Re: UCS on spent fuel security

["Michael Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>]

The following from Sandy Perle. For the life of me can't see why this

bounced, but it did.



> From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>

> To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:07:50 -0700

> MIME-Version: 1.0

> Subject: Re: UCS on spent fuel security

> Reply-to: sandyfl@earthlink.net

> Message-ID: <3BCE8DD6.2760.2BD8D4@localhost>

> Priority: normal

> In-reply-to: <13e.31ada13.2900323e@aol.com>

> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v4.0, beta 40)

> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

> Content-description: Mail message body

>

> >Hasn't it ever occurred to these self-designated "scientists" that if the

terrorists had

> >thought a spent fuel pool a worthwhile target they would have gone for a

spent fuel

> >pool. and not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?

>

> Actually, there are many targets. They all don't have to be attacked at

the same time.

> As we have noted over the years, each attack has been well planned and

well-timed.

> The word is, that the WTC attack was planned for 4 years. They have

patience. They

> can pick at a country here and there. First the WTC. Fear factor sets in,

and airlines

> financially stability is threatened. The outfall from that has affected

the entire economy. Now

> the Anthrax. More fear factor sets in. Threats on NPP is just another plan

to instill

> more fear. Just because they have not attacked a NPP does not mean that it

isn't

> feasible or plausible. In time, you will see an attack. It doesn't have to

be a

> containment building or spent fuel pool, but something that can still

affect the NPP

> operability and safety.

>

> I'll digress to a discussion a few weeks ago, regarding the problems

associated with

> crashing a large airline into a containment building, due to its lower

height compared

> to the WTC. It was also mentioned that the speed would be too great to

maneuver

> the airline at cruise speed due to the lower height. Let me just remind

everyone who

> stated these ideas that the 757 crashed into the Pentagon (not very high,

and about

> the same height of a containment building, and crashing into it at 500

mph. This after

> the 757 flew over the White House, Capitol and made a 180 degree turn.

Seems to

> me that maneuverability and ability to attack low height buildings isn't

all that difficult.

> We have 198 souls to prove that.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Sandy Perle Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100

> Director, Technical Extension 2306

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service Fax:(714) 668-3149

> ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com

> Costa Mesa, CA 92626

>

> Personal Website: http://sandyfl.nukeworker.net

> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com

>

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.