4 ms·
I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
by Typhon 15y ago
I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.
- lispm 15y agoThe recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-akw-sicher-vor-jet-absturz-article1184819.html http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...
- Typhon 15y agoI don't read German. >« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. » Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not. If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.
- moe 15y agojust because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away. How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?
- Typhon 15y agoThat's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.
- moe 15y agoSo, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it. And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?
- Typhon 15y agoNot on a comparable scale. Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage. In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?
- eliasmacpherson 15y agoWeeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.
- Typhon 15y agoYes, and ? Nothing happened. The fact is that terrorists want to target nuclear plants. What's unlikely is that any of them should succeed. Terrorism isn't that easy.
- eliasmacpherson 15y agoOver a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero - and nuclear has a pretty long timeline.
- moe 15y agoIt seems about as unlikely as someone flying planes into the world trade center... But gladly terrorism isn't that easy, right?
- Typhon 15y agoYes, it is probably more unlikely than a big earthquake followed by a tsunami. How many terrorist attacks of that scale have been successfully conducted ? Over the last twenty years, only one. During the same period, there has been a dozen of large-scale earthquakes. And as I said, you're fare more likely to die from a car accident than from any big disaster you see on television.