Re: May America lose the Iraq war

From: Bill Todd (billtodd@metrocast.net)
Date: 03/19/03 

From: "Bill Todd" <billtodd@metrocast.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:32:44 -0500

"Rob Young" <young_r@encompasserve.org> wrote in message
news:fh6oB7xaNnaD@eisner.encompasserve.org...

...

> Here is more:
>
> Terrorists would probably not be able to penetrate or release radiation
from a
> nuclear power reactor by crashing into it with a commercial airliner
loaded
> with fuel, according to a study released yesterday [June 17, 2002] by the
> Nuclear Energy Institute, the main lobbying group for the nuclear power
> industry (see GSN, March 29)

Let's see, now: is it barely possible that the main power industry lobbying
group would have just a bit of bias toward suggesting that reactors were
safe from such an attack?

>
> "We think it's extremely unlikely that the aircraft would be able to
penetrate
> the reactor," said Stephen Floyd, NEI senior director of regulatory
reform.

They 'think' it is 'extremely unlikely' - boy, that inspires confidence.

> "We feel very, very confident about the containment structure."

And I can remember when they were confident that nuclear power would be 'too
cheap to meter'.

>
> The study examined the effects of a Boeing 767 crashing into a nuclear
reactor
> at 300 miles per hour at various angles, according to Reuters. Analysts
also
> looked at several scenarios, such as the reactor being directly hit by the
> aircraft or by an engine located under the aircraft's wing. Neither the
plane
> nor its engines would be able to break through the concrete shell of a
nuclear
> plant reactor, the study says.

Now, which is it? It *would not* be able to, or they 'think' that it is
'extremely unlikely'? Seems to be a bit of confusion here - not good for
something so potentially significant.

>
> The institute did find that the resulting fire from the aircraft's fuel
could
> engulf the nuclear reactor, Reuters reported. The fire, however, probably
> would not cause the reactor to collapse, according to the study.

'Probably'.

>
> It would be almost impossible

'almost impossible'

 for a pilot to control an aircraft flying low to
> the ground at 500 miles per hour - the speed of the aircraft that hit the
World
> Trade Center in New York during the Sept. 11 attacks - because of the
pressure
> waves that would be created, the study says. Terrorists also would not be
able
> to crash an airliner into the top of a reactor, where the protective shell
is
> thinnest, because the airplane would probably

'probably', again

 break apart at such a steep angle
> and high speed, according to the study.

And exactly why would that be true? I can understand that *aiming* the
aircraft precisely in a dive - since no constant visual reference to ground
level would be present - might be more difficult, but it's not clear why
*flying* it in such a dive should be impossible, or even 'almost
impossible'.

>
> "The plane in all likelihood would destroy itself before it could hit the
> target," Floyd said.

Yeah, right. Any pilots out there care to comment on why an aircraft
couldn't sustain the same speed in a dive without breaking up that it could
on the level?

- bill

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gun Pods on Navy F-4s: Why not?
    ... A reactor in a conventionally powered aircraft to explore aircrew shielding ... Hardly a nuclear powered machine.> ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: Global warming: caveats and musings?
    ... Although not new, the whole book contains a list of failure modes, summaries of deliberate tests on small models to let them blow up (including one photograph of a reactor blowing up), and two appendices. ... B-52 SAC bomber crash close to a BWR ... The author is not a left-wing-commie-pinko-luddite but a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, was employed by the Atomic Energy Commission for six years and by industry for research and development of nuclear power. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Frances nuke power poster child has a money melt-down
    ... The myth of a successful nuclear power industry in France has melted ... Electricite de France, the French national utility, has been raided by ... Olkiluoto reactor construction project in Finland. ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts
    ... Nuclear reactors cannot explode. ... This is true given proper operation of the reactor. ... I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are ... nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: 10 Best Never-Used Weapon Systems
    ... Marine Corps Space Plane--Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion ... The reactor provided no power to the ... aircraft. ... Although no airplane ever flew under nuclear power, ...
    (sci.military.naval)