3 ms·

That'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 dissemina

by Typhon 15y ago

That'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 ago
So, 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 ago
  Not 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 ago
    Weeks 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 ago
      Yes, 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 ago
        Over a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero - and nuclear has a pretty long timeline.
      - moe 15y ago
        It seems about as unlikely as someone flying planes into the world trade center... But gladly terrorism isn't that easy, right?
        Typhon 15y ago
        Yes, 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.
  - moe 15y ago
    Not on a comparable scale. Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings. In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire. After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable... In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario? Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?
    - Typhon 15y ago
      As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl. « 9/11 did happen » A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically less likely than an earthquake in Japan.
      - moe 15y ago
        Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest. statistically less likely than an earthquake That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?
        Typhon 15y ago
        Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent. If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ? Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils. « That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? » No. It may happen.
  - nl 15y ago
    reactors are a small target that's mostly underground Not sure where you are getting this idea, but it's not true. The reactors are usually above ground, and they aren't small at all.
    - Typhon 15y ago
      Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above. It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.

by Typhon 15y ago

That'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 ago

So, 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 ago
Not 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 ago
  Weeks 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 ago
    Yes, 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 ago
      Over a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero - and nuclear has a pretty long timeline.
    - moe 15y ago
      It seems about as unlikely as someone flying planes into the world trade center... But gladly terrorism isn't that easy, right?
      - Typhon 15y ago
        Yes, 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.
- moe 15y ago
  Not on a comparable scale. Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings. In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire. After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable... In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario? Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?
  - Typhon 15y ago
    As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl. « 9/11 did happen » A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically less likely than an earthquake in Japan.
    - moe 15y ago
      Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem. Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils. See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest. statistically less likely than an earthquake That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?
      - Typhon 15y ago
        Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent. If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ? Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils. « That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? » No. It may happen.
- nl 15y ago
  reactors are a small target that's mostly underground Not sure where you are getting this idea, but it's not true. The reactors are usually above ground, and they aren't small at all.
  - Typhon 15y ago
    Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above. It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.