RE: nuclear plant threat (off-topic answer to a semi off-topic observation)

["Neil, David M" <neildm@ID.DOE.GOV>]

Good point.  In recent literature, Clive Cussler used a variation of that

scenario (an LNG 'tanker' ship in the NY ship channel.



Dave Neil		neildm@id.doe.gov





-----Original Message-----

From: Tim [mailto:tstead@ntirs.org]

Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 3:29 PM

To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: nuclear plant threat







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.

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

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.