RE: nuclear plant threat

[Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>]

It's amazing the lengths some people go when talking

about shutting down nuclear plants.  Look at the

latest one: they are vulnerable to terrorist attacks

so they need to be shut down.



All I ask of anti-nukes is consistency in reason. 

Nothing more - nothing less.  If we are to immediately

remove 20% of our electrical supply (let's not even

tlak about the sever disruption that would cause to

our country!) simply because of the threat to

terrorism, then let's look at everything we should get

rid of becuase its vulnerable to terrorist attack.



Where do we start?  Shopping malls, sports stadiums,

large office complexes, apartment buildings?  The list

could go on and on of things that we'd need to stop

simply becuase they are vulnerable to terrorist

attacks.



I think that some of the most vulnerable are the LNG

tanks at New York harbor that are "guarded" by simple

chain link fences.  A terrorist could simply plant a

bomb next to one and light up half of Eastern NYC! 

Why aren't the anti-nukes screaming about the Port of

new York then?  Are they really interested in safety

or just interested in shutting down nuclear plants?



Tim



--- "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> wrote:

> Chris,

> 

> I think that your & Glen's points are very good.

> I would just like to add some numbers to the point

> Glen was making -- FYI,

> the wingspan of a Boeing 767 (for example) is 47.6m

> (as compared, for

> example, to the 44m O.D. of a CANDU-6 containment

> dome), but its engines are

> only 15.6m apart - or 7.8m from the plane's center

> line. So if the plane

> were to impact with its fuselage centerline exactly

> aligned with the

> building centerline, then the engines would impact

> on the wall at an angle

> of 69° -- ie. 21° off perpendicular (and assuming a

> perfectly in-plane

> horizontal approach at an altitude of only a

> dozen-or-so metres !!! ....the

> width of the fuselage is 5m and overall height is

> 15.9m.... normal runway

> approach speed with MLW - maximum landing weight -

> is about 165mph or

> 265kph, according to Jane's All the World's

> Aircraft).

> As Glen said, for missiles "striking concrete

> structures.... there is a

> significant reduction in

> penetration if the impact vector is anything other

> than normal to the impact

> surface.  Even if the containment were flat, if the

> shaft of the engine did

> not strike the surface perpendicularly, the shaft

> will rotate and slam

> broadside into the containment.  The force instead

> of being over the cross

> sectional area of the end of the (airliner engine)

> shaft is then dispersed

> over the entire cross sectional are of the long side

> of the shaft.  The

> resultant penetration is <5% of that for a normally

> incident crash."

> Its very unlikely that a perfectly perpendicular

> impact could be achieved on

> a cylindrical structure, unless you put the plane on

> a rail track, like the

> F-4 Phantom in the 1988 Sandia test, with an 8m

> offset from the center line

> of the building....



__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Find a job, post your resume.

http://careers.yahoo.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.