Suspected explosives seized at nuclear plant in Sweden

Suspected explosives seized at nuclear plant in Sweden

Source

STOCKHOLM -- The threat level was raised at all of Sweden's nuclear sites after security personnel found suspected explosives during a routine vehicle search at a nuclear power station on Wednesday, according to reports.
"In the afternoon, a suspected explosive was discovered in a truck on its way in to Ringhals' operating facility," the plant's operator Vattenfall said in a statement. "A sample of the material was sent during the evening to the Swedish National Laboratory of Forensic Science for analysis."
The Local reported cited an official as saying the material had been placed ne

(visit the link for the full news article)

I have done a search and could not find this posted but thought I should draw your attention to it..

If this is true then a very serious pan European disaster has been foiled..

Maybe the world..

In this day and age I find it incredulous that we still rely on this very dangerous power source.. It is open to too much danger with sods law well and truly in place where anything that can happen will happen..

Including it seems possible acts of terrorism..

reply to post by EvanB


#ing hell, if this is true this is no joke. Thank god they found it.

What better way to curtail Sweden's freedom of speech than cause a mass terror event. I am glad this was foiled...

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by EvanB

 

#ing hell, if this is true this is no joke. Thank god they found it.

No kidding...

Apparently there was no detonator with the explosives but my guess someone on the inside had them.. The engineers said if it went off it would not have damaged the reactor, but who is to say that explosives were being smuggled in to be placed inside the reactor and not to go off next to it...

BBC reporting no detonator with the explosives so not a fused device. Regardless, having a lorry of explosives near a nuclear installation means there's been a fowl up somewhere along the line. I'm sure someone in the Swedish Intelligence Agency will be for the chop.

www.bbc.co.uk...

I'm amazed that these sorts of facilities havent already seen an attack in mainland Europe or the States. Scary times.

Yes it is worrying, very worrying if it is true

However the conspiracy theorist in me thinks hold up a minute, who benefits most from a terror event in Sweden? Does this follow any known terrorist groups operandi? Could it possibly be a false flag to introduce draconian laws in to a very liberal state?

Hmmm

reply to post by 0010110011101


Scary times indeed..

All "they" would have had to do was damage the cooling systems and he-presto... Fukushima 2...

Sounds to me like a security drill. explosives the size of your fist will not do much damage to a nuclear power station and is not enough quantity to be meaningful attack especially as it was not primed. had a few of those 'discoveries' at Olympic sites in London, it is how they test security.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


Well you have to think of what is housed in Sweden. There is a bank that hold "illegal" transactions and money from around the world and as well as diplomatic immunity from invasion from any country because they don't get involved in any country. It would be a prime target for anybody who wants to get rid of anything illegal ie transactions etc.

reply to post by daath0077


Are you sure you are not confusing Sweden with Switzerland? Or is there something about Sweden I don't know?

Originally posted by RestlessNRG
Sounds to me like a security drill. explosives the size of your fist will not do much damage to a nuclear power station and is not enough quantity to be meaningful attack especially as it was not primed. had a few of those 'discoveries' at Olympic sites in London, it is how they test security.

The police started a inquiry to investigate who planted the explosives in the truck.

The truck driver has no idea where the explosives came from.

No "drill" here.

Probably someone who works inside the plant is involved, and the trucks have being used to transport explosives in small ammounts to the inside of the plant.

Someone who works inside the plant was collecting the explosives, and mounting a larger bomb.

reply to post by EvanB


What power source would you prefer? Coal, that pumps out more radiation in a few years, than a nuclear power plant will in your lifetime? Solar, that would require massive fields to even begin to be efficient? Windmills, that would require huge fields of windmills?

Like it or not, nuclear is the safest, and cheapest form of power out there.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EvanB

 

What power source would you prefer? Coal, that pumps out more radiation in a few years, than a nuclear power plant will in your lifetime? Solar, that would require massive fields to even begin to be efficient? Windmills, that would require huge fields of windmills?

Like it or not, nuclear is the safest, and cheapest form of power out there.

Apart from when it goes wrong. All good in practice, until there's an earthquake...........

Safest when it's safe, hey?

If companies like BP didn't keep on buying up patents for free energy devices and water cell batteries, we might not be in this mess. All the time we adhere to the capitalist agenda and allow governments and corporations to hide technology from us in order to over inflate the oil price, we will continue to kill the planet and ourselves.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by EvanB

 

What power source would you prefer? Coal, that pumps out more radiation in a few years, than a nuclear power plant will in your lifetime? Solar, that would require massive fields to even begin to be efficient? Windmills, that would require huge fields of windmills?

Like it or not, nuclear is the safest, and cheapest form of power out there.

If a coal plant experiences a disaster the rest of the world does not get radiation poisoning... It is way too dangerous..

I would not put the world at risk for the sake of saving a few quid..

reply to post by 0010110011101


Even when there's an accident it's still not as bad as people make it out to be. Nuclear is ostracized because it involves radiation. People don't bother to take the time to learn about radiation, they just hear the word and freak out, and the media feeds that mentality.

Fukushima is the perfect example. We hear all about how there are "dangerous levels" of radiation being seen in the US, but not one article gives hard numbers. They feed on the fear that people have of something they don't understand. Yes, nuclear can be dangerous, but I suggest you look into coal power, and take a look at the sheer amounts of radiation that just ONE coal plant pumps out in a single year. And then how many coal plants there are around the world.

reply to post by EvanB


Neither does it with a nuclear plant. Yes they'll see an increase in radiation, but with the exception of the immediate area around the plant, you're not going to see "radiation poisoning" around the world. The amounts that will travel to other countries, won't even increase your chance of cancer in the long term.

Even now, a year later, if you were within 20km of Fukushima unless you stood outside for almost two months, you wouldn't see an increase in cancer rates.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by 0010110011101

 

Even when there's an accident it's still not as bad as people make it out to be. Nuclear is ostracized because it involves radiation. People don't bother to take the time to learn about radiation, they just hear the word and freak out, and the media feeds that mentality.

Fukushima is the perfect example. We hear all about how there are "dangerous levels" of radiation being seen in the US, but not one article gives hard numbers. They feed on the fear that people have of something they don't understand. Yes, nuclear can be dangerous, but I suggest you look into coal power, and take a look at the sheer amounts of radiation that just ONE coal plant pumps out in a single year. And then how many coal plants there are around the world.

You tell these people that.....

They were staging a "die in" last week to stop the reactors being switched back on...

reply to post by EvanB


And that proves my point. The media has created such an environment of terror when it comes to nuclear power that people are terrified by power plants. The media has been telling us since the earthquake how radiation levels are skyrocketing, and we need to be taking iodine pills, and prepare for all the radioactive debris that is coming our way.

Look at the number of power plants out there, and then the number of accidents. There have been two truly bad accidents, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Of those two, only Chernobyl TRULY affected the environment around the plant, and it was much worse than Fukushima. On the whole nuclear power is the safest form of power that we have right now.

reply to post by Zaphod58


www.sciencemag.org...

This research here says:

"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations. Higher radionuclide contents and ash releases are common and would result in increased doses from the coal plant."

The paper itself states that this result is only valid not considering nuclear accidents and nuclear waste, nor it considers non-radiological effects:

"The study does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy"

So as long as there is never a nuclear disaster and we rule out how we dispose of nuclear waste, your coal analogy holds up. They're fairly significant considerations though?