this sounds mighty scary... until you realize the sicko intent is to maim and kill innocents by surprise and on the spot, in order to sow fear and garner media to bolster an insane philosophy. would attacking a power plant, far from populations, result in the same perverse gratification? would it earn the virgins in heaven if the result would affect Muslims along with infidels?
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Must be converted immediately into completely foolproof designs and the old ones closed as a matter of national defense worldwide. Taylor Wilson, describing his design on a TED talk explained how it was completely safe, used the fuel we're storing as nuclear waste now and could be mass produced, bringing the production price down because of economies of scale. We have a chance now before there is a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the crippling of a major city and waterway, to change to a totally safe design. I know that the opposition to the change will probably be loudest from the coal lobby who will want to use the shift as an excuse to go back to causing global climate change and poisoning the air and water. I know the chances of this recommendation being taken seriously are vanishingly small. My fear is that we will have to wait until there is a major attack on a nuclear facility or a dirty bomb unleashed in the center of a large city before we reset our priorities. In the meanwhile, our priorities in the US must be refocused on gun safety. These are a the alternatives to a Doomsday scenario dramatized in the notorious movie, Dr. Strangelove. Do we want life on earth to end the same way the movie does?
3
Sure.
1
I have a visceral response to make threats after reading "Terrorist Fukushima." It goes like this: If any attack takes place against a nuclear facility anywhere in the world and it is proved that a radical Islamic group is responsible then after appropriate warning Mecca gets bombed, followed by destroying all the airports in Islamic countries.
What I am suggesting is terrible and wrong, and I wish I didn't have such thoughts, and fortunately I will never be in a position to act on such feelings, but I know if I have them, others might. Failures of diplomacy brought us to this sorry state, only a series of successful diplomatic efforts will extricate us. Where are the leaders we need to get this job done?
What I am suggesting is terrible and wrong, and I wish I didn't have such thoughts, and fortunately I will never be in a position to act on such feelings, but I know if I have them, others might. Failures of diplomacy brought us to this sorry state, only a series of successful diplomatic efforts will extricate us. Where are the leaders we need to get this job done?
It is interesting that you juxtapose a natural disaster caused accident with a terrorist attack. The odds are high and going up fast that there will be a major nuclear plant disaster somewhere in the world due to the age of the plants, or a natural disaster or combination of both. The exact senario of the events causing the melt down will not be known until after it's occurrence, but the safety program in place will prove to be futile. Fukushima is pumping radoactivity into the ocean as we speak and no one know's what to do, that is what you should be concerned about. More than likely, the next nuclear plant disaster will be caused by something as mundane as a flood. It's time to end the electricity from nuclear fission power fantasy.
1
In addition to solar, wind, and increased efficiencies, we should increase nuclear power generation. The existing nuclear plants will carry some risk because spent nuclear fuel is stored at many. Nuclear power does not produce green house gases. The best path, in my opinion, is to restore nuclear engineering to prominence at the University level, and have a thorough review and revetting of all plants, closing some and increasing standards and security, especially cybersecurity.
2
Nuke plants in the US and Japan are obstenibly built on "safe locations". We are led to believe that the location is chosen based on extensive research of the geographical and climatological records of the proposed site. What actually happened at Fukushima is the research only went back about a century, and nobody bothered to look at the geological evidence until a couple of years prior to the disaster. The maximum tsunami of record within a century was about 19 feet, so the plant was built on safe elevation above that theoretical tsunami limit. However, a couple of years prior to the disaster, a major university in Tokoyo found unmistakable physical evidence in the field that multiple tsunamis had well exceeded the plant design assumptions, achieving a maximum height of about 29 feet. The government, the owner and their version of the NRC dismissed the facts, keeping the plants online. The actual tsunami came in above 30 feet. (I got this from a NOVA documentary.)
The main threat to some of our nuclear power plants is location-location-location. Fukushima should be a wake up call for why we should not ever build a nuke on ocean front property, and be proactive enough to shut them down, particularly in a region well known for earthquakes and tsunamis like California. Diablo Canyon comes to mind. It's a well defended fortress, but it is not submersible, nor is Turkey Point outside of Miami and a few others for that matter. Are we feeling lucky? We're going to need it.
The main threat to some of our nuclear power plants is location-location-location. Fukushima should be a wake up call for why we should not ever build a nuke on ocean front property, and be proactive enough to shut them down, particularly in a region well known for earthquakes and tsunamis like California. Diablo Canyon comes to mind. It's a well defended fortress, but it is not submersible, nor is Turkey Point outside of Miami and a few others for that matter. Are we feeling lucky? We're going to need it.
3
With exception to resulting panic, the scenario specifics described are hyperbole, irresponsible, and actually, not needed; all terrorists need is to cause significant life altering panic and they win, people could die for various reasons simply due to reaction. Perception is reality and public is ill-informed. What doesn't help is referring to typical nuclear plant fuel pools as "cooling ponds" (insinuates these could be outside open air ponds; this what public imagines). Typical U.S. fuel pools are within enclosed plant structure and many - not all - are protected by significant reinforced containment structure analyzed to withstand a commercial jet crash (blow outward; not penetrate). Even if penetrated, and explosion, contaminant release definitely possible but it would be mitigated (release plumes are analyzed) and isolated. Spent fuel in pool is under 20 to 25 feet of water in racks. "Large amounts of radiation" highly unlikely, and, if plausible, NRC would never license a plant. This hyperbole plays right into the terrorist objective. But again, no specific accident scenario needs to be debated; all is needed is significant public panic, and as long as nuclear plants (and perhaps some hazardous chemical plants) remain out in the open so to speak, a Cessna crashing into the site warehouse could cause sufficient public panic due to perceived worse case thinking to cause deaths (e.g., heart attacks, car accidents), and the terrorists win some.
1
Driven by destructive impulses while the terrorists are putting their act together at global level, the world leaders have failed miserably to evolve a matching response to counter the threat. In the absence of any effective strategy even against terrorist strikes of familiar nature how could the safety and security of people could be ensured if the same menace of terrorism acquires the deadly nuclear edge- a possibility more real than hypothetical?
8
There is one thing even more dangerous than nuclear power, and that is global warming. It's not a good tradeoff.
Meanwhile, commercial and vested interests are unable or unwilling to finance the newer cleaner nuclear (an expert friend informs me the fuel is not yet all recyclable). So instead we have grandfathered generation 2, with their staggering amounts of nuclear waste, and tens of thousands of years of emissions.
Still more stupid, the UK has hired the Chinese to build a new gen2 nuclear plant, while disabling clean renewable energy development (which should NOT include biomass and corn biofuels) at the behest of their friends and masters, the fossil industry. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Global warming, with increases in extreme weather, threatens nuclear plants as well, so siting is also important.
But to be honest, the dangers of nuclear energy pale in comparison to the relentless and increasingly obvious dangerous of continued heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from a wide variety of sources, not just fuel but deforestation and meat production (mind you, that percentage is smaller than you might think).
We are penny wise and pound foolish, letting owners convince us with false information while destroying our habitable planet at a rapid rate. Not just emissions, but every kind of waste and pollution, not trivial. And all of this targets of regulatory fervor from profiteers who don't need the money.
Vote, vote, vote, Democratic!
Meanwhile, commercial and vested interests are unable or unwilling to finance the newer cleaner nuclear (an expert friend informs me the fuel is not yet all recyclable). So instead we have grandfathered generation 2, with their staggering amounts of nuclear waste, and tens of thousands of years of emissions.
Still more stupid, the UK has hired the Chinese to build a new gen2 nuclear plant, while disabling clean renewable energy development (which should NOT include biomass and corn biofuels) at the behest of their friends and masters, the fossil industry. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Global warming, with increases in extreme weather, threatens nuclear plants as well, so siting is also important.
But to be honest, the dangers of nuclear energy pale in comparison to the relentless and increasingly obvious dangerous of continued heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from a wide variety of sources, not just fuel but deforestation and meat production (mind you, that percentage is smaller than you might think).
We are penny wise and pound foolish, letting owners convince us with false information while destroying our habitable planet at a rapid rate. Not just emissions, but every kind of waste and pollution, not trivial. And all of this targets of regulatory fervor from profiteers who don't need the money.
Vote, vote, vote, Democratic!
9
The only concrete threat discussed in the article is that of crashing an airplane into a nuclear plant. Surely we are already doing all that is realistically possible to prevent planes from being crashed into any sort of target.
What do the authors propose that we do to protect nuclear plants in particular from airborne attacks? Put nice sturdy roofs over them?
Or are we just supposed to worry a lot?
What do the authors propose that we do to protect nuclear plants in particular from airborne attacks? Put nice sturdy roofs over them?
Or are we just supposed to worry a lot?
4
I agree with reader Ray that the word "pond" (though the usual terminology) for the watery spent fuel receptacles is misleading but his assurance does not fill me with confidence. On the general problem, nuclear scientists have been speculating and sometimes trying since 1945 to find a safe and reliable method of dealing with nuclear waste (vitrification, for example) and as far as I know have not come up with anything that can stand the test of time, at least as humans measure it. As for the immediate problem of insecurity due to terrorism there have been rumors that our local utility has been training sharpshooters, presumably to defend reactors against incursions. This does not receive much publicity, for obviously it would alarm the local population as much as it would reassure them. I guess the running costs of nuclear reactors will now include maintaining paramilitaries at various levels of training. But no matter how well trained. they will, like nuclear engineers on control room duty, be subject to boredom and spasms of inattention, not to mention the occasional witless direction, as at Fukushima or Chernobyl.
1
Terrorist Attacks on Nuclear Facilities
Based on past nuclear industry experience a coordinated or unitary terrorist attack would be likely to do the following:
One: Reveal that phenomena excluded from probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) can happen.
Two: Reveal that phenomena excluded from Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSAR) can happen.
Three: Reveal that some vital plant capabilities required by NRC requirements are in a state of dysfunction and have been for years.
Four: Reveal that assumptions about how many units can simultaneously need staged beyond design basis equipment are not valid.
Five: Reveal more examples of shortfalls in competence, integrity, compliance, and transparency in the industry and oversight/regulatory bodies.
Six: Reveal that chilling effects have prevented the prior revelation of the above.
Based on past nuclear industry experience a coordinated or unitary terrorist attack would be likely to do the following:
One: Reveal that phenomena excluded from probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) or probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) can happen.
Two: Reveal that phenomena excluded from Updated Final Safety Analysis Reports (UFSAR) can happen.
Three: Reveal that some vital plant capabilities required by NRC requirements are in a state of dysfunction and have been for years.
Four: Reveal that assumptions about how many units can simultaneously need staged beyond design basis equipment are not valid.
Five: Reveal more examples of shortfalls in competence, integrity, compliance, and transparency in the industry and oversight/regulatory bodies.
Six: Reveal that chilling effects have prevented the prior revelation of the above.
1
There are many resourse vulnerabilities that can affect millions of people for a long time that we don't need to enumerate here. We just need to be vigilent and go after them, even where they sleep, with our best national effort.
1
Not only are nuclear power plants vulnerable, but water supplies are subject to biological attack as well. Now may be the time to use our military to guard nuclear power plants and our reservoirs.
Surely plans are underway to review the vulnerability of both our nuclear power plants and water supplies, and that appropriate measures will be taken to safeguard both. We cannot wait until an "event" to act, nor can Europe. This is a world wide shared problem, and a shared solution will be needed.
Surely plans are underway to review the vulnerability of both our nuclear power plants and water supplies, and that appropriate measures will be taken to safeguard both. We cannot wait until an "event" to act, nor can Europe. This is a world wide shared problem, and a shared solution will be needed.
3
Great, one MORE thing to worry about...thanks Diana!
In war, intelligence and ingenuity have often succeeded in penetrating supposedly impregnable defenses (the Ardennes in Belgium for example). What if employees working at a Belgian nuclear site had stayed on their jobs instead of leaving to join ISIS in Syria?
It seems more like dumb luck rather than good planning has saved us up to this point. We are giving them too much time to learn from their mistakes and too many soft targets of opportunity. If they succeed then, like it or not, we are heading back to the Middle East. This is their stated goal. If you don't want to play into their hands then we need better planning and more resources to protect against this threat. We are all in this together, radiation does not recognize party affiliation.
It seems more like dumb luck rather than good planning has saved us up to this point. We are giving them too much time to learn from their mistakes and too many soft targets of opportunity. If they succeed then, like it or not, we are heading back to the Middle East. This is their stated goal. If you don't want to play into their hands then we need better planning and more resources to protect against this threat. We are all in this together, radiation does not recognize party affiliation.
4
More hysterical scaremongering from the Times, with the sole political objective of closing Indian Point:
• At the "disaster at Fukushima", radiation fatalities remain at the un-disastrous total of zero. Approximately 150 fatalities are attributed to panic, fueled by Japanese and international media reports.
• Guayapari Beach in Brazil, a popular tourist destination, has radiation levels 6 times higher than Fukushima's "uninhabitable" exclusion zone. It caters to those unmoved by "The China Syndrome" and the New York Times's editorial staff, who go there for its purported healing powers.
• Indian Point provides 75% of New York City's electricity, does it safely, and does it without creating an ounce of carbon emissions.
• An estimated 13,000 Americans die every year from emissions from eastern U.S. coal plants, which include toxics like mercury, arsenic, and (ironically) far more radioactivity than that released by U.S. nuclear plants.
Get real. The 1970s-era, irrational, anti-science crusade represented almost daily on the pages here is more than silly, it's criminally irresponsible. With solar panels and wind turbines yet to generate 5% of American electricity, nuclear energy is humankind's only chance to stop burning fossil fuels - the emissions from which threaten to render one out of every six species on earth extinct in the next century.
• At the "disaster at Fukushima", radiation fatalities remain at the un-disastrous total of zero. Approximately 150 fatalities are attributed to panic, fueled by Japanese and international media reports.
• Guayapari Beach in Brazil, a popular tourist destination, has radiation levels 6 times higher than Fukushima's "uninhabitable" exclusion zone. It caters to those unmoved by "The China Syndrome" and the New York Times's editorial staff, who go there for its purported healing powers.
• Indian Point provides 75% of New York City's electricity, does it safely, and does it without creating an ounce of carbon emissions.
• An estimated 13,000 Americans die every year from emissions from eastern U.S. coal plants, which include toxics like mercury, arsenic, and (ironically) far more radioactivity than that released by U.S. nuclear plants.
Get real. The 1970s-era, irrational, anti-science crusade represented almost daily on the pages here is more than silly, it's criminally irresponsible. With solar panels and wind turbines yet to generate 5% of American electricity, nuclear energy is humankind's only chance to stop burning fossil fuels - the emissions from which threaten to render one out of every six species on earth extinct in the next century.
11
You forgot to mention that thanks to the scare-mongering and resulting political blockade, research and development of safer, cleaner and more efficient nuclear power plants, including thorium reactors which can burn up to 99% of their fuel (theoretically) has come to a near stand-still. So, ironically, it is the Green Party that is most effective in killing off the planet and life on Earth by preventing the efficient and rapid of reduction green gas emissions for self-serving political reasons. After all, it is much simpler to be elected on a political program built on fear rather than having to do the hard work and be constructive.
1
After having had the apparent misfortune to land in Tokyo Narita 45 minutes before the Great Tohuku Earthquake struck on March 11,2011 for six agonizing shaking grinding 9.0 magnitude minutes we had no idea that there were any tsunamis nor nuclear power plants.
And over the next few days until we could return home to America the Japanese media, TEPCO and the Japanese government played down and ignored what was going at Fukishima and with the tsunamis. Until we returned home we did not appreciate the magnitude of the disaster nor the source of our family and friends dread for our safety.
Japan has enough enriched uranium and plutonium to make about 1000 Hiroshima and Nagasaki size atom bombs. But for Japan being such a closed ethnic homogenous xenophobic society we would have to fear foreigners seeking access to this material. While Japan eschews nuclear weapons it is committed to nuclear power. There are ethnic sectarian supremacist radical Japanese who might seek this material for a variety of nefarious means and goals.
Tokyo Narita Airport was the safest airport to be in during the 9.0, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.0 earthquakes that struck within the hour.
And over the next few days until we could return home to America the Japanese media, TEPCO and the Japanese government played down and ignored what was going at Fukishima and with the tsunamis. Until we returned home we did not appreciate the magnitude of the disaster nor the source of our family and friends dread for our safety.
Japan has enough enriched uranium and plutonium to make about 1000 Hiroshima and Nagasaki size atom bombs. But for Japan being such a closed ethnic homogenous xenophobic society we would have to fear foreigners seeking access to this material. While Japan eschews nuclear weapons it is committed to nuclear power. There are ethnic sectarian supremacist radical Japanese who might seek this material for a variety of nefarious means and goals.
Tokyo Narita Airport was the safest airport to be in during the 9.0, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.0 earthquakes that struck within the hour.
1
A lot of recommendations on government action to make nuclear facilities safer.
But haven't you heard? The government is already way too big, steals money from our pockets, is run by idiots, lies to everyone, and needs to be shrunk to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Morons are as great a threat as terrorists.
But haven't you heard? The government is already way too big, steals money from our pockets, is run by idiots, lies to everyone, and needs to be shrunk to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Morons are as great a threat as terrorists.
13
We can burn quick, or we can burn slow, but we will burn either way with nuclear power and its by-products. No civilization has lasted and secured anything for the half life of nuclear waste, what makes us or any other civilization believe that we will? Why worry about the slim chance of terrorist action in light of the very real possibility that we have started a slow moving apocalypse with this and other colossal stupidities?
One shouldn't be allowed to create a problem that out lasts a human lifespan. We have created legion; it is past time we put out the fires we have started before we burn the house down.
One shouldn't be allowed to create a problem that out lasts a human lifespan. We have created legion; it is past time we put out the fires we have started before we burn the house down.
8
The best way to control terrorists is to understand why these people become terrorists in the first place. In a democracy, it is very hard to control everything so it is safer for the people. The process of controlling everything hands over the victory to terrorists. Just my two cents!
3
But as Fukushima and Chernobyl made clear, accidents and natural disasters happen, and nuclear power plants are too vulnerable. There is no way to turn back the clock but we must plan for the safe retirement of these aging facilities and secure storage of the resulting radioactive waste.
If anything, renewable and distributed power systems are another solution to potential terrorist nuclear attacks.
8
Yes, wind and solar can be the salvation of humans on this earth and elsewhere they may roam in the universe. Surely this is obvious to some in power or to be in power. If not we are doomed and quickly.
A good ride while it lasted. But I would like it to last much longer than seems likely. Have you noticed small children lately? What great promise if only we can train them in the way they should go.....preserve human civilization....and don't forget the dogs!
A good ride while it lasted. But I would like it to last much longer than seems likely. Have you noticed small children lately? What great promise if only we can train them in the way they should go.....preserve human civilization....and don't forget the dogs!
Remove government insurance guarantees/subsidies and force them to fund annuities for the 10,000 years the waste is dangerous and nukes will be shut down the next day.
It's time for solar and wind.
It's time for solar and wind.
12
When will we get some true world leaders? -- leaders who see that the whole nuclear era has been a tragic mistake. That all nuclear reactors must be closed immediately and guarded by military units now fighting futile wars in the Middle East and Africa.
Let the Islamic countries decide themselves how they want to live. None of our business. I would say bring our troops home, except they should not come home. They should be sent to guard nuclear installations around the world to try to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear materials.
Meantime: We must close all nuclear reactors. We must abolish nuclear weapons.
After we've stopped producing more nuclear material. we -- and every future generation for hundreds of thousands of years -- must devote ourselves to trying to isolate nuclear materials from the biosphere. Constantly check for leaks and try to fix them.
Nuclear materials, (also called nuclear waste) is to be our selfish, foolish generation's legacy to all future generations."
Let the Islamic countries decide themselves how they want to live. None of our business. I would say bring our troops home, except they should not come home. They should be sent to guard nuclear installations around the world to try to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear materials.
Meantime: We must close all nuclear reactors. We must abolish nuclear weapons.
After we've stopped producing more nuclear material. we -- and every future generation for hundreds of thousands of years -- must devote ourselves to trying to isolate nuclear materials from the biosphere. Constantly check for leaks and try to fix them.
Nuclear materials, (also called nuclear waste) is to be our selfish, foolish generation's legacy to all future generations."
8
Same old story, different verse, MJ. Whenever a mouse learns how to avoid a trap, someone builds a better mousetrap, and then a "conservationist" steps in to capture the poor, unloved mouse and release it back into nature.
Weeds evolve to defeat a weedkiller, then a stronger weedkiller kills the crop it is intended to protect. Crops become immune to Roundup, and we wind up with carcinogens in our bread.
Every "arms race" becomes an unstoppable chain reaction until a final catastrophe wipes out the species, and then life starts over again.
It happened with the dinosaurs, and it will happen with the human race. Only the method is uncertain. We have no "bleeding heart liberal" to save us from our own folly.
Weeds evolve to defeat a weedkiller, then a stronger weedkiller kills the crop it is intended to protect. Crops become immune to Roundup, and we wind up with carcinogens in our bread.
Every "arms race" becomes an unstoppable chain reaction until a final catastrophe wipes out the species, and then life starts over again.
It happened with the dinosaurs, and it will happen with the human race. Only the method is uncertain. We have no "bleeding heart liberal" to save us from our own folly.
The nuclear era was not any where near the mistake -- the economics and bid and design warfare of nuke was the mistake ..
1
Who needs a "terrorist Fukushima" when we have incompetents running the Nuke plants around the world to begin with, and the so-called "Watchdog Organizations" that are supposed to regulate and oversee the industry go out of their way to downplay or hide completely the effects of the nuke disasters that have already occurred. Or the governments of countries where the plants have blown a few stacks - or reactors - hide the effects, change the medical parameters for nuclear material exposure, and do nothing to protect their own citizens from said exposure. Now we are supposed to lose more sleep dreaming of some wacky fundamentalist who will smuggle in a suitcase bomb and radiate one of our downtown shopping malls…just wake me when it's over.
15
Fossil fuel kills 10s of 1000s of people each year. Nuclear power is responsible for not even 1/10000th of that number and that's an overestimation.
Simply because the coal and fossil fuel deaths are silent does not mean that they are not agonizing to those who are dying from cancer and COPD.
Once you think this through, your comment becomes somewhat cynical.
That's not to downplay the need to protect existing nuclear plants, but more importantly the mostly unguarded nuclear waste that the anti-nukers have effectively for decades prevented from being safely stored or recycled.
A much bigger danger is some suicide commando grabbing a barrel of nuclear waste and then blowing it up using conventional explosives in the middle of a major city. THAT would have a devastating effect, indeed. And the blame would rest on those who have prevented the waste from being stored safely or recycled.
Simply because the coal and fossil fuel deaths are silent does not mean that they are not agonizing to those who are dying from cancer and COPD.
Once you think this through, your comment becomes somewhat cynical.
That's not to downplay the need to protect existing nuclear plants, but more importantly the mostly unguarded nuclear waste that the anti-nukers have effectively for decades prevented from being safely stored or recycled.
A much bigger danger is some suicide commando grabbing a barrel of nuclear waste and then blowing it up using conventional explosives in the middle of a major city. THAT would have a devastating effect, indeed. And the blame would rest on those who have prevented the waste from being stored safely or recycled.
1
The true crisis is what to do with "spent" fuel, tons and tons of uranium pellets contaminated with radioactive isotopes whose half-lives range from a few weeks or months to 50,000 years; 75,000 years; 200,000 years. A national nuclear waste storage depository planned and built in Nevada will no longer be usable thanks to local opposition and a Department of Energy holding facility at Hanford, Washington is bursting at the seams.
Let's take all those military-style police SWAT teams around the United States who rampage into homes of drug dealers (most of them small-time) and set them to patrolling and guarding our nuclear power plants.
These power plants are much more vulnerable than this article suggests. Just put "security of U.S. nuclear power plants" into your Google browser, and you'll see what I mean.
Our government bombs countless people in faraway countries in the name of national security, yet does virtually nothing to protect its citizens from real and immediate dangers right here at home.
These power plants are much more vulnerable than this article suggests. Just put "security of U.S. nuclear power plants" into your Google browser, and you'll see what I mean.
Our government bombs countless people in faraway countries in the name of national security, yet does virtually nothing to protect its citizens from real and immediate dangers right here at home.
3
It is worse than the Nuke plants.
Our government through the Office of Secure Transportation (OST) drives components of nuclear weapons up and down the interstates of the country to maintain and update the stockpile.
Mother Jones published this article back in 2012. That adds to the problem and should also be addressed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/nuclear-truckers
That plain white Peterbilt in the next lane cold be carrying a Nuclear weapon or components.
Our government through the Office of Secure Transportation (OST) drives components of nuclear weapons up and down the interstates of the country to maintain and update the stockpile.
Mother Jones published this article back in 2012. That adds to the problem and should also be addressed.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/nuclear-truckers
That plain white Peterbilt in the next lane cold be carrying a Nuclear weapon or components.
4
Anti nuclear scientists(such as the late George Wald of Harvard) warned us of this very scenario decades ago - but the big money nuclear industry rammed these down our throats. With rising oceans, and nuclear plants scattered on the coasts, we have that horror show to deal with too.
7
Engineer here. Please people, before employing needless fear mongering, look at the relevant research and statistics. The nefarious effects of misinformation around nuclear are arguably comparable to the faulty autism-vaccine link. Nuclear is an excellent alternative to fossil fuels.
See this paper from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/
See this paper from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/
4
If I was a terrorist, I'd just sneak a gas pipeline right next to an aging nuclear plant.
Oh, look - the Algonquin Pipeline already plans to run another line right next to Indian Point. Never mind.
Oh, look - the Algonquin Pipeline already plans to run another line right next to Indian Point. Never mind.
3
Shut them all down NOW. And don't believe the lie that renewables can't replace nukes and all coal plants. Renewables are ready to do the job, and they have been for awhile, but disinformation from old dirty energy (and nothing is dirtier than nukes) has been gobbled up by policy makers. Time for a break out to the truth.
8
A local refugee camp on the outskirts of the small Bavarian city I live in puts up a new flag weekly, sometimes daily. It started with anti-American sentiments and changed to flags from various middle eastern countries-Turkey, Uzbekistan, etc. The latest flag has a toxic symbol and something about "FUKUSHIMA" written on the bottom. When I saw the title of the article I instantly thought of that, this isn't something to take lightly.
Fukushima is a good example because elementary safety steps were not taken. That is, to put pumps and generators in locations that could not be flooded, not in basements. You don't have to know about 1000-year tsnunamis to know that is not good design, even if evidently to GE's reactor specifications at the time. The civilian reactor industry just does not make safety the top concern over profits, convenience, and politics.
4
We absolutely have to address the risk. North Korea and Iran want their societies to survive but an ISIS suicide squad at a nuclear facility will happily forego survival for a big bang.
Meanwhile, I will reserve my immediate worry for the texting drivers crossing center lines on road near me. Far more a risk to me and my family.
Meanwhile, I will reserve my immediate worry for the texting drivers crossing center lines on road near me. Far more a risk to me and my family.
1
Long before Fukushima and the Brussels bombings, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Project on Government Oversight warned about clear vulnerabilities at nuclear sites. Then, an 82 year old nun, Megan Rice, and a couple more peace activists demonstrated that it doesn't take a suicide squad to beat nuclear security.
Without weapons or violent intent, they reached the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at the Y-12 National Security Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- the national warehouse for nuclear bomb uranium. And they were unchecked as they decorated the facility with anti-war slogans.
If a highly armed force of counter-terrorism guards, equipped with Gatling guns and Bear Cat assault vehicles can be outmaneuvered by an 82-year old, maybe hardening facilities is not a realistic solution. Maybe we need to look at risk reduction instead of threat opposition.
Spent nuclear fuel can be more safely housed in earthen berms and containment structures can be hardened to resist crashes by more than a Cessna -- if we are willing to bear the cost (in higher electrical bills and taxes) of bringing the nuclear industry to account for safety in the post 9/11 era.
Alternatively, we can stop accumulating surplus nuclear bomb materials and schedule de-commissioning existing nuclear plants for replacement with more sustainable and safer energy production and consumption patterns.
Without weapons or violent intent, they reached the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility at the Y-12 National Security Site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- the national warehouse for nuclear bomb uranium. And they were unchecked as they decorated the facility with anti-war slogans.
If a highly armed force of counter-terrorism guards, equipped with Gatling guns and Bear Cat assault vehicles can be outmaneuvered by an 82-year old, maybe hardening facilities is not a realistic solution. Maybe we need to look at risk reduction instead of threat opposition.
Spent nuclear fuel can be more safely housed in earthen berms and containment structures can be hardened to resist crashes by more than a Cessna -- if we are willing to bear the cost (in higher electrical bills and taxes) of bringing the nuclear industry to account for safety in the post 9/11 era.
Alternatively, we can stop accumulating surplus nuclear bomb materials and schedule de-commissioning existing nuclear plants for replacement with more sustainable and safer energy production and consumption patterns.
8
Nuke Safety. A friend was a carpenter and worked at the San Onorfe plant in San Diego county. He received a ID badge and dosimeter to wear on the job.
Nuke wast storage-
2 guards
24 hours per day
7 days a week
52 weeks a year
10,000 years
Equals 1,226,400,000 hours
Times $15,00 per hour
Equals only $18,396,000,000 for 2 guards
But will two guards be enough?
Were these numbers run when energy companies economists stated how cheap Nuke plants are?
2 guards
24 hours per day
7 days a week
52 weeks a year
10,000 years
Equals 1,226,400,000 hours
Times $15,00 per hour
Equals only $18,396,000,000 for 2 guards
But will two guards be enough?
Were these numbers run when energy companies economists stated how cheap Nuke plants are?
8
These terrorist gangs (including our own home grown ones) will select anything that will interrupt & hurt western society: hospitals, schools, water sources, electrical power stations, banking & retail cyber attacks, major bridges, plus Las Vegas casinos, Disneyland and Macys Herald Square, GOP & Dem party conventions, election day polls etc.....any of these would make a huge impact and would not involve any nuclear technology. We need to learn to think like these criminals if we want to stop them.
1
Nuclear power plants definitely need to be well guarded, but I agree with the commenter below who says that the possibility of terrorists doing something catastrophic by breaching a nuclear power plant is extremely small. They can cause much more widespread destruction by flying planes into buildings or bombing subways: and sadly we already know how they can do this. Stealing intensely radioactive material is no cakewalk, and hopefully any terrorist foolish enough to try to do this will succumb to radiation poisoning before he or she kills innocent people.
In addition, the best estimate for *excess* cancer deaths for Fukushima is not more than a thousand or so (as described in Berkeley physicist Richard Mueller's book "Energy for Future Presidents" for instance). Contrast this with the tens of thousands who died from the earthquake and tsunami. Also contrast this with the tens of thousands of *natural* cancer deaths (about 20% in a population). The excess deaths from a reactor breach are far fewer than those occurring due to any number of natural disasters.
Nuclear terrorism should not be ignored, but its risks should be put in perspective and seen in the right context.
In addition, the best estimate for *excess* cancer deaths for Fukushima is not more than a thousand or so (as described in Berkeley physicist Richard Mueller's book "Energy for Future Presidents" for instance). Contrast this with the tens of thousands who died from the earthquake and tsunami. Also contrast this with the tens of thousands of *natural* cancer deaths (about 20% in a population). The excess deaths from a reactor breach are far fewer than those occurring due to any number of natural disasters.
Nuclear terrorism should not be ignored, but its risks should be put in perspective and seen in the right context.
1
There could in theory be a terrorist attack on anybody, at any place, at any time. That's why trying to figure out exactly where a terrorist will try and attack and defend that spot is a fool's errand. Defend 10 nuke plants, and they'll simply shift their attack to plant #11. Defend all nuke plants, and they'll go for the water treatment facility so they can poison people. Heck, in my local area a small group of would-be terrorists wanted to blow up a bridge that carried a moderately important state highway. It's a lot easier for terrorists to shift their target than it is for society to defend every potential target.
The good news is that there is a solution. We just need to concentrate our efforts on:
- Human intelligence: infiltrating and spying on terrorist groups using old-fashioned undercover kinds of techniques, to uncover plans and plots before they are carried out.
- Emergency response services: Police, EMS, and firefighters are the people that can limit the damage in the event that a terrorist attack succeeds. And they can help solve all sorts of other problems too, so investing our money in training and equipping more people to do that difficult work is money well spent.
That way, instead of spending billions fortifying every single nuke plant, we're instead figuring out exactly where and how the terrorists are going to try to attack and setting up a welcoming committee known as S.W.A.T. Do that, and the problem is solved.
The good news is that there is a solution. We just need to concentrate our efforts on:
- Human intelligence: infiltrating and spying on terrorist groups using old-fashioned undercover kinds of techniques, to uncover plans and plots before they are carried out.
- Emergency response services: Police, EMS, and firefighters are the people that can limit the damage in the event that a terrorist attack succeeds. And they can help solve all sorts of other problems too, so investing our money in training and equipping more people to do that difficult work is money well spent.
That way, instead of spending billions fortifying every single nuke plant, we're instead figuring out exactly where and how the terrorists are going to try to attack and setting up a welcoming committee known as S.W.A.T. Do that, and the problem is solved.
8
Is there anything that highlights our short-sightedness more than nuclear power? It is not cheap; it is not clean. And now it's a potential time bomb.
"Nuclear power is so safe that we only have to worry about poisoning future generations with the radioactive waste for 450,000 years. Hopefully, by then we will deserve the destruction any stray asteroid might cause us by making such a deal with the devil in the first place in order to have immediate power. Bottom line: you don't need ten million degrees to boil water. Nuclear energy is the most polluting source of energy imaginable because of the waste. It is also the most inefficient energy source imaginable. Ten million degrees to boil water! There must be a better way. Think!"
- James N. Reine, retired computer programmer (May 15, 2005; International Falls, MN)
"Nuclear power is so safe that we only have to worry about poisoning future generations with the radioactive waste for 450,000 years. Hopefully, by then we will deserve the destruction any stray asteroid might cause us by making such a deal with the devil in the first place in order to have immediate power. Bottom line: you don't need ten million degrees to boil water. Nuclear energy is the most polluting source of energy imaginable because of the waste. It is also the most inefficient energy source imaginable. Ten million degrees to boil water! There must be a better way. Think!"
- James N. Reine, retired computer programmer (May 15, 2005; International Falls, MN)
29
Before you can think properly you must understand, You show only one side of the issue the one you think about.
1
Nuclear power is extraordinarily clean. Your overall concerns are valid I would say, even though I think you overstate things- but it's just a fact that nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy production yet harnessed by mankind.
3
Certainly the fact that we are currently using hydrocarbons to ruin our planet and destroy large parts of it's biome and it's residents, while probably causing the downfall of our current combustion centered society make the use of nuclear power seem sane and safe.
Even the few fires, meltdowns and explosions at all of the 6 meltdown sites on the planet-most due to allowing totally ignorant and uneducated people to run the plants,, have not caused any of the destruction that continual burning of oil, gas and coal are doing this second . . .
Certainly solar power would be nicer, but almost nowhere do I see homeowners rushing to obtain the relatively cheap equipment to collect and use it.
Even my own brother, who owns a house with a usable roof, seems to be totally oblivious. Until the population sees it's benefits and decide to switch, nuclear power in large amounts may at least attract some of the more intelligent among societies investors and, hopefully, the military.
By the way: remember to wear your lead suit when you go outside: the sun is a giant thermonuclear generator, barely under gravitational control, and it is blasting away at all of us with all kinds of radiation! Ooooh-radiation!
Even the few fires, meltdowns and explosions at all of the 6 meltdown sites on the planet-most due to allowing totally ignorant and uneducated people to run the plants,, have not caused any of the destruction that continual burning of oil, gas and coal are doing this second . . .
Certainly solar power would be nicer, but almost nowhere do I see homeowners rushing to obtain the relatively cheap equipment to collect and use it.
Even my own brother, who owns a house with a usable roof, seems to be totally oblivious. Until the population sees it's benefits and decide to switch, nuclear power in large amounts may at least attract some of the more intelligent among societies investors and, hopefully, the military.
By the way: remember to wear your lead suit when you go outside: the sun is a giant thermonuclear generator, barely under gravitational control, and it is blasting away at all of us with all kinds of radiation! Ooooh-radiation!
2
In the US, where population is up 100 million since 1979 (the peak of US power before Iran went Islamic),and jobs are down the same proportion,( tarriffs and jobs, ). the Obama advocated 'bring in all immigrants" will doom us someway.
10
The only reliable method of eliminating the risk of terrorism at nuclear power plants is to shut them down.
20
Shut them down, and move all their nuclear material to a secured facility. That second part is much harder than the first part.
4
Nope. Shutting down nuclear power plants does not remove the spent fuel rods now stored there in pools of water. And this was the most serious issue at Fukushima. if people want to eliminate this risk, then they need to realize that it would be far better to encase the rods in concrete and ship them to Yucca mountain for permanent storage.
The only alternative worth considering is making a new long term commitment to nuclear power and recycling the fuel as the French do. But that is politically incorrect, despite the concern about climate change to which nuclear power does not contribute.
The only alternative worth considering is making a new long term commitment to nuclear power and recycling the fuel as the French do. But that is politically incorrect, despite the concern about climate change to which nuclear power does not contribute.
1
No, unless you find a way to ship the spent fuel away shutting down a plant does very little for you. Sabotaging an operating reactor in a way to create serious damage is a lot harder than attacking stored spent fuel.
This is a decent article but still suffers from some of the same typical misinformation commonly seen in these pieces. First, the writer moves between commercial reactors/spent fuel and weapons grade materials with very little effort to inform his audience of the differences... differences that are lost on the majority of readers. And second, spent reactor fuel is not stored in a cooling "pond". A pond is a natural or man made excavation in the ground filled with water, usually muddy. Spent fuel is stored in engineered "pools" constructed inside structures with water purification and cooling systems. Granted some of these pools may may be vulnerable to attack and benefit from increased security but the term "pond", implying an open outdoor body of water is highly misleading.
28
Nuclear power plants in the USA should be protected by elite US military units dedicated and trained by the US Rangers and or the Green Berets. Each facility should have the capability to shoot down any aircraft, small or large, that represents a threat to its operations. Power plant's Achillies' heel is off-site power and their emergency generators. If they are destroyed by an aircraft or some other means then a Fukushima melt down will result. Protecting nuclear units from the air is critical. I would never trust the protection of a nuclear power plant to a private entity that could be compromised by a walkout of guards because of low pay or whatever.
10
USA nuke protection is very good. But you have good points, and all that and Arab or Muslim personnel must be removed from any areas that can cause damage to the reactor or theft of material. Not to profile makes zero sense.
Well that won't cost much. A battery or two of Patriot missles on full alert for every nuke. And it's not like they are dangerous or anything. Slim Pickens riding the bomb down comes to mind.
And did you notice the story about the Navy guy caught taking bribes, big bribes, from foreign countries.
Then let's talk about guarding the waste that we know, not expect, but know, will have to be secured through two ice ages. The last of which had half of the US under a mile of ice.
And did you notice the story about the Navy guy caught taking bribes, big bribes, from foreign countries.
Then let's talk about guarding the waste that we know, not expect, but know, will have to be secured through two ice ages. The last of which had half of the US under a mile of ice.
The threat of a Terrorist Fukushima, that is a shutdown or ever last backup system in a reactor leading to a total meltdown can only be accomplished one way. And that is if terrorists take over a reactor and try to manually shut down every backup system. However there is a very simple solution to this threat, that is if it is not already there. And that is having the computers programmed to override any such commands, rendering this threat moot..
The most obvious threat that is addressed here is that of terrorists breaking into a nuclear plant and making off with radioactive material that they can use for a dirty bomb.
However in the radioactive material present in a reactor which are the fuel rods are extremely difficult to steal. This would require that terrorists get into the actual pool and manage to remove the rods. After this they would have to dismantle them into parts small enough to fit into a bomb. But the factor that makes this impossible is that anyone handling such powerful radioactive material in those quantities would be dead well before they can manage to make any use of them.
As for the supposed Quida plan to crash a plane into a reactor; 1. this requires flying skills that are allot more complex than flying a plane into a
huge tower, and cannot be mastered by simply taking flying classes. 2 when Israeli jets obliterated the Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981 not only was there no meltdown, there wasn't even any radioactive contamination as a result.
The most obvious threat that is addressed here is that of terrorists breaking into a nuclear plant and making off with radioactive material that they can use for a dirty bomb.
However in the radioactive material present in a reactor which are the fuel rods are extremely difficult to steal. This would require that terrorists get into the actual pool and manage to remove the rods. After this they would have to dismantle them into parts small enough to fit into a bomb. But the factor that makes this impossible is that anyone handling such powerful radioactive material in those quantities would be dead well before they can manage to make any use of them.
As for the supposed Quida plan to crash a plane into a reactor; 1. this requires flying skills that are allot more complex than flying a plane into a
huge tower, and cannot be mastered by simply taking flying classes. 2 when Israeli jets obliterated the Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981 not only was there no meltdown, there wasn't even any radioactive contamination as a result.
14
Your assertion that a terrorist attack could only be successful if they took over the facility and manually shut down all back up systems is wrong. In most plants, the back up electrical system and a major protion of the cooling system is outside of the reinforced concrete shell that houses the actual heating of water. Thus destroying those sub systems can be done from the outside and don't require any technical skills of shutting down computer controlled systems. In addition to the obvious method of airplane attack, there are two other scenarios that immediately seem likely to have a high probability of potential success: 1) get several tractor trailers loaded with explosives and just drive up and thru the gates, 2) have several teams of armed people storm the facility, kill everyone, and then set off explosives as needed. Your second assertion that is takes more skill to fly an airplane into the support infrastructure of a generating plant than it does to hit a building is not rational. Your third assertion regarding the Israelis 1981 destruction of the Iraqi powerplant ignores the fact that it was under construction, not operating. Not operating is the reason why there was no radioactive release.
1
This is the only comment that cuts through a lot of irrational fear. Nuclear power has a lot of problems and might not make any sense. But I agree that terrorists causing a meltdown of a power plant is extremely unlikely. If the computers are programmed to prevent back up systems being switched off simultaneously, than those systems would have to be destroyed with explosives. To do that, terrorists would have to have some serious expertise with explosives, access to those explosives, and high familiarity with the specific nuclear plant they were attacking to plant the explosives in the right places. They would have to lug those explosives with them while making their way through layer after layer of armed security, starting at the gate, and fending off law enforcement officers who subsequently appeared. And even if they did all that, how in the world would a terrorist get the expertise needed to turn off nuclear power plant systems? Where would they get so much as a password needed to access computers? This is not how terrorists operate. They create havoc by exploiting narrow vulnerabilities like crowded places with low security. They don't learn to operate power plants and develop elaborate plants to take them over. Even the 9/11 terrorists had very little flight skills and took over airplanes with razor blades.
Wow, the tides of change are moving. I don't know how many millions of people in the audience believe in prophecies but let me give you some insights you need to consider. Prophecies are from dreams or visions and their primary function is to support life via the analogies, symbols and plays on words within them. A minuscule number of them are found in scriptures as if they hold all the answers we ever need. The reality is that everyone dreams and our dreams show us concerns (to life) in advance. They also show us how to prosper, create, discover and be healthy and safe.
Now put that information into context with the number of people who have had dreams about nuclear bombs, nukes, mushroom clouds etc, written them and posted them on various websites and do a search in google for the word 'dream' and those terms (for bombs) and you'll see just how many places are at risk of attacks by terrorists with nukes. Many of them name the city that's at risk. If you aren't already aware of the threat and means to combat it and acting on the concerns then you are living in a fool's paradise. (I could give you a list, it includes many cities in the USA, plus Amsterdam, London, Paris and Jerusalem).
Oh, one other point, scores of nukes went missing in the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, only 1 has been found. Sorry to ruin your day but no one appears serious about what they claim to believe in by going to a place of worship, certainly not the gatekeepers (clergy) to your belief.
Now put that information into context with the number of people who have had dreams about nuclear bombs, nukes, mushroom clouds etc, written them and posted them on various websites and do a search in google for the word 'dream' and those terms (for bombs) and you'll see just how many places are at risk of attacks by terrorists with nukes. Many of them name the city that's at risk. If you aren't already aware of the threat and means to combat it and acting on the concerns then you are living in a fool's paradise. (I could give you a list, it includes many cities in the USA, plus Amsterdam, London, Paris and Jerusalem).
Oh, one other point, scores of nukes went missing in the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, only 1 has been found. Sorry to ruin your day but no one appears serious about what they claim to believe in by going to a place of worship, certainly not the gatekeepers (clergy) to your belief.
1
By all means beef up security around nuclear plants all round the world. It is truly frighting to realize, in light of Fukushima, what a purposeful attack might do to us.
Better still let's start mothballing all the dangerous Fission plants everywhere. Not only do we still not have a clue as to how to dispose of all the waste but still cannot guarantee their basic safety of operation. Add in the security aspect and you truly have the stuff of nightmares.
Another large scale point for conversion to clean renewable energy planet wide.
Better still let's start mothballing all the dangerous Fission plants everywhere. Not only do we still not have a clue as to how to dispose of all the waste but still cannot guarantee their basic safety of operation. Add in the security aspect and you truly have the stuff of nightmares.
Another large scale point for conversion to clean renewable energy planet wide.
7
Who pays for all this? Are you going to do without electricity? Your assumptions about many things are flawed. We know how to store the wastes, but refuse to do so.
The greatest revelation from the Belgium terrorist attacks is the knowledge of Belgian incompetence in intelligence, policing, and guarding nuclear power plants.
Belgium's disorganized government is well known to Europeans but not to the rest of the world. ISIS terrorists were moving around and planning their attacks with impunity in Brussels neighborhoods. Belgium's terrorist power base could include stealing nuclear material for a dirty bomb from poorly guarded power plants.
This entire terrorist incident has left me with no confidence in the ability of European national security agencies in protecting Europeans!
Belgium's disorganized government is well known to Europeans but not to the rest of the world. ISIS terrorists were moving around and planning their attacks with impunity in Brussels neighborhoods. Belgium's terrorist power base could include stealing nuclear material for a dirty bomb from poorly guarded power plants.
This entire terrorist incident has left me with no confidence in the ability of European national security agencies in protecting Europeans!
7
Nuclear plants should not be built near densely populated areas.
Coal remains the great killer, with according to the American Lung Association 40,000 Americans dying from it every year. But a nuclear accident or a successful terrorist attack, however improbable, can cost vast damage when the plant is located near significant populations.
The uncomfortable truth is that we need more nuclear plants rather than fewer. In the absence of economical storage for intermittent power sources, it is the only practical way to address warming with current technology. Large-scale accidents leave people confused about the relative safety of nuclear power and if a plant is located near a city, could cause unacceptable damage.
Coal remains the great killer, with according to the American Lung Association 40,000 Americans dying from it every year. But a nuclear accident or a successful terrorist attack, however improbable, can cost vast damage when the plant is located near significant populations.
The uncomfortable truth is that we need more nuclear plants rather than fewer. In the absence of economical storage for intermittent power sources, it is the only practical way to address warming with current technology. Large-scale accidents leave people confused about the relative safety of nuclear power and if a plant is located near a city, could cause unacceptable damage.
1
I agree though there is a very compelling reason atomic plants are historically built near natural bodies of water -- The require cooling which is essential to their operation. Which is why all of these plants are located on coastlines. And course cities are also likely to be near coastlines too. Hence the reason these plants are often near cities.
I dont know of any atomic plant that has been built away from substantial flowing water resources.
I dont know of any atomic plant that has been built away from substantial flowing water resources.
1
And of course people should not be allowed to move close to nuclear power plants. What is "near"?
The Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant is located in the Arizona desert, and is the only large nuclear power plant in the world that is not located near a large body of water. The power plant evaporates the water from the treated sewage from several nearby cities and towns to provide the cooling of the steam that it produces.
1
Protection against radiological attack is the sole aspect of American life where the U.S. Government in recent years took affirmative steps to decrease, not increase, public protection against terrorism. In 2009, the drug potassium iodide (KI) was removed from the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) of antidotes, antitoxins, etc., maintained by CDC.
Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton has described in the Times how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “fought relentlessly” against the stockpiling of KI for nuclear emergencies. After 9/11, Congress voted to provide KI within a zone of 20 miles around nuclear plants. (The NRC offered it to 10 miles.) But the NRC waged a campaign of obstruction and delay against the new law, frustrating HHS, which was responsible for administering it. When a fed up HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt declared his intent to proceed regardless of NRC, Bush intervened, stripping Leavitt of authority and transferring responsibility to his own Science Advisor and the NRC. The predictable result was a refusal to implement the law, on grounds more KI was unnecessary. The group overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile then felt obliged to drop KI from the SNS and get rid of its stocks of KI.
Finally, in 2014, HHS’s Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) decided to acquire KI tablets in fiscal year 2016. As far as I know, that is where the matter stands today.
– Peter Crane, NRC Counsel for Special Projects (ret.)
Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton has described in the Times how the Nuclear Regulatory Commission “fought relentlessly” against the stockpiling of KI for nuclear emergencies. After 9/11, Congress voted to provide KI within a zone of 20 miles around nuclear plants. (The NRC offered it to 10 miles.) But the NRC waged a campaign of obstruction and delay against the new law, frustrating HHS, which was responsible for administering it. When a fed up HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt declared his intent to proceed regardless of NRC, Bush intervened, stripping Leavitt of authority and transferring responsibility to his own Science Advisor and the NRC. The predictable result was a refusal to implement the law, on grounds more KI was unnecessary. The group overseeing the Strategic National Stockpile then felt obliged to drop KI from the SNS and get rid of its stocks of KI.
Finally, in 2014, HHS’s Public Health Emergency Medical Countermeasures Enterprise (PHEMCE) decided to acquire KI tablets in fiscal year 2016. As far as I know, that is where the matter stands today.
– Peter Crane, NRC Counsel for Special Projects (ret.)
16
Yes, anything nuclear must be guarded. The list of vulnerable and well, "valuable" targets is immense!
The willingness of suicidal terrorist is very Real!!
To avoid a rant on this subject, I'll say simply this, an old axiom, "the best medicine, is prevention". ...........................
The willingness of suicidal terrorist is very Real!!
To avoid a rant on this subject, I'll say simply this, an old axiom, "the best medicine, is prevention". ...........................
1
When you consider the questionable security practices at Fukushima, such as storing spent fuel rods on the roof of the containment center, physical security--namely preventing terrorists access--would be an assumed risk.
And how many other nuclear power plants are located on geologically risky sites? So, threats of terrorism couldn't have been further from anyone's mind!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
And how many other nuclear power plants are located on geologically risky sites? So, threats of terrorism couldn't have been further from anyone's mind!
http://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The idea that countries do not routinely secure their nuclear materials against terrorists suggests that sooner or later we will wake up to a mushroom cloud or radioactive plume over a major city, probably in Europe. The Keystone Kops level of EU intelligence agencies almost guarantees an attack will happen. Reading about the Brussels attacks, I was struck by the insane organizational structure of the city; 19 different municipalities, police forces, and 3 languages in which to have to share information. Added to that is a sense of torpor about the urgency of the situation. How else to explain the terrorists that are captured, and then released because no one bothers to follow up? The Europeans are incapable of containing the threat, because they are structurally and culturally unprepared to take the steps needed to manage the threat environment with the rigor it requires.
7
Really? What do you know about creating nuclear weapons? The size of one that they could actually make? What would be required to make a small one? Now a dirty bomb is much more possible.
There's nuclear terrorism and there's the terrorism of nuclear itself.
Whether weapons or electricity, nuclear defines overkill. Controlled fission to boil a tea kettle that turns an electric generator. It's solar perversity: a mini sun of 1,000 degrees restrained to just a candle sufficient to make steam. Like harnessing an elephant to pull a tiny cart in a flea circus.
Such staggering differential between cataclysmic potential and practical function demands complex mechanisms and elaborate systems that are fail-safe. Add humans for an oxymoron.
The dilemma of nuclear energy is captured with equal irony and poetry with "half-life." At once a total abrogation of the Native American wisdom of Seven Generations, but also the human price of social stability and political control needed to minimize risk and maximize efficiency. What kind of mutant morality is sized in half-lives? What human prospect thrives in a forever nuclear shadow?
Nuclear is incompatible with society organized around an open marketplace of goods, services, ideas and ideals. Not even fascism is equal to the absolute control essential to nuclear energy. No democracy predicated on accountable governance and informed decisions is immune to nuclear corruption. Japan is the latest poster child for official malfeasance and duplicity in service to the nuclear godhead.
Pakistan, North Korea, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Belarus, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, already or soon.
Think Syria, Libya and what if.
Whether weapons or electricity, nuclear defines overkill. Controlled fission to boil a tea kettle that turns an electric generator. It's solar perversity: a mini sun of 1,000 degrees restrained to just a candle sufficient to make steam. Like harnessing an elephant to pull a tiny cart in a flea circus.
Such staggering differential between cataclysmic potential and practical function demands complex mechanisms and elaborate systems that are fail-safe. Add humans for an oxymoron.
The dilemma of nuclear energy is captured with equal irony and poetry with "half-life." At once a total abrogation of the Native American wisdom of Seven Generations, but also the human price of social stability and political control needed to minimize risk and maximize efficiency. What kind of mutant morality is sized in half-lives? What human prospect thrives in a forever nuclear shadow?
Nuclear is incompatible with society organized around an open marketplace of goods, services, ideas and ideals. Not even fascism is equal to the absolute control essential to nuclear energy. No democracy predicated on accountable governance and informed decisions is immune to nuclear corruption. Japan is the latest poster child for official malfeasance and duplicity in service to the nuclear godhead.
Pakistan, North Korea, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Belarus, Iran, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, already or soon.
Think Syria, Libya and what if.
23
Funny you should use the "fleas and elephant" example. Years ago I was part of a student group that hosted Edward Teller as part of a panel on nuclear power. Dr. Teller asked the audience if they would rather have a "nuclear elephant" to provide power or "solar fleas". Some wag in the audience raised his hand to ask Dr. Teller if he had ever seen an elephant turd...
5
Probably worth mentioning: the solar fleas are hosted by 1,000 fossil fuel elephants. Ever see 1,000 elephant turds?
1
65,000 liters of lubricant is about 70 cubic meters. Why would a turbine have so much? It only takes a thin film to lubricate a bearing. Could it have been 65 liters?
5
65,000 liters does sound like a lot. However, I have heard the same number from other news sources. These turbines are huge and ride on fluid bearings unlike bearings that we are familiar with such as ball or roller bearings. Add in extra capacity for cooling and reserve and 65,000 liters doesn't sound like so much. Your car may have 6-8 liters of oil in just the engine. A turbine can power tens of thousands of homes and spins non-stop.
The lubricant is also a coolant.
Big turbines, lots of heat to dissipate. This is industrial scale stuff. That's not a lot on an industrial scale.
As venomous as ISIS is, it shouldn't surprise that the Islamists "have their eyes on nuclear plants" in the West to take revenge on us. Intensive US-led airstrikes on their oil facilities in Syria and cash depots in Iraq, with millions of dollars going up in smoke, have taken a toll on the group’s ability to pay the fighters and provide for amenities, that attracted them to join ISIS in the first place.
Counterterrorism experts say there is little evidence of financial support from ISIS for the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels. The group relies on the blind allegiance of their operatives in Europe to plot their attacks. If these terrorists see a chance in targeting a nuclear plant and triggering a "nuclear Fukushima" effect, they wouldn't hesitate to do so.
Counterterrorism experts say there is little evidence of financial support from ISIS for the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels. The group relies on the blind allegiance of their operatives in Europe to plot their attacks. If these terrorists see a chance in targeting a nuclear plant and triggering a "nuclear Fukushima" effect, they wouldn't hesitate to do so.
6
As aging and decrepit nuclear power plants are being slowly closed down, (Yankee in VT and Pilgrim near Cape Cod are examples), the spent fuel rods are still being stored on site. The owner, Entergy, then pulls back on expenses such as long term, on site security and other potentially hazardous, lethal issues persist.
The truth is that a small aircraft, (including drones), could easily crash right into these vulnerable facilities, at anytime. Currently there is NO protection from an aerial attack. Neither by water in certain areas. Sitting ducks.
The truth is that a small aircraft, (including drones), could easily crash right into these vulnerable facilities, at anytime. Currently there is NO protection from an aerial attack. Neither by water in certain areas. Sitting ducks.
23
First there is no protection from aerial attack, because the facilities are able to withstand planes crashing into them. Second the spent fuel is only being left on the reactor site because the US government has not delivered on it's promise to provide for it's removal and disposal (in exchange for a $.001 tax on every kWh of nuclear generated electricity). As I said in my reply to Bruce Higgins: the problems with nuclear waste are almost entirely political.
I find it terrifying that unarmed guards were protecting nuclear power plants in Belgium until a few months ago.
I've posted this before, but US nuclear power plants are not soft targets, in fact they're practically fortresses. They are protected by barbed wire fences, reinforced walls, and guard towers which are manned by dozens of security guards per shift (mostly former police or military personal). The guards have military grade assault rifles and kevlar vests. There are about 9,000 nuclear security guards in the US, dividing that by 62 power plants gives each plant about 148 guards, divided by 3 shifts, each plant would have between 40-50 guards per shift if they were divided equally (they wouldn't be divided equally, it would depend on the size of the plant and how many reactors they have).
My point is what was Belgium thinking? You don't skip on nuclear security.
I've posted this before, but US nuclear power plants are not soft targets, in fact they're practically fortresses. They are protected by barbed wire fences, reinforced walls, and guard towers which are manned by dozens of security guards per shift (mostly former police or military personal). The guards have military grade assault rifles and kevlar vests. There are about 9,000 nuclear security guards in the US, dividing that by 62 power plants gives each plant about 148 guards, divided by 3 shifts, each plant would have between 40-50 guards per shift if they were divided equally (they wouldn't be divided equally, it would depend on the size of the plant and how many reactors they have).
My point is what was Belgium thinking? You don't skip on nuclear security.
43
They will always find a way. Fly an A380 into one of those plants and your Rambo wanna be guards won't even be speed bumps.
1
A valid concern, Garrett Clay, but after 9/11 airline staff, the air force, and even passengers are more prepared for hijacking than ever before. I don't think passengers will allow a plane to be taken over by terrorists again.
The New York Times wrote and article on that subject of crashing a small jet into a nuclear plant back in 2002, emphasis on SMALL: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/national/20NUKE.html
So yes, I don't know if they can withstand the giant A380, but even if they can't, nuclear plants are such large facilities that I think it's unlikely that terrorists manage to hit the most vulnerable parts like the cooling rods or the core. Hitting a plant isn't enough, they actually need to hit something vital.
The New York Times wrote and article on that subject of crashing a small jet into a nuclear plant back in 2002, emphasis on SMALL: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/20/national/20NUKE.html
So yes, I don't know if they can withstand the giant A380, but even if they can't, nuclear plants are such large facilities that I think it's unlikely that terrorists manage to hit the most vulnerable parts like the cooling rods or the core. Hitting a plant isn't enough, they actually need to hit something vital.
It's a dangerous game! The only real solution is to go back to a pre-nuclear age.
13
The nuclear genie left the bottle in 1945!
9
margo - "The only real solution is to go back to a pre-nuclear age."
Then we either burn fossil fuels until we kill the possibility of any life on this planet or the billions of us die in cold, dark caves.
Then we either burn fossil fuels until we kill the possibility of any life on this planet or the billions of us die in cold, dark caves.
6
The scary fact is that the only thing stopping suicidal Islamist zealots from using nuclear weapons is access to its technology. If they ever did obtain nuclear weapons, is there any doubt whatsoever as to whether they would hesitate to use them?
At least during the Cold War it’s assumed that both sides wanted to avoid mutually assured destruction. This is not the case with the suicidal zealots that the civilized world is now confronting. Nuclear technology (whether weapons or facilities) and a sincere belief in martyrdom, jihad and eternal Paradise do not mix.
At least during the Cold War it’s assumed that both sides wanted to avoid mutually assured destruction. This is not the case with the suicidal zealots that the civilized world is now confronting. Nuclear technology (whether weapons or facilities) and a sincere belief in martyrdom, jihad and eternal Paradise do not mix.
42
Mark B -- Your idea isnt at all the point of this editorial. This isnt about people making bombs -- this is about terrorists compromising the integrity of USA atomic plants such that the radiation the plants use is released into the public surrounding area. apples and oranges.
1
Right. MAD only works if the other side that is being "assured of destruction" is bothered by destruction.
1
That's why I wrote "Nuclear technology (whether weapons or facilities)..."
3
Here's a thought experiment: what if terrorists targeted someone's rooftop solar panels? Now, say after me: Nuclear power is just too risky. Oh, and too expensive.
4
I am amazed that nuclear terrorism hasn't already occurred.
If terrorists were able to pull off something as well-coordinated and devastating as 9/11 with so few actors, surely obtaining nuclear material is within their abilities.
That'll be a dark day for our civil liberties when it happens.
If terrorists were able to pull off something as well-coordinated and devastating as 9/11 with so few actors, surely obtaining nuclear material is within their abilities.
That'll be a dark day for our civil liberties when it happens.
9
Yes and no. They can't disrup an entire country unless we let them. Will they get a nuke or dirty bomb in a city. Yes, it will happen, but it's not the end of the world.
And until the US has the courage to get rid of our nukes it's delusional to think anyone else will. And we won't ever use ours, they are by definition genocide.
And until the US has the courage to get rid of our nukes it's delusional to think anyone else will. And we won't ever use ours, they are by definition genocide.
I know a little something about the subject, having spent some time studying a Triga -III nuclear reactor at U.C. Berkeley back-in-the-day.
"Nuclear terrorists" (assuming such a species exist) have about as much chance of hijacking a thermal power-generating reactor and turning it into a weapon of mass destruction as they do hijacking a cargo ship.
Think about what that means.
They can invade the facility, storm the control center and take the crew hostage. But beyond that, what? If precautions are taken their problem isn't very different from a gang of bank robbers trying to penetrate a time-locked vault. Should the industrial facility's design include the high-tech equivalent of a dead man's throttle, its appearance unknown to them, the public and most of the control room crew and its location at the facility a secret, the invaders would possess nothing beyond a dead control room.
As for the wild and crazy idea of stealing spent nuclear fuel pellets from storage pools at the site, anyone who dared would quickly succumb to ARS ("acute radiation syndrome") unless equipped with very heavy, ponderous protective gear and extraction equipment. Not exactly stuff you can buy online or at a Home Depot, or can fabricate out of readily avaliable parts and materials in a slum apartment. But even if they had such gear, a week to work undisturbed and could drive their loot from the site unmolested, their lead-lined vehicle would weigh as much as a WW-2 German King Tiger tank.
"Nuclear terrorists" (assuming such a species exist) have about as much chance of hijacking a thermal power-generating reactor and turning it into a weapon of mass destruction as they do hijacking a cargo ship.
Think about what that means.
They can invade the facility, storm the control center and take the crew hostage. But beyond that, what? If precautions are taken their problem isn't very different from a gang of bank robbers trying to penetrate a time-locked vault. Should the industrial facility's design include the high-tech equivalent of a dead man's throttle, its appearance unknown to them, the public and most of the control room crew and its location at the facility a secret, the invaders would possess nothing beyond a dead control room.
As for the wild and crazy idea of stealing spent nuclear fuel pellets from storage pools at the site, anyone who dared would quickly succumb to ARS ("acute radiation syndrome") unless equipped with very heavy, ponderous protective gear and extraction equipment. Not exactly stuff you can buy online or at a Home Depot, or can fabricate out of readily avaliable parts and materials in a slum apartment. But even if they had such gear, a week to work undisturbed and could drive their loot from the site unmolested, their lead-lined vehicle would weigh as much as a WW-2 German King Tiger tank.
13
40 lbs of acetone peroxide would breach any containment. suicide attackers won't care.
irradiating the countryside will sow panic
talk about a drop in property values
irradiating the countryside will sow panic
talk about a drop in property values
They wouldn't try to steal it. They'd try to blow it up in place, releasing the nuclear material into the environment. Read the article.
Steve Singer - "...and turning it into a weapon of mass destruction as they do hijacking a cargo ship."
Probably used a wrong example there. Modern day cargo ships and oil tankers have been hijacked by "pirates" off the coast of Africa and near the Malacca Strait for at least the past ten years. These "pirates" are no where as sophisticated as today's terrorists and the only thing they haven't done yet with "their new ships", yet, is use them as a weapon.
Probably used a wrong example there. Modern day cargo ships and oil tankers have been hijacked by "pirates" off the coast of Africa and near the Malacca Strait for at least the past ten years. These "pirates" are no where as sophisticated as today's terrorists and the only thing they haven't done yet with "their new ships", yet, is use them as a weapon.
Does anyone really think that it is impossible that an attack like this can happen during our lifetime? Surely only a fool would dismiss the possibility.
As long as you are someone who agrees with me, I urge you to do anything in your power to prevent this type of attack.
Speak out against the deniers and Sophists who deflect criticism of Islam today.
Denounce all viewpoints that fuel the idea that the West "deserves" "retaliatory" terrorist attacks.
Pressure politicians to pause Muslim immigration into the USA (no I do not support Donald Trump, but on this issue he is correct). The Muslim population is now only about 1%, but once it becomes 5% or 10% we will have similar problems to those in Europe.
The quickest way to reform Islam is to put a bit of pressure on moderate Muslims. Because now, they have no incentive to do anything about it. By naming Islam as the problem, and by pausing Muslim immigration, moderates will finally wake up and re-take control of their faith.
Sometimes one has to play harsh. For it is the future of Western civilization that we are fighting for and nothing less.
As long as you are someone who agrees with me, I urge you to do anything in your power to prevent this type of attack.
Speak out against the deniers and Sophists who deflect criticism of Islam today.
Denounce all viewpoints that fuel the idea that the West "deserves" "retaliatory" terrorist attacks.
Pressure politicians to pause Muslim immigration into the USA (no I do not support Donald Trump, but on this issue he is correct). The Muslim population is now only about 1%, but once it becomes 5% or 10% we will have similar problems to those in Europe.
The quickest way to reform Islam is to put a bit of pressure on moderate Muslims. Because now, they have no incentive to do anything about it. By naming Islam as the problem, and by pausing Muslim immigration, moderates will finally wake up and re-take control of their faith.
Sometimes one has to play harsh. For it is the future of Western civilization that we are fighting for and nothing less.
19
In France it's 8%, and having powerful effect - not in a positive way. Wait until it becomes 20% !
7
There has been little discussion of the Muslims working in nuke plant issues nor has there been of Muslims working as check-in and airport passenger and luggagre security screeners. Many of these low wage low skill jobs are filled by these alienated European Muslim types and it would be all too easy for some of them to be or become radicalized and conveniently not "see" the gun or explosives hidden on or carried by some of their fellow co-religionists.
16
Like the Muslims who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City? Oh wait, those were white Christians, my bad.
1
Due to extreme short shortsightedness, the entire nuclear industry is a problem. We do not have a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel. This means that spent fuel is stored on site, and will be there for thousands of years. The so called 'dry cask storage' is based on computer projections. No one knows how the material will react in a high radiation environment over the long term. We do know that the three long term storage facilities we now have, Savannah River, Hanford, and Idaho, all leak.
In addition to the operating nuclear power plants we have a growing list of shutdown power plants who are also storing their spent fuel on site, some of them in metropolitan areas. Here in San Diego we have the former SONGS site which is next to the ocean, a major interstate highway, a railroad runs through the site and several faults are nearby. They have also elected to store spent fuel on site, not to worry though, the BEST engineers are developing the storage system.
We chose to proceed with a nuclear program before we had the fuel storage problem worked out and it is going to bite us hard. I'm sure the security personnel at the various sites are dedicated, but they have to be perfect for thousands of years. A suicide terrorist squad only has to get lucky once.
We need a national, geologic, high level waste storage facility, we are setting ourselves up for a real problem if we don't. No one wants to talk about this but the terrorist know.
In addition to the operating nuclear power plants we have a growing list of shutdown power plants who are also storing their spent fuel on site, some of them in metropolitan areas. Here in San Diego we have the former SONGS site which is next to the ocean, a major interstate highway, a railroad runs through the site and several faults are nearby. They have also elected to store spent fuel on site, not to worry though, the BEST engineers are developing the storage system.
We chose to proceed with a nuclear program before we had the fuel storage problem worked out and it is going to bite us hard. I'm sure the security personnel at the various sites are dedicated, but they have to be perfect for thousands of years. A suicide terrorist squad only has to get lucky once.
We need a national, geologic, high level waste storage facility, we are setting ourselves up for a real problem if we don't. No one wants to talk about this but the terrorist know.
50
Bruce Higgins - "Due to extreme short shortsightedness, the entire nuclear industry is a problem. We do not have a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel."
Yes we do it's called Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, but due to the extreme shortsightedness, meanness, selfishness and stupidity of a local politician it can't be used even after billions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent in its building.
Yes we do it's called Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository, but due to the extreme shortsightedness, meanness, selfishness and stupidity of a local politician it can't be used even after billions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent in its building.
34
Well said Bruce BUT not the whole story/ The huge problem is one cannot safely move that atomic waste without also causing real danger to Americans as it is transported. Put it on a train and send it thru cities and residential areas? That isnt happening because of the risks to the population. One train mistake and that's it.
This is why the radioactive waste sits (also dangerously) on site of USA reactors.
I agree with you on many of your points, but there is no simple solution to the alarming and growing amounts of radioactive waste
This is why the radioactive waste sits (also dangerously) on site of USA reactors.
I agree with you on many of your points, but there is no simple solution to the alarming and growing amounts of radioactive waste
"Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository"
If you do some extra reading, you will discover that it was deemed too dangerous to move the waste to the repository. Nobody wanted the radioactive trains running thru their neighborhoods.
If you do some extra reading, you will discover that it was deemed too dangerous to move the waste to the repository. Nobody wanted the radioactive trains running thru their neighborhoods.
1
An important issue that deserves our attention - thank you.
18
In addition to my earlier post about nuclear power plants, there are other 'soft target' for terrorists to wreck havoc with nuclear materials. Many universities and hospitals have nuclear materials they use as part of research and imaging programs. These materials are under light security. While they may not have the city destroying capability of a power plant, they are much easier to access and could cause real damage. Imagine you favorite university or critical hospital rendered uninhabitable for 20 - 30 years as the result of an attack.
In the age of suicide bombers we need to rethink how and why we use such hazardous materials.
In the age of suicide bombers we need to rethink how and why we use such hazardous materials.
15
The amount of radioactive materials at a typical research lab are tiny compared to what sits on a typical USA atomic power plant. Fukushima is a perfect example of this.
1
"Many universities and hospitals have nuclear materials they use as part of research and imaging programs."
And there are thousands of Muslim doctors and other health care workers working in those hospitals, some in radiology departments who would have even easier access to nuclear materials. Whose bright idea was it to let them in?
And there are thousands of Muslim doctors and other health care workers working in those hospitals, some in radiology departments who would have even easier access to nuclear materials. Whose bright idea was it to let them in?
1
the greatest terrorism on earth is the threat to all life on earth by the military-industrial-complex of the nuclear industry..........the light and wind energy of the sun on earth for ONE HOUR can supply the earths needs for a year,this is not including,tidal,geothermal or hydrogen fuel cell energy.........lets get off the suicidal greed trip of protecting the toxic nuclear investments...and protect life and the earth instead...............wake up!