posted 10-22- 03:25 PM               

Now if you were a terrorist plotting your
next (last) airplane ride wouldn't you find
this little tidbit interesting?

I know this is problbly not top secret info
and probably anybody could find it out. After
all the press evidently did. But, give me
a break. I think it's time reporters used their
heads, if they have any.

This coupled with the news leak at the pentagon
is inexcusable.

posted 10-22- 03:37 PM               

I'm reminded that in early WWII our sub
commanders were having good success because
the Japs were only setting their depth charges
to around 75' or 100' because they thought
that's all the deeper our subs could go.
Some Senator made a speech declaring the Japs
would never sink our subs because their depth
charges wouldn't go deep enough. This no
doubt caused American casualties.

posted 10-22- 04:01 PM               

There is some confusion about that. A while back, a leading structural engineer made a statement to the effect that the structures containing reactors were not specifically designed to withstand airliners crashing into them. The press took that to mean that the structures were not strong enough to withstand such an attack. Actually, from what I've heard, the structures around most reactors are indeed strong enough to withstand such an attack. On top of that, most of these structures are relatively small, low to the ground, and in some cases non-descript. It would be very difficult for a terrorist to steer an airliner into such structures.

A more likely scenario is that terrorists could seize a facility and induce a meltdown.

posted 10-22- 04:03 PM            

Also, depending on whether or not the plant is PWR or BWR, a breach in the dome may or may not spell disaster. Most plants have seperate cooling systems and most of the water in non-radioactive. If the plant is hit and not damaged, the control rods can be inserted to shut the reactor down immediately. In the case of Chernobyl, it was a pressurized explosion which caused the top of the reactor to blow off, thus causing a meltdown with the loss of coolant systems.

Personally, I would be more worried about the lowest bidder, minumum wage contractor guards that are guarding the plants, versus a jumbo jet being slammed into one. A security breach inside the plant could do more harm than an attack from the outside.

posted 10-22- 04:06 PM               

Yeah, actually, I think this is right, but the confusion stemmed from the fact that they haven't been designed to withstand more than one hit. In other words, a reactor structure is designed to withstand an airliner accidently crashing into it, but it is not designed with the notion that terrorists might crash multiple planes into it.

posted 10-22- 04:07 PM               

I agree about the danger of terrorists taking
over a facility and causing a meltdown.