Hijacked Airliner Ploughs Into Nuclear Power Plant

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Don´t panic, it didn´t really happen (not yet anyway)!

Seen this one yet?


Hijacked airliner ploughs into UK Nuclear Power Plant (See the movie - Greenpeace)

This is a movie (simulation) of a plane crash at a nuclear power station and it´s very well made. It also raises an important question. Are nuclear power plants really the answer to global warming and to peak oil? Greenpeace warns: "Building more nuclear power stations will dramatically increase the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack, which could claim millions of lives". And: "UK nuclear sites are not built to withstand a deliberate crash by a jumbo jet full of highly explosive aviation fuel, and an attack on Sellafield could dwarf the consequences of the Chernobyl accident in 1986".

Actually, there are many pros and cons about nuclear power. It´s clean as long as there are no accidents and as long as the waste is being handled properly. I´m against nuclear power. Nuclear power may be positive in many ways but I think the negatives weights more. And what I don´t understand is: Why does the British government tell the public about how likely a terror attack may happen at any time (scare people and so on), while at the same time they want to build more nuclear power plants which are excellent targets for terrorists? Do we really need the scenario in this movie to actually happen before we see this as a real threat? The British government speak with double tongues. What can we do? Well, not building new plants is a good start. Then make sure that the already excisting ones are secured as much as possible.


Related Links:
Greenpeace: New nuke stations 'catastrophic gift to terrorists'

Related ATS Threads:
Huge Radioactive Leak At Sellafield - UK
Europe Stages Nuclear Crisis Test
Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant To Close Or Not?
Suicide Bomber Planned To Hit Dimona Reactor
Asylum Seekers Offered Radioactive Wasteland
700 Nuclear Batteries Targeted By Terrorists
Chernobyl at Sea? Russia Builds Floating Nuclear Plant




posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Leave it to Green Peace to try and panic people :shk:


Adds like that should be enough to make them loose there charitable status that type of tactic is totally uncalled for



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Yes more Nuclear Power plants are needed, no they cant withstand direct crashes by jumbo jets, (what can?). Put up a couple of SAM sites near Nuclear Power plans, and that's that. Now, Green Peace should not be making these types of videos, they only give the wrong type of people more ideas.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Personally I wouldn't put it past someone like Green Peace to pull off an attack like that to lead people to believe it was someone else just to force us to change energy types. You can't please these dang people. They gripe no matter what kind of energy you use. If you use coal they complain. If you use wind farms they complain. If you use nuclear they complain. Since they will never be satisfied I think people should just ignore them.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If this add results in or contributes to the start of a national dialog about nuclear energy, oil fuel, and the national waste repository (keep in mind that the plants have far more waste in them than they were supposed to because there is no nat'l rep), then good. Who cares if some people get scared. Heck, I saw this add and felt releived, to tell the truth "Bout Time" I thought, since its inevitable that something like this happens. Its really been a matter of luck that it hasn't yet.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
These videos honestly prey on ignorance. Because of the way the plants are designed the jet would have no chance of damaging the core. And even if their was damage to the system in some way it would go into an auto shutdown mode. About the only thing they will manage to do is shut down the plant until repairs could be made and perhaps kill some people on site. They have basically no chance of causing a melt down.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Since this hasn't happened, I am going to move this to Skunk Works.
Although an attack of a nuclear facility is certainly an act of terror, I thinkn the discussion would benefit from NOT being in the WOT forum.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Yes, definately have to agree with some of the above posters - the Video in itself was uncalled for and unappropriate.

Like said, an AA site would work fine.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Indy is there some data to back up your comments on the vulnerability of nuclear plants to a jumbo airline strike? I ask because months ago Fox was talking about this very topic and the "experts" said the opposite of what you have said. I would be interested to know the actual truth of the exposure they have to attack.

Although this is simply a propaganda film it does raise an issue we fail to address here in the US which is the hardening of our vulnerable targets such as nuke plants, chemical plants and cargo areas.

I think if it exposes the need for more security, or even SAM sites then fine. Let's do it. If it is overkill who cares, at least we won't look back and say we wish we had done something.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Yeah--that's the plan: Let's completely put technological advances aside because "terrorists" can use the technology against us!!! So, uh, maybe we should outlaw trucks on the road because they can be used as destructive bombs.

Just goes to show how rediculous Greenpeace is
Maybe they should be renamed Green POS!!



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I saw a link on a simular post that showed the protection that goes into a nuclear power plant. I appologize as i cannot remember the post or link.

But i remember it saying that US power plants already have been built to resist even huge airliners crashing into them. There are mulitple barriers to go through before actually getting to the core. These barriers are made up of really thick material that can resist natural or un-natural disasters. I'm quite sure that the US has planned for somthing like this. However, i know it leaves you doubtful after the Katrina incident.

Carburetor



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Tease! Stupid Greenpeace with their stupid Hitchcock sensibilities...

grumble grumble

And Helmutt, shame on you!
I bet some of our members were halfway to the bunker before the picture finished loading completely!



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nativeokie
Indy is there some data to back up your comments on the vulnerability of nuclear plants to a jumbo airline strike?


I got this information directly from an engineer that worked on the design and construction of power plants. He explained the construction and how the area was protected and how the emergency shutdown proceedures worked. An attack like that may work in another country where perhaps different techniques were used but in the U.S. it wouldn't work.

And remember these TV shows are designed to create fear and drive up ratings.

Its like this caffiene in lab rats business. There is a difference between lab science and reality.

Maybe if you had 10 different doors to the building all open at the very same time and the airplane just happen to hit at the exact right second and the exact right speed and angle MAYBE it could cause a melt down... but it would take about a million tries for those variables to come up. Of course I'm using this as an example. Because a reporter would take that and talk about the vulnerabilities of the plant never telling you that it would take a million tries for everything to come in to alignment for the meltdown to happen.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
I actually raised this concern soon after 9/11 regarding a plant near the area I was moving from, due to the fact that I still have most of my family in the area. The concern was raised with a person who was intimately involved in emergency preparedness for that area, and who was likely to trust me with the truth, but in this case.....

He assured me that the plants were designed to withstand an attack of this nature (though maybe not other types of attack). I just left never having a good feeling about whether I was being told the truth, or what I was suppossed to be told. This was the only time he had ever answered one of my questions where my gut reaction just wasn't certain about the answer I received. It still bothers me.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 06:55 AM
link   
I actually agree with Green Peace a lot of the time, but that video was entirely unrealistic. Nuclear power plants, because they are potentially one of the most dangerous things on this planet, are hence the safest. They have so many back-ups, electronic ones, mechanical ones, human ones. . . that there is no chance of them failing. And these back-ups will not fail. Life isn't like the moveis.
The Russians made the only mistake purely because they were Russians.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
This issue came up many times after 9/11. Nuke plants are already designed to withstand at least a 757 impact without it penetrating the building. A bigger plane probably could, but the safety features would take over and shut down the reactor before a catastrophic accident.

CHernobyl happened because there were a variety of errors made that day, including running a drill with their main safety backup system offline.



On 25 April, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings.

A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As flow of coolant water diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused a dramatic power surge.

www.uic.com.au...

They KNEW that the reactor was unstable at lower levels, and let it get to those levels without any backups. Of course they were going to have an accident.

[edit on 1/18/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:17 AM
link   
If the good folk of Greenpeace made an effort to reduce their energy consumption, maybe we wouldn't need nuclear power....

I wonder how many members regularly fly? Have central heating on all winter? Drive to the supermarket? Leave their TV on stand-by?

I guess like most humans they don't really give a damn about the planet or anything on it. Except themselves.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
And when you take a Look of the Map of Europe with Nuclear Power Plants...



...this Scenario gets Whole New Dimensions.

Hey - We too Have one in Slovenia.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah


...this Scenario gets Whole New Dimensions.



Not really at least in the US but I assume most European nations with the exception of Russia use the very same or higher standards then the US making it highly unlikely. Computer simulations have shown that even a large airliner would not be able to breach structures housing the reactor fuel.

Analysis of nuclear power plants shows aircraft crash would not breach structures housing reactor fuel

From what I can find the only ones that say it is possible is from the likes of Green Peace etc., who are trying to terrorize people into thinking it can happen. Shame on them or any organization like them



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom including both engines onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.

www.sandia.gov...


I believe the target wall is very similar to a reactor containment vessel. As you can see the wall is quite solid.






new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join