Re: Nuclear Regulators: Attack Risk Low

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Good point Jack!  Except...



on 8/19/02 10:54 AM, Jack_Earley@RL.GOV at Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:



> We appear to have nearly reached the point where no one needs to attack

> us--we as a country can cause ourselves more harm. If an NPP were attacked,

> the resulting lack of harm would just be passed off as "fortunate" because

> it "could have been worse if...," and "we'd better shut them all down

> before...." And although the terrorist manual lists NPPs as potential

> targets, no one has actually threatened to attack them; our infrastructure

> is only being terrorized by the anti-nuc industry.



As Ted Rockwell actually said, below...



It is being more greatly terrorized by the "nuke industry." "Thar's GOLD in

them thar bills!" (Legislation, that is! :-)  Scare the Congress-critters!

They'll knee-jerk react the only way they know how - throw money at it!



(To the tune of the Beverly Hillbillies! :-)



> Jack Earley

> Radiological Engineer



Thanks, Jack! :-)

Regards, Jim 

===================

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Ted Rockwell [mailto:tedrock@CPCUG.ORG]

> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 8:15 PM

> To: RADSAFE; Sandy Perle

> Subject: RE: Nuclear Regulators: Attack Risk Low

> 

> 

> This NRC statement, coupled with other unchallenged news statements by

> others, strongly implies that an airplane hitting a nuclear power plant will

> result in "tens of thousands of deaths" and "vast areas of land rendered

> uninhabitable for centuries."  Also, "The agency also again acknowledged

> that the plants were not built to withstand a fully fueled jetliner crashing

> into them." (Gee, what was all that calculation and testing in the 1977s-80s

> all about, anyway?)

> 

> Our only hope, they say, is to shoot the attackers down before they get us.

> If I believed what I read here, I would want to shut down every nuclear

> power plant now, for keeps.

> 

> Can anyone show me an authoritative statement by a government official or a

> nuclear spokesman that would counteract that conclusion?

> 

> The more we talk about shooting down planes and beefing up walls, the more

> essential it appears that we must never have a reactor or fuel accident.  I

> have to infer from all this that any of these attacks, if successful, would

> have consequences too horrible to discuss.  Else why do we not discuss them?

> 

> I wish someone would show me why I'm wrong about this.

> 

> Ted Rockwell

> 

> 

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 



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

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/