Jaro
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 4:47 PM
Subject: Fw: 'Nuclear terrorism'
Something I posted on Sci.energy & sci.environment.
KJ
> Please dissemenate, contact your local media & legislators. Show this to your family & friends.
> Print and/or e-mail it to them and others and ask them to do likewise. There are NPPs in 44
> countries on Earth. The terrorists already know about NPP sabotage and have made threats. The
> public needs to know. NOW.Thanks.
> http://www.fear/not/information.html
> http://www.phobias.nuclear.power.unsubstanciated.org/crackpot.html
>
> For journalists Harvey Wasserman can be reached at: nonukeshw@aol.com
>
> -Bill Smirnow
Thank you for the submission of your science fiction story.
Unfortunately it doesn't suit ourneeds at this time. I have taken the liberty of providing some feedback which I hope you will
find useful in furthering your career as a fiction writer.
> AMERICA'S TERRORIST NUCLEAR THREAT TO ITSELF
Good title.
> By Harvey Wasserman
>
> No sane nation hands to a wartime enemy atomic weapons set to go off within
> its own homeland, and then lights the fuse. Yet as the bombs and missiles drop on Afghanistan,
> the certainty of terror retaliation inside America has turned our 103 nuclear power plants into
weapons of apocalyptic destruction, just waiting to be used against us.
"Apocalyptic" is a good word to use if one wants to go for the "Saturday
afternoon sci-fi thriller" type story. If that is the style you are striving for, then
I'd stick with you're premise. If you are attempting to write for a more
sophisticated audience, I suggest that the more critical readers would note
that the worst nuclear power accident in history (and probably the worst
possible) killed less people than non-nuclear energy kills every week, possibly every day.
> One or both planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11,
> could have easily obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at
> Indian Point, about 40 miles up the Hudson.
Now here you need to avoid over exaggeration with your use of the term
"easily". It's just conceivable that they could have got through the
containment building of one of the reactors. Conceivable, but unlikely.
Today's critical audience won't buy the stories assertion that it would be
easy. As well, the reactors wouldn't be "obliterated" (all though that is a
great sci-fi word, by the way). The containment building might be damaged.
The core might be damaged somewhat. Remember, unlike the WTC there isn't
dozens of stories of concrete & steel to collapse from above to "obliterate" everything.
> The catastrophic devastation would have been unfathomable.
Everyone on board the jets would be killed, and some people outside near the
containment building could be injured or killed. Hardly an appropriate use
of the term "unfathomable"? Wouldn't you say?
>But those and a hundred other American reactors are still running.
> Security has been heightened. But all are vulnerable to another sophisticated terror attack
> aimed at perpetrating the unthinkable.
"Unthinkable." Another good word.
> Indian Point Unit One was shut long ago by public outcry. But Units 2 & 3
> have operated since the 1970s. Back then there was talk of requiring reactor
> containment domes to be strong enough to withstand a jetliner crash. But the
> biggest jets were far smaller than the ones that fly today. Nor did those
> early calculations account for the jet fuel
Now here your story brings up an extremely important 'real world' lesson.
Fossil fuels (such as jet fuels) are extremely dangerous and they are
frighteningly easy for terrorists to use.
>whose hellish fire melted the critical steel supports that ultimately brought
> down the Trade Center.
Your use of reference to real life events is interesting within your story.
However, the WTC collapses were covered extensively. You can't count on your
readers knowing so little about the details of the building collapses that
they won't immediately see the flaws in your comparisons.
Unlike the steel reinforcement in a power plant containment building, the
WTC supports had to hold the weight of dozens of floors above them. As well,
much of the WTC the fire was contained between floors, allowing for hotter
temperatures than you'd get from an unconfined fire.
Readers would also note the actual tests of such scenarios. Many of them
will have just watched some of the tests on TV.
> Had one or both those jets hit one or both the operating reactors at Indian
> Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
No no no. Jumbo jets do use depleted uranium for ballast / counter weights.
But not that much. The counter weight uranium emissions from the WTC
collisions was insignificant.
> The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest
> anywhere on the planet.
Oooo. I like that part. No sense of reality what so ever, but it sounds
great. How many people would ever look up to see that the reactors run
somewhat above the boiling point of water & that you're basic toaster or
lighter are quite a bit hotter? You're a writer. You have "artistic licence"
(and the will to use it).
>So are the hellish levels of radioactivity.
"Hellish levels"? Excessive use of the cliché isn't the best method to
producing publishable fiction.
> Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden
> far exceeds that of Chernobyl, which ran only four years before it exploded.
At this point I must note your excessive use of exposition to drive your
plot, and your lack of character development.
Another technical consideration is germane here, The fuel burn-up in a
nuclear power plant isn't simply proportional to the time a reactor has been
critical. One must account for the yearly fuel changes at facilities such as
Indian Point. Many of your readers will see this immediately. I hesitate to
bring up such technical flaws, but as your entire premise
is based on them, it ruins the whole story.
> Some believe the WTC jets could have collapsed or breached either of the Indian
Point containment domes.
"Some believe?" Don't be afraid to give your characters names.
>But at very least the massive impact and intense jet fuel fire would destroy the human
> ability to control the plants' functions.
Now at this point in your story the reader will say to himself, "but the
reactor would automatically SCRAM even without human control". You'll lose
your audience. It would be like watching one of those bad horror movies
where the protagonist decides to spend the night alone, unarmed in a house
with no electricity next door to a mass murdering psychopath. The audience
doesn't buy it. People don't go into the basement alone in the middle of the
night when they hear the sound of power tools, screaming, moaning, and
maniacal demonic laughter; and reactors don't need humans to shut them down
when things go wrong.
>Vital cooling systems, backup power generators and communications networks would crumble.
Again, the audience won't buy it. They know that reactors have primary,
secondary and emergency cooling systems.
> Indeed, Indian Point Unit One was shut because activists warned that its lack of an
emergency core cooling system made it an unacceptable risk. The government ultimately agreed.
>
> But today terrorist attacks could destroy those same critical cooling and control systems that
are vital to not only the Unit Two and Three reactor cores, but to the spent fuel pools that sit on site.
The cooling ponds contain material which is far less radioactive than high
burn-up fuel in a reactor and would take ages to warm up significantly. Your audience would
fall asleep reading about such an event. You might as well have a scene of your protagonist
running from a car which is chasing him at half a kilometer per hour.
> The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and
virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft,
> ground-based weapons, truck
As such a fan of using historical events in your story, you may wish to read
up on how many jets it took to destroy the Iraqi weapons production reactor complex
during the Gulf War. "On the third day of the Desert Storm air campaign, a
large conventional daylight strike by 56 F-16s with unguided bombs attacked
the nuclear complex, which was one of the three most heavily defended areas
in Iraq. The results were assessed as very poor. According to DIA, the
nuclear research facility was not fully destroyed following the F-117
strikes on day 6 of the campaign. An additional 48 F-117s were tasked seven
more times against the target over the next 32 days, dropping 66 more bombs.
Moreover, on day 19 of the campaign, 17 F-111Fs were tasked to strike the
site. On 26 February 1991, day 42 of the campaign, DIA concluded that the
ability to conduct nuclear research or processing at the site was severely
degraded." You might also want to note the lack of world wide, unthinkable,
apocalyptic, unfathomable, devastation as a result of this attack on a nuclear facility.
> bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force.
> Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest security tests over
> the years. Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of
> the vast, supremely sensitive controls required for reactor safety.
>
> Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons
> of radioactive rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those
> fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava
> that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson.
Again, as you were referencing the real life Three Mile Island incident, the
reader would note that the fuel did melt (and the zirc alloy caught fire)
without escaping the pressure vessel (or even damaging it).
> Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault
> at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive
> lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking
> water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere.
Oh, now here you're yielding to the temptation to use other's plot ideas.
There already was a very fine Saturday afternoon sci-fi movie which used this
very same irrational idea. (Excuse me for digressing here; but if you enjoy
sci-fi movies featuring Jane Fonda I would suggest watching Barbarella over
The China Syndrome any day. If you prefer instead to watch one of Jane
Fonda's good movies I recommend "Agnes of God")
There wasn't a Chinasyndrome at Chernobyl, in spite of the high burn-up of the fuel, in spite of the 2600% power spike, in
spite of the cooling system set to 25% and the emergency cooling system being shut off,
in spite of the graphite moderator fire, in spite of the cadmium moderator
not melting into the fuel mass (allowing days of additional fissioning), and in spite
of a zirc alloy fire. One story featuring the irrational "China Syndrome" was enough
for the genre, don't you think?
>Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially drive these clouds of mass
death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island.
>
> But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds ultimately shifted around the
> compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons
> released by the on-going fiery torrent.
Now here you've mis-used the word "devastating". Three Mile Island killed no
one (although the replacement coal power likely killed hundreds).
>At Indian Point, thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most
>lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that
>would kill forever.
"Forever"? Do you honestly expect none of your readers to not know that
radioactive materials decline in radioactivity over time? It's a good thing
you're writing fiction, you work would be torn to shreds if you were attempting non-fiction.
> In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants
> and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all pregnant women
> would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed
> offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the
> skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure,
> hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and
> incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would
> kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions.
Well, your lack of technical accuracy is made up for in a small way by your
knack for graphic detail.
> A terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New
Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse
"Ghoulish curse". I like that.
> similar to that endured by the fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima
and Nagaskai,
Again, if you're going to make reference to historical events, you should
get the history right.
>by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by
> victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
>
> Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and
> hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new
> dimensions of agony will beg description.
Extensive surveys of the effected areas have found that the only cancer
which increased in a detectable rate due to Chernobyl was
thyroid cancer among children. It's likely there were some other radiogenic
cancers (leukemia the most likely), but not in the apocalyptic numbers your
story suggests.
> Indeed, those who survived the initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not.
Ah, this also is borrowed from existing fiction.
> Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and
> highways would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to
> destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted.
>
> Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying
> helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian
> Point, such missions would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be
> doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years,
> spewing ever more devastation into the eco-sphere.
> More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething
> remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They are dying in droves.
Droves? 80,000 of the clean up crew have died over the last 15 years. That's
around 5,300 per year. An annual rate of 6.625 people per thousand; a rate lower
than the average death rate for the region, not higher. (This is grade 4
math. Unless you're writing for an audience with a lower education level I'd
suggest modifying this part of the story.)
>Who would now volunteer for such an American task force?
>
> The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast Ukraine and Belarus
> landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through
> the west coast of the United States within ten days, carrying across our
> northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again.
>
> The radioactive clouds from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey,
> New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada and across
> to Europe and around the globe again and again.
>
> The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's most populous and
> expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable.
"Permanent" and "uninhabitable" are both inappropriate here. I think you
meant to say, "temporarily dangerous".
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far from "permanently uninhabitable". In fact they
are well populated in a country with just about the highest life expectancy in
the world (and it has more than 50 nuclear reactors).
The exclusion zone around Chernobyl isn't "permanently uninhabitable".
People went back to work at the reactors within 2 weeks of the accident (every reader
will know this). There are numerous places on Earth with higher natural radiation
levels than most of the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Armed guards are keeping the
people out (for political reasons), not significant levels of radiation (which has done
the wildlife in the area quite a favor).
> All five boroughs of New York City would be an apocalyptic wasteland. The
> World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet
> crash at Indian Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate
> and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the entire
> region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost.
>
> As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps,
Your resorting to "tabloid" like descriptions of events gives your story a
certain stylistic charm. I would stop relying on adding inaccurate
descriptions of historic events to further the plot though. Imagine if a
story which mentioned World War II claimed that several billion people died
during the conflict. It makes for a far more emotionally effecting part of
the story, but anyone reading it would recognize that you made it up the
numbers to emotionally affect them. Most readers would see it as a cheap stunt and
resent it. There were in fact no dead animals as a result of Three Mile
Island (although you've created a very evocative image, even though animals
don't tend to heap up when they die). In fact the reactor exclusion zone around
the reactor provides biohabitat in an area which might otherwise have been developed.
>and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been
> hopelessly irradiated, natural eco-systems on which human and all other life
> depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed,
The wildlife in the evacuated areas around Chernobyl is flourishing (mostly
due to the decreased numbers of humans in the area). The only areas where
the wildlife is in trouble there is where they dug up and carted off the topsoil, of course.
> Spiritually, psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover.
>
> This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New York City on September
> 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this.
>
> There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the
> United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of
> our total energy. As with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have
> both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on
> life in New York. Already an extremely expensive source of electricity, the
> cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even
> further off the competitive scale.
>
> Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most
> efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%.
> Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually with increased
> efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect.
You may also wish to have one of your characters mention that not using the
internet is a good way to avoid using nuclear energy. Or you could include a
sub-plot about the irony of one of the characters being against the use of
any nuclear energy what-so-ever, yet he still uses the internet knowing it
gets a significant amount of it's energy from nuclear. This form of internal
conflict can make for a very interesting character. Perhaps the character's
internal conflict could lead to unusual behavior, such as mixing up reality
and fiction, or making things up to attract attention.
> Yet, as the bombs fall and the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a
> form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point
> from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack.
If you want your readers to lose interest in a story in a big hurry just
talk about insurance.
Regardless, your assertion seems to be that US nuclearutilities don't pay enough insurance (the more than $9 billion accumulated
may not be enough). But that's also true of insurance for fossil fuel
companies, which couldn't afford the cost of a natural gas or oil tanker
exploding in a harbor near a city. It's also true of hydro dam's insurance,
which couldn't cover the cost of some major dam collapses. (note the
estimated 900,000 killed due to the dynamiting of a dam in China in 1938 for
example.))
The premise of your story seems to revolve around the danger ofaircraft being used to cause damage. Shouldn't your story thus address how
much insurance airliners have? Consider the following. You own a house and
someone rams your house with a semi. This causes your fuel oil or natural
gas tank to ignite, lighting fire to your neighbors houses (clearly you
should have built a concrete bunker around the fuel tanks). Is it wrong that
your house insurance isn't sufficient to replace all of your neighbors
houses? Is your limited liability ("immunity" as you put it) as a home owner
an unfair subsidy from the tax payer?
> Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass
> destruction, and then shielding from liability the companies that insist on
> continuing to operate them?
>
> Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation?
Your protagonist's repeated use of the rhetorical is endearing and
reminiscent of 50's sci-fi movies.
> If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our
> life and of all future generations must be shut down.
>Harvey Wasserman
Your ending is fantastic. One can just hear Charlton Heston reading out this
epic soliloquy in the movie version of the story. Maybe standing in front
of a nice sunset in the forbidden zone, with ocean waves washing up against his legs.
KJ