It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Suspected explosives seized at nuclear plant in Sweden

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


Of course it's not going to cover an accident. There's no way to tell how much radiation will be released in an accident. But you also have to look at the safety rate for nuclear plants. How many plants in the world, and how many accidents there have been. Countries like France run about 10% of their power or more from nuclear plants, and haven't had a significant accident to speak of.

Here in the US we haven't had a significant accident with all of our plants (Three Mile Island has been so over hyped by fear mongering it isn't funny). The only two accidents that I can think of right now are Fukushima, which survived the earthquake fine, and only had the accident after the tsunami hit, and Chernobyl which was a complete failure of operators and didn't have to happen.

There are 436 nuclear power plants in operation as of 30 March 2012, with another 63 under construction. That means that the safety record (not counting minor releases you don't even hear about because they're so insignificant) is incredible. Two major accidents, when we have had nuclear power operating since 1951, and the first plant plugged in in 1954.

www.euronuclear.org...

If you want to talk about environmental damage, just look at all the coal plants with their ash ponds, that they just cover over, and pray that it never floods, causing a failure of the retaining walls.

www.slideshare.net...
edit on 6/21/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Hypothetically, suppose I agree on the principal that the accidents can be counted on one hand and I agree that these things are "over-hyped", what can you tell me to quell my fears on the safe disposal and control of nuclear waste? Particularly in relation to the previous discussion over coal v nuclear?

I am asking for information rather than berating your viewpoint....



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Urban air pollution in China alone kills between 200 to 230 thousand people, per year. Note that this is total is for urban air pollution and excludes things like water pollution and global warming damages that fossil fuels and biofuels cause. The main measurable side effect of Chernobyl in the general public was an extra 4000 cases of thyroid cancer which has a >95% successful treatment rate. There was also several thousand theoretical cancer deaths. This is sad. The effects from Fukushima should be far smaller because of a much quicker response by the Japanese government too and a far superior reactor design. The real disadvantage of nuclear power is hundreds of thousands may need to be evacuated in case of an accident to minimize the total dose given to the public. Some of the newer designs that will be built by the end of the decades may not require any evacuation zone.

However, it does not change that at hundreds of thousands if not millions of people die each year due to air pollution. Nuclear power is one of the most viable alternatives to that. Nuclear energy need not be perfect, it need not be risk free, to be infinitely superior to all that anti-nukes do not seem to care about (air pollution). It only needs to be superior, which, happily, it is.
edit on 21/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 0010110011101
 


There are several nuclear reactors under development, including one that has been successfully tested, that will run on spent fuel rods, and nuclear waste from other plants.

www.good.is...
online.wsj.com...
www.terrapower.com...

There is also an interesting idea that would use nuclear waste to extract oil from oil shale deposits. As spent fuel rods decay, they give off an inordinate amount of heat. This heat, used safely, could be used to liquefy the shale, and extract the oil from it.

Fuel rods for oil extraction



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Some more to add:

GE and Hitachi plan new reactor to burn UK plutonium stockpile

Use Nuclear 'Waste' as Fuel with the Ultimate Nuclear Reactor

The Story of Experimental Breeder Reactor II

Terrapower won't ever be built for a number of reasons. China, Russia, France and India are developing similar ones too, although their designs may not be as safe.
edit on 21/6/12 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
When did this discussion become an opportunity to defend nuclear power as an energy source? When did it become a discussion about the evils of nuclear energy?

Did anyone hear about that source saying they found explosives at a plant in Sweden?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


How can you NOT talk about the safety of nuclear power after something like this happens?

And what is there really to discuss? There's almost no information out there yet about what's going on.

On article says that it was the size of a fist, and there was no detonator in place. There is no way that would have even scratched the reactor casing, let alone caused a nuclear accident.
edit on 6/21/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Because the safety of the Nuclear plant that some people are discussing is out of context with the OP...; this "safety" issue has to do with potential sabotage and potential operational security problems... to discuss the 'energy' issue ignores the fact that despite it's inadequacy, there was obviously an effort to bring dangerous and destructive materials into the plant... for reasons unknown, by persons unknown....

Instead the usual exploitation of the affair by interests other than those relating to the OP are dominating the discussion. It will become a push-me-pull-you conversation that won''t actually advance the OP...

I suggest those wishing to discuss the other side of the matter... "who loves and hates Nuclear energy" be made into a separate thread. But this is only a suggestion.... You can discuss what you like, but when you get the thorium reactors and Fukushima... you've really strayed off topic... unless the OP has changed.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I do apologise profusely for having the audacity to discuss the safety of nuclear power in a thread about explosives at a nuclear power station. Perhaps you could point out some other areas I am going wrong in life considering your ability to decide what is appropriate and what isn't?

Back to the topic, heaven forbid, Police are reporting no arrests but haven't ruled out sabotage. There is not a lot more to discuss at this stage until such time as the press release more information or the police reveal further details of their investigation.

The fact that the explosives were found under the vehicle suggests to me more of a "car bomb" style attack rather than moving the explosives off the truck. Either way, I'm just happy that the check was carried out and the explosives found.

I hope you find this post suitably "on topic"..........
edit on 21/6/2012 by 0010110011101 because: to ensure post was entirely relevant and didnt deviate from the topic at hand - so help me god.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

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...
edit on 21-6-2012 by EvanB because: (no reason given)


Bloody good spot, thanks.

Regarding the above, perhaps this therefore isn't as sinister as has been made out? My thinking being engineers / contractors may have legitimate reasons for using and transporting explosives. It is quite possible that rather than being an attack, this was simply an employee who forget to take all the explosives out before the next job up at the nuclear plant........

Not to downplay the incident but the way it is being reported doesn't scream terror attack - to me at least.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


I am inclined to agree with you... when an explosive is "found" as it was here... why are we assuming that this isn't some kind of "manufactured event?" What kind of terror includes leaving useless explosives to be found under a car at a nuclear power plant parking lot?

It appears that this event was meant to engender a discussion which apparently has to do with anything but explosives found at a nuclear power plant parking lot.

I wonder how the "talking heads" in Sweden are disseminating this to their audiences, and those of Europe? Perhaps taking 45% of each news piece to discuss the "push" to eliminate nuclear energy as a source of power?

Of course, that doesn't further the discussion about how horrible nuclear power is... or how safe and effective it is... and my pointing this out seems to be some sort of effrontery to some.... But I stand by my opinion, as is my privilege as a member.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


There is free energy, there is no reason for all of us being put at risk just for the sake of a few thousand millionaires and some billionaires and an all consuming sense of power over others. What will this all mean when they hold their children or grandchildren tight to them in fear in the last dying moments of this planet. Will they tell them they only wanted the best for them? Will there even be a glimmer of remorse? I doubt it. It reminds me of that idiot trying to pick up his papers just before the freeze in Absolute Zero. Faced with the undeniable, irrefutable facts they'll still look down at their fat guts and even fatter wallets and want more. Driven by greed this planet will not survive. God help us!
edit on 21-6-2012 by Alien44 because: Added text



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Alien44
 


Free energy? This may be very true... but how that relates to someone taking a lump of explosive material and leaving it under a car in Sweden eludes me.

What i fear is the 'use' of events like this to further agendas... especially by those who think if you paint a swastika on a tree you can cut down the forest for being a symbol of Antisemitism.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to squelch the discussion... I'm trying to understand how the debate about energy sources can possibly outweigh - or be more interesting - than the idea of a person carrying explosives to such a place and doing such a thing?

Why? What was the message? And lacking a message... does that mean the media or those biased minds out there can "invent" one to discuss?

Perhaps the conspiracy angle is lost here.

As far as free energy is concerned, or the safety or hazard that nuclear energy represents... they deserve a thread of their own... one that doesn't include propaganda or vague allusions to terrorism.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
The explosives were found and the threat was neutralized. Security did their job and did it well, i guess i don't understand what the deal is?

The security at nuclear power plants is taken very seriously, and most of it you can't see with the naked eye. Even if a truck carrying some sort of explosive device did make it past the numerous safety checkpoints, there are systems in place, redundant systems to disable any vehicle before it gets anywhere close to the plant itself.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by JackBauer
 


So do you feel that the question of who brought the explosives there, and when and how are now 'old news'? That this is "as good as over"?

I would like to know how the security measures they boast of failed here? They did fail, didn't they?

Or is it possible that this was meant to be found? It certainly couldn't have been meant to destroy anything - lacking a detonator.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
EvanB, there are times when I am genuinely freaked out when jet fighters fly over me...why? Because I live around 20 miles from the worlds largest (possibly) nuclear dump. That place has already had a major disaster in 1957, people in the surrounding villages still suffer as a result (leukemia etc). I'm talking about the place that supplied Fukushima with its MOX fuel, as well as other places.

Now they are talking about building an underground repository near the same site for all the countries waste.

It's a terrorists dream is Sellafield.

It's sickening.

I hope our future generations don't have to live with the same crap.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I too am glad this was foiled, but I truly believe nuclear power is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, and also believe that it CAN be 100% safe. Every single nuclear disaster I can think of could have been prevented. Take Fukashima for instance...The engineers knew full well that the plant couldn't stand up to a powerful earthquake, but to save money and time they ignored it...Just hoping for the best I guess. If these plants were truly regulated, and secured after being built from unauthorized entry, they could be safe.

There are plants even now that are lightyears ahead of places like Fukashima as far as safety goes, and if the government would enforce certain safety regulations when a build operation is undertaken, the chances of a nuclear disaster are practically nil. But I suppose you are still dealing with a reaction that is very volatile, and that will always pose some risk...

But with the proper redundancies in place a plant is no more likely to suffer a meltdown than a hydroelectric plant is likely to suffer a...a, um...meltdown...? maybe. lol. Or maybe a flood. I just made that up btw, and it is by no means accurate. But I really do think that these operations can be made safe, and I think that until viable alternatives to fossil fuels surpass the need for nuclear plants, then we can stop building them.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Seriously guys, its nothing to worry about! The facility is just a front for an electric company that pretends generate power. In theory its capable of supplying some 20% of Swedens power demand, in practice the reactors are never running because that would mean a constant supply of far, far cheaper energy. Every winter the prices soar like a a thousand percent just because it become cold in Sweden. HA! Imagine that. Its cold in Sweden?!?!

In other words, even if it would have been attack it would barely have been noticed.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by JackBauer
 


So do you feel that the question of who brought the explosives there, and when and how are now 'old news'? That this is "as good as over"?

I would like to know how the security measures they boast of failed here? They did fail, didn't they?

Or is it possible that this was meant to be found? It certainly couldn't have been meant to destroy anything - lacking a detonator.


No i agree, as far as the threat itself they should definitely do some investigating to find out who was behind it and why. They stated that the device was found "in a truck on its way in to Ringhals' operating facility" and "during a routine vehicle search". To me it sounds like the device was discovered at the main gate checkpoint, and properly handled. In this case, security didn't fail. If the device was found on facility premises past the checkpoints, then you have problems with your security.

As to the motive of the attack, i really can't even guess. An explosive the size of your fist could be used for anything.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Has there been *any* confirmation that the items found were indeed "explosives" and not something else?

The headline still says "suspected", and all the articles and quotes provided have said "suspected". If this is anything like other stories, it's an abandoned suitcase, or something or inert object that is completely not an explosive.

I'm looking into other sources, and all of them have claimed:


Bomb sniffer dogs detected the explosives during a routine check Wednesday afternoon by security staff while the truck was in the power plant's industrial area near its high security enclosure. Police declined to describe the amount or type of explosive material found.


I'm calling horse # on this whole thing until they release proper information.


edit on 21-6-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join