Re: nuclear power

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Jun 01 2001 - 05:50:56 MDT


In a message dated 6/1/2001 2:13:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SmigrodzkiR@MSX.UPMC.EDU writes:

<< I like nuclear power as a technical solution and I am not worried about
 waste and accidents but there is one big problem - any eco-terrorist or
 suicide bomber with a few tons of high explosive could drive up to a power
 plant and make the surrounding 1000+ sq miles unlivable for the next couple
 hundred years. Unfortunately, in assessing any technology we have to
 consider the potential for malicious attacks.
 
 Rafal
 
 Rafal Smigrodzki MD-PhD
 Dept Neurology University of Pittsburgh
 smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu >>

Even a few tons of Plastique (c-2--c4) may shut down a pressured water
reactor, but to successfully penetrate a steel-reinforced collander dome, and
disperse uranium oxide -235, is a much more difficult venture.

Plus, despite movies and tv shows, plastique is much harder to come by then
one may think. Hence, the need for ANFO (amonium nitrate & fuel oil). If a
truck carrying a load of explosives is halted at a hurricane fence, its
detonation is not physically close enough to 'bring down the house.' Nuclear
power is looking good economically, in large part, because small-scale, power
generation has been side-tracked by planners, who fear that small-scale would
cause users to go independent of utilities.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:07:52 MST