Nuclear Terrorism: Vulnerabilities & Solutions

[TheAppeler]

WHAHAHA

make a huge jelly on it so it will be protected by planes!

omg

common!

[Bassbox93]

unrealistic

[HWGuyEG]

A southerner said it best:

"WHY IS IT ON 9/11 THEY ATTACKED A BUILDING AND NOT A NUCLEAR PLANT?

OH WAIT

UNLIKE YOU, RAGHEADS ARE SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WON'T WORK"

[MonkishChief]

Nuclear terror is definitely a major threat to the US. This year alone about 12% of nuclear materials (mainly in Russia) have gone unaccounted for or are listed as missing, an increase of missing nuclear material.

[CommandoDude]

The Containment Chamber could NEVER be penetrated by a plane. It's even been proven to withstand military ordinance. Not that a terrorist could even procure a plane to carry out said terrorism.

Besides, terrorists have proven they prefer densely populated areas, not strategic targets.

Typical Yellow Journalism.

[kpetajan]

Indian Point Reactor is within 30 miles of 20 million people. The plane does not have to penetrate the containment dome to cause catastrophic damage to a nuclear reactor.

[CommandoDude]

Not unless it wants to make the reactor leak. Besides, no terrorist is going to be able to get a plane nore will they target a nuclear reactor anyways. So the point is moot.

[ksquared4]

@kpetajan

you clearly have no knowledge of how a nuclear power plant is constructed. If it didn't penetrate the containment vessel how would it damage the reactor? the reactor isn't even above ground in the containment vessel.

[sagafoundation]

A threat of nuclear terrorism is real indeed, but there are policies that the United States Government needs to take in order to prevent such catastrophe. Unfortunately, the general public is not concerned and aware enough of the issue, which removes discussion from the agenda of those power-holders in DC

[wiseguyproductions]

A missile would be able to penetrate the screens -- or two planes - one to weaken the structure, one to go in further.

we should be using the $ toward sun, wind, wave, geothermal energy etc.

[numantunak]

Okay the beams would break and then they would still crash into the nuclear power plant.

[khill76]

Typcial scare tactic video made by someone who doesn't understand the operation of a nuclear power plant.

[gutixlord61]

Oh ya real simple to do and that plane would still go right through !

[W00TTANG]

long story short, unneccessary, useless, waste of money devised by people who are scared of and dont understand nuclear power or are making money from oil

[W00TTANG]

explain how a structure designed to contain the massive amounts of energy produced by nuclear reactions would be destroyed by a 747? jet fuel burns at high tempereatures but not that high, plus that steel net would not stop the 747, even if u could make it strong enough it would, as shown destroy the 747 and simply allow the burning wreckage through, it was the high temperatures of the fire that brought down the wtc not the impact and if that net was used ud still get one hell of a fire.

[kitepilot]

If you believe this you are an idiot. I work at several Nuclear plants and it would do nothing if someone flew a plane into a reactor building. This is scare propoganda. I will only say this, what you see is only what is above the ground mainly where the crane has room to lift things and move them around. The important stuff is very well protected below the ground level. The Houston refineries are what we should worry about.

[fibeus]

completamente idiota !!!

[theinquisitor]

Just look up chernobyl disaster on wikipedia and look under causes.

[hovah1976]

okay... so we put this on the internet so our enemies know where an easy target is. This kind of stupidity if mindblowing.

[kpetajan]

This information is completely public and has been for years.

[theinquisitor]

The video is also wrong about the nuclear physics. When you take some radioactive material and explode it over a very large distance, you massively dilute the strength of the radiation. This is why terrorists DON'T use radiological bombs and why they DIDN'T attack a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants don't explode like nuclear bombs. Do some research about nuclear reactors before you put your name to something Charlie, you self-serving whore.

[DrOMally]

It doesn't matter if it goes up like a bomb, we'll still have another case of Chernobyl on our hands.

[theinquisitor]

Chernobyl had a very different design to all the nuclear reactors in america. Chernobyl had a high positive void coefficient, so that as it overheated, the reactions increased and created a positive feedback mechanism. Nuclear plants now have a negative void coefficient and so the reactions slow down as it overheats. They are designed this way to prevent these kinds of problems. Alarmist bullshit like this video is far easier to understand than actually reading up on the subject though.

[kpetajan]

Again... a plane does NOT have to hit the reactor dome to cause catastrophic radioactive emissions. Just read any of the NRC reports on vulnerability. Spent fuel pools are practically sitting in a pole barn with virtually no protection from attack.

[barrinmw]

And who cares if that happens? All they would do is wait for the fires to go out and erect a new containment. Nobody would be affected.

WORST CASE SCENARIO - they somehow destroy the ability to cool the reactor, all the power plant would do is Shutdown and if needed initiate Feed and Bleed to cool it down.

[samlikescoasters]

a lot of people would be if radioactivity got into the amtmosphere.

[midwesternerforlife]

are you kidding me? have you ever heard of the Chernobyl reactor? granted that wasn't attacked by a plane but was run by a bunch of commies that didn't know how to run a reactor. And its been over two decades since the incident and they still haven't "erect[ed] a new containment" and between 1986 to 1993 millions of people contracted radiation poisoning and cancer. and the contamination around the reactor has a half life of at least 100,000 years.

[midwesternerforlife]

meaning it could be as much as a million years before Chernobyl's radiation levels would be considered normal by nature's standards.

[barrinmw]

Chernobyl is completely different from any american reactor, by bringing it up your are trying to compare bowling balls to triangles.

[midwesternerforlife]

tell me why that is.

[barrinmw]

For one, they didn't use a pressurized water reactor, we do.

Also, their enclosure housing could only sustain the pressure from a few tubes in the reactor leaking, ours are designed to withhold the pressure if all the water in the coolant were to leak out and turn to steam.

We design our reactors with safety in mind.

[midwesternerforlife]

hope the ruskies learned that lesson. there's still alot of reactors of this type active in the former eastern bloc today actually.

[HWGuyEG]

@barrinmw

Or cardboard to 50' of reinforced concrete.

[Sergionewyork]

What kind of material were used to build that shield? hello the airplane desintagrated ... and not even touched the domme.... we still do not have those materials ... well, who can tell me is this is possible?

[FrenchKiss101]

if they do that then they would "poison the well". If that happens, we can only do the same to them. You may have to terrorize the terrorists or those who shelter them to change their mind and think before they try to "poison the well".

[damagefactor]

45 inches of crete - several inch steel liner - 30+ inches of crete for sub containment - 8 inch vessel pressure head. And you think a flimsy shield made of soft chineese steel is gonna help?

A test with an F4 was done once.

F4 penetrated 2.5 inches - the ammount of energy PER UNIT OF MEASUREMENT was far greater than a flimsy 747 going 350mph.

This is simply another pathetic attempt to bankrupt the nuclear industry.

[barrinmw]

People who are ignorant on a subject should not try and convince other ignorant people to follow them.

Destroying a reactor would maybe cause an area of 5 mi to be subject to increased radiation levels and by increased, I mean not very.

Navy Reactors > Civilian Reactors and for a nuclear ACCIDENT, only 1.5 mi from the site would be affected.

[bushthebigidiot]

ha ha ha, look who is talking about ignorant people, you idiot! "Not very," HA!

[barrinmw]

Since I work in a Nacval Nuclear Power Plant, I think I know what I am talking about.

[bushthebigidiot]

Oh yeah, a totally objective opinion!

[barrinmw]

This isn't about opinions. Its about facts.

How about the FACT that one coal plant puts more radioactive material into the environment then all nuclear accidents in US history combined?

Nuclear Reactors are designed to be inherently safe as long as they are operated correctly. That is why the US Navy is trusted by the Populace of this great country to run the same number of nuclear power plants as the civilians do and a lot of us who work in them go into civilian plants afterwards.

[dking987]

that will never work, this makes the wtc seem like it was made of card

[jeepman65]

The Containment buildings at my plant where 8ft thick. I wouldnt worry too much about a plane penetrating a containment building. Nuclear plants have many redundancies for safety measures. However the NRC DOES turn a blind eye to many things that happen on some of these sites. One hand washes the other as far as the electric utility and the NRC is concerned.

[jsong123]

This is bullshit.

[MasterHobbes]

terrorism, the new communism

[kpetajan]

There ARE many vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants, should they be attacked from the air or water. A 747 COULD penetrate a variety of buildings at a nuclear power facility to cause serious malfunction, leading to radioactive contamination over a broad area.

For more details regarding the technical specifics of this issue, please visit www.committeetobridgethegap.or­g.

[damagefactor]

Oh yeah, here is a classic case of barfing up propaganda.

Containment, Containment, CONTAINMENT! No degree of malfunction could cause a release so long as there is a CONTAINMENT structure... You know what the word containment means right?

[dbww]

Ok who the hell is this guy. A solid concrete dome designed 2 b indestructable will be destroyed by a 747, but a frame of steel girders and wire will?? someone needs to learn some basic physics.

[ThePandaBeat]

lol... Martin Sheen

[sixpackgenius]

Yes it is a regulation to have at least a 4.5 foot thick concrete steel reinforced containment dome over the reactor. The two reasons why the dome is that thick is take a hit from a large plane like a 747 and to contain a steam blast from the core. Sorry no nuclear explosions like they show on TV.

I am not a nuclear lobbyist, so there goes your conspriacy theory. Just take a class about power generation or god forbid- read a book on the subject.

[barrinmw]

True Statement, A Nuclear Reactor is incapable of causing a nuclear explosion.

[smvans7]

Yeah and they said the world trade center could take a direct hit from a plane too. And we all know how that turned out.

It's nice to see that the Nuclear Lobby linked to this video, makes baseless claims, and does petty things like giving this animation a low rating for no apparent reason.

I'm sure plant builders had plane attacks in mind when they built the containment domes at our roughly 100 plants nationwide, even though federal regulation doesn't even require them to do so.

[barrinmw]

Except they did test flying a jet into the same thickness of steel reinforced concrete and the concrete most definitely won. In fact, that video is on this very website.

[sixpackgenius]

Complete rubbish. A containment dome can take a hit from a 747. This "beamhedge" is useless and a waste of money. If you want to stop a terrorist plane, place a missle system for defense.

This is just some scare tactics/yellow journalism from the media.

[SteveWalsh]

Great Animation Kevin!!

[gizmodo]

Wow! Nice video. Spectacular animation. Very impressive.