Re: What's New for Feb 01, 2002

["dkosloff1" <dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

How do we know that Sandia was not more forthcoming?  Were all the Hill

Staffers really so stupid that they did not notice that the 12 feet is

bigger than three feet, that the block moved, that a Phantom is smaller than

a 747, and that there was no fire?    Of course the key item that relages to

size are the engines, and the F-4 engines are not 5% the size of 747

engines.  Also an attack on a containment would not have the attacking

aircraft mounted on rails so that it hits the containment at exactly the

correct angle.  So Mr. Park is also misleading with his reporting.

Reporters always summarize the information they have.  Sometimes they even

leave things out to make their story appear more juicy.  Why would Robert

Park think that someone would have to be puffing when they state the simple

fact that,  "Nuclear power structures are very rugged and robust."



Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com

2910 Main Street, Perry OH 44081





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

From: "Susan Gawarecki" <loc@icx.net>

To: "RADSAFE" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:46 PM

Subject: What's New for Feb 01, 2002





> Robert Park touches on some nuclear-related issues this week, including

> containment-dome strength (#4).  I agree with him that Sandia should

> have been more forthcoming about the design of the test.

>

> --Susan Gawarecki

>

> WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 1 Feb 02   Washington, DC

> 4. TERRORISM: COULD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS WITHSTAND 9-11 ATTACKS?

> Maybe you saw it on 60-Minutes or the evening news: a film of a

> plane crashing into a massive concrete wall.  It disintegrates in

> a fireball, but the wall is barely scratched.  Hill staffers were

> shown the film at an ASME briefing by R.E. Nickell, "an expert on

> nuclear power."  "Nuclear power structures," Nickell puffed, "are

> very rugged and robust."  The implications were obvious, and most

> American's breathed a little easier.  But it wasn't the wall of a

> containment dome.  Paul Leventhal, the President of the Nuclear

> Control Institute, points out that the test, conducted by Sandia

> Labs in 1988, used a wall 12 feet thick compared with 3.5 foot

> thick containment domes.  The purpose of the test was not to test

> the strength of the wall, but to measure the impact forces.  The

> wall, therefore, was designed to move, and was displaced 6 feet

> by the impact.  Wait, there's more, the plane was a Phantom jet

> fighter weighing about 5% as much as a jumbo jet airliner.  Its

> fuel tanks were filled with water to measure "fuel" dispersion.

> Sandia made no attempt to clear up the misleading reports.





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

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 can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/