[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Anti-nukes and the mantra of the day: Nuclear Terrorism





Below is an exchange between myself and Scott Portzline about his site that

I referred to. I thought this is important to talk about...it looks like

this is happening without the usual name calling and outright nuke bashing.

It is important to weed out all the nonsense so the problems can be well

defined...can't begin to solve them if we can't do that!



The site is well done technically...KUDOS to the webmaster. Some of the

Anti-nuclear content leaves a little to be desired, but it still has

importance in that the technical folks in the nuclear industry need to

understand that however ridiculous they may think some of the concerns of

the general public are, they still need to be addressed in a polite and

straightforward manner. I have never been one to talk down to someone

because of some arbitrary judgement made on my part about their ability to

understand what I am saying.



I think that some energy could be redirected in a more positive manner and

still get your message across. Perhaps a little more balance...a good

example of this is found in information provided by Boy Scout merit badge

counselor's for those working on the Atomic Energy Merit badge. An example

site is found at:



http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~griffin2/scouts/atomic_energy.html



Security issues should be addressed, but in a calm and rational manner. You

would be hard pressed to come up with a scenario such as a purposeful plane

crash that would penetrate a containment, vaporize a reactor vessel and

internals, and would disperse the material in the air causing plume

deposition over a wide area and cause death among the population.



The same would be true for the fuel handling building as you would have to

vaporize all the water in the pool before you could vaporize the fuel (plus

the fact that much of the short-lived radioactive material in the spent

fuel has decayed)  to make it available for plume deposition. Sure you

could make a big mess for the power plant, but I doubt if you could

credibly drive any protective action recommendations for the general

population.



The computer codes that are used for this modeling a generally available.

The one used by the NRC is RASCAL (v 3.01). A copy can be obtained from the

NRC by contacting Stephen Mcguire <SAM2@nrc.gov>.



I would imagine that the most bang for the buck would come from taking out

the switchyard...they are not protected at all...that combined with an

attack taking out the diesel generators with leave the site with a loss of

all AC...no power to pumps = no cooling = core uncovering = partial core

melt as at TMI (unceremoniously and inaccurately  referred to as a "glowing

gopher" in the comic strip Bloom County in a set about TMI). In addition it

gives people several hours to sweat about it before it happens...imagine

all the hassle, confusion, and panic associated with evacuation. Just some

thoughts that will get some replies like "don't give them any ideas..." As

if a well organized group of terrorists are stupid...NOT!



 We should all understand the difference between some assigned risk

assessment probability that is used as an indicator of possible death due

to some reason years in the future and actual deaths that occur on a day to

day basis from things such as slips trips and falls. All sides of this

issue need to come to an understanding, and first and foremost is the fact

that this country does not have an energy future if we don't use all the

tools in front of us. That includes the whole gauntlet: oil, coal, nuclear,

hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, and any others I may have missed.



Nuclear power will always be a part of this energy future-no one source of

energy will meet our demands. We can dream about the day when we may have

predominately solar and perhaps fusion power, but that is a long long ways

in the future. We just don't have the technology to make it happen and

without nuclear now, it will never happen. We have to manage the technology

now in a responsible and competent manner together.



My opinions only...



DJWhitfill





                                                                                                                   

                    "Scott D.                                                                                      

                    Portzline"           To:     <DWhitfil@KDHE.STATE.KS.US>                                       

                    <sportzline@h        cc:                                                                       

                    ome.com>             Subject:     Re: Anti-nukes and the mantra of the day: Nuclear Terrorism  

                                                                                                                   

                    10/09/01                                                                                       

                    08:19 PM                                                                                       

                    Please                                                                                         

                    respond to                                                                                     

                    "Scott D.                                                                                      

                    Portzline"                                                                                     

                                                                                                                   

                                                                                                                   









DJWhitfill,

I posted the website in 1996. My research has been cited by the US

Depatment

of Energy, the various military branches, and terrorism experts around the

world. I do not fear technology - I only fear the misuse of it. I have

testified before numerous governmental bodies regarding these matters. I

would not be invited to testify if these committees believed they were

getting lost in the anti-nuclear hyperbole. Everything in the paragraph you

cited is based on factual data from the industry itself.



 The GAO once titled a report on nuclear plant security "Nuclear

Power-Plant

Security - - Inadequate, at Best."  The GAO is neither anti-nuclear or

alarmists, yet they gave a title which one could label as hyperbole until

you read the facts.



I have researched N-plant security and have been trying to improve security

at our nations nuclear plants for nearly 2 decades. Possibly, this is a new

topic for you which you might find somewhat alarmist. I'd rest better

knowing that there is regulation that guards be posted at nuclear plant

entrances. Currently there is no such rule.

That won't solve all of the problems, but it's a start.





As the threat level changed, I became more vocal. Now, it should be obvious

to everyone that high quality security is needed at nuclear plants.

However,

just last week, the Nuclear Energy Institute (industry's lobbying group)

asked the NRC to return security to the normal level. Now that's just

ridiculous. I ask that you do some research and criticize the industry

if/as

you see fit.



I appreciated your recognition of some valid points on the site. I've

recently heard from legislators at the state and national level requesting

additional data from my research. There are many things I don't reveal

publicaly.



Before you think that the new "mantra" (someday) is focused on lost and

stolen nuclear materials, have a look at that page which was first posted

in

1997. People have been killed and harmed by this problem too.



http://www.tmia.com/lost.html



Scott Portzline











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

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.