Re: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

Private:

Franz Schoenhofer

Habicherg. 31/7

A-1160 Vienna, AUSTRIA

Phone: -43 699 11681319

e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@chello.at



Office:

MR Dr. Franz Schoenhofer

Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management

Dep. I/8U, Radiation Protection

Radetzkystr. 2

A-1031 Vienna, AUSTRIA

phone: +43-1-71100-4458

fax: +43-1-7122331

e-mail: franz.schoenhofer@bmu.gv.at







-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Norman Cohen <ncohen12@HOME.COM>

An: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Dienstag, 09. Oktober 2001 23:08

Betreff: Re: Reactor Containments and Terrorist Attacks





>In the newspaper articles that followed 9/11 taht focused on the

vulnerablity of

>nuclear plants, Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists made

just

>that point - that the fuel pools and dry cask storage were the most

vulnerable

>parts of a nuclear plant for terrorist attacks.

>





This Mr. Lochbaum seems to be something like a universal genius or the

ultimate authority in nuclear questions for anti-nuclears, but if he is

cited correctly he overlooks quite a lot: What is a fuel pool? Is it the

place where spent fuel is stored for a limited time to cool off? To my

knowledge this is housed in the containment. Maybe I am wrong. Is it the

place where in reprocessing plants spent fuel is stored after having been

shipped to it heavily shielded? I have seen these fuel ponds for instance in

Sellafield - I do not remember how deep these ponds were, but it must have

been at least a few meters. How would the attack look like? Terrorists just

walking in through all security checks and throwing a hand grenade? What

would the damage be except negligible or rather non existing? Has the

"ultimate authority" explained these scenarios he is dreaming of?



I thought that dry cask storage is rather the exception than the rule.

Again, I might be wrong. How should terrorist attacks work? Talking about a

747 falling down exactly on the dry cask storage place? Forget it - such a

small area is quite different from the WTC towers.



Next time the "ultimate authority" will tell us, that mice may cause the

next reactor accident easily - if somewhere the electricity distribution

breaks down because of a nagged cable. A disrupted cable, wrong data

transfer, faults in the reaction of the computer programme, shutdown of the

reactor, failure of the emergency pumps, loss of coolant, meltdown, rupture

of the pipes, failure of the containment .....  Everything caused by a

mouse. (Honestly, does that sound so impossible to show up in a "safety

evaluation" performed by an anti-nuclear group?)



Now, to be serious again: What is more propaganda, what causes more

confusion of stock exchanges, industry, people: The WTC and Pentagon

attacks, broadcasted almost online on CNN worldwide or an attack to a fuel

pond with questionable results and in the very unlikely and worst case

limited contamination?





Franz









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

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.