent aren't allowed for fear of Sickle-Cell anemia. Likewise, no women are allowed for fear of a mutated egg causeing some funky children.

Of course, there could always be some person like Timothy McVay, so I'm not ruling this out. I'm just saying that it would be incredibly difficult for Al Queda to get into a nuclear power plant.


Wow!


Someone should really tell that Al-Baradi guy who heads up the IAEA that middle easterners have genetic "issues" with nukes........ I'm sure he'd be fascinated to learn that he isn't allowed to do his job!

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

They do have nuclear power in India, you know. India? Non white? allowed near a nuclear power plant? Who'd have thought it.

I've read some crap on the internet but this takes the biscuit!

Maybe so, but does India touch the Mediterannean? No. The misquito that carries Malaria is only in certain areas close to the Mediterranean Sea and African countries. The sickle cell gene has developed overtime because of malaria. With these delicately shaped red blood cells, it's impossible for the malaria disease to get into the bloodstream. But if they are exposed to radiation, there is a slight possibility for a mutaion of the bloodcells into full cickle cell anemia. That's pretty much basic 8th grade genetics. It's not bullshit. Read up on it if you want to. But the US, has regulations of only white males working at powerplants. In other countries, the regulations are different. I was talking about US powerplants.