RE: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@CPCUG.ORG>]

> . "Would it lead to multiple tens of thousands of deaths? That's much less certain." says NRC spokesman Breck Henderson.

 

Why does no one think it's worth the trouble to loudly, specifically and publicly denounce such statements outright? Isn't that what ANS, HPS and particularly NEI ought to be doing?  With all the outrageous scenarios NRC can think of, it has never come up with one (post TMI) that caused over 100 deaths.  And even those are based on unreasonable premises.!

 

Why do we complain about Nader and the media when we let the authorities make statements like that without any refutation?

 

I believe it would be easy to show that the fuel-bearing tanks in an airplane wing can simply NOT penetrate a containment structure, so the worst you could have is a crack in the concrete and perhaps part of the engine lying on the deck.  The plant probably wouldn't even shut down. 

 

But the record now stands that the agency responsible for reactor safety says that we'd most probably have tens of thousands of deaths, although being a non-alarmist government official, he concedes that he's less certain of that.

 

Who needs enemies?  Am I the only guy that thinks such statements should not be allowed to stand unchallenged?

 

(Of course, what we prove if we successfully challenge such statements is to prove that those whom we must depend on for assuring reactor safety are either liars or fools.  That's not very comforting.)

 

Ted Rockwell