Some how i think greenpeace are wrong

[SilverFox441]

Funny, they don't show the wreckage of the plane falling into the water offshore as the interceptor roars overhead.  ::)

[bbstackerf]

Greenpeace. :-/

1% radical, violent, evil people. You could take an al quaida (sp) leader and a greenpeace leader and switch them. no one would notice.

99% well meaning but misguided. Most of whose pot smoking members are members because there's no original thought necessary. "Here, just stand over there and hold this sign. Oh, and dude, you know a tree had to die for that rolling paper?"


keni

[H]

Oh, and dude, you know a tree had to die for that rolling paper?"

Is that another way of saying they're barking up the wrong tree?

[Staiduk]

Funny - speaking as someone who has a certain amount of experience in the way terrorists think; (On one side, intensive if long outdated anti-terrorist training; on the other equally intensive and outdated experience in the destruction of enemy logistics and support structures) I can think of a number of ways to cause an ecological disaster that are much easier, less risky, and far more spectacular than attacking a nuclear power station.

Nuclear power is a favourite whipping boy of Greenpeace because there is so much 'mythunderstanding' surrounding it. Not to rain on anti-nuke activists' parades; but nuclear stations are not controlled bombs - both the technology and fissile materials used are completely different. Modern nuclear stations are built in a 'natural shutdown' state as I understand it; which means that should anything go wrong it'll automatically SCRAM; killing the pile.

As for flying an aircraft into a power station; that's preposterous - not to be a jerk to the Americans still dealing with 911 but if flying an aircraft into a power station would cause an explosion; don't you think Bin Laden would've done it?

Yeah, as Ramos said, in theory it could withstand a fully loaded 747.  I'm not sure how well it'd fare in actuality-besides...

Probably much better than in the test. Keep in mind a) the difficulty of hitting such a small target dead-on with a direct strike; b) the fact that even if a fully-loaded 747 were to hit and penetrate the shield; it's still got quite a bit of station to get through to reach the reactor proper. And even then the worst it could do - which is admittedly pretty bad but containable - would be to scatter the pile. Uranium does not burn or blow up and the chance of an impact forcing the pile to critical mass is zilch to zero. Overall the effect of a strike on a power station would be a small loss of power to the nation's grid.

...Nuclear power plants face more threat from the ground than they do from the air.

Very good point - security may be strict; but a trained, disciplined assault team could easily take over a power station. Of course - once they got there what could they do with it? Blow it up? Not bloody likely.

[C]

How very naive... Nothing abnormal for Greenpeace. Yep, we could build thousands of wind turbines and "wave machines" costing gazillions of pounds etc, or we could build more fossil fuel powered power stations, and have no fossil fuels left in 50 years time (how would the grandchildren cope with that?). Nuclear power is safe, although the Chernobyl incident was unfortunate (but I somehow suspect that its safety standards weren't up to those of the west at the time). There is a lot of mis-education regarding nuclear power (like really, is that power station really just going to explode as Greenpeace would have you believe)...

Nuclear power please...

[Delta_]

Greenpeace obviously don't have a clue about how a power station is designed and built.

Check this out:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/aviation_videos.htm
Jet Versus Wall.

I love the way the wing tips just keep on going and the rest of the ac just turns to dust.  ;D

[Craig.]

If you really want to get into it, then technically this could be inciting terroristic activity against an nuclear plant, and the creators should be arrested for it.

[beaky]

It is alarmist and rather naive... and frankly, I worry more about what goes on inside nuke facilities than the possibility of a hijacked aircraft striking one.
There have been numerous mishaps, some quite devastating, and no aircraft (or terrorists) were involved in any of them. Food for thought.
 I agree that it'd be pretty hard to breach the reactor shell, but the general damage could render the reactor uncontrollable (how well-protected are the control centers?)... these things should be built far away from populated areas, or maybe the answer is more reactors, only much smaller... it'd be easier to build those underground, for example.
 

[Chris_F]

I'm much more concerned about the goings on in North Korea than I am a plane hitting a nuclear power plant.  At least a nuclear plant:

a)  isn't made to explode
b)  is designed to take the impact
c)  isn't controlled by a mad man.

As for greenpeace, their motivation isn't to save us from nuclear power, it's to wipe us from the earth in favor of "nature" (somehow to them humans aren't natural).  Why else would they protest the least environmentally harmful method of electricity production.  Heck, they even protest those windmill farm electric plants because they pose a risk to birds.  And you'd think a windmill farm would be the absolute poster of ecologically sensitive energy creation.  They won't be satisified until there is no electricity.  Then they'll start working on our food supply...

[Woodlouse2002]

The fact of the matter is that Greenpeace are little more than terrorists themselves and don't often hesitated to cause destruction and chaos to get their message accross. And all though it's not a nice thing to say, I really admire France for blowing up the Rainbow Warrior, cause they really had it coming.

And watch that film Delta_ posted. Just shows how well those walls stand up to aircraft. You must also note that everything associated with nuclear power and waste is always protected against the worst case scenario.

[Tweek]

They don't show the part in the video where the airliner is reduced to dust!

[beefhole]

They don't show the part in the video where the airliner is reduced to dust!

Aye... an F-4 is a tad different than a fully loaded 747 coming in at high speed. I'd be interested to know how the walls would stand up in best case scenario (for the terrorists), a plane scores a direct hit and doesn't have to go through anything... I'd be interested to see how the walls would hold up.

[Saitek]

Has anyone imagined the scenario where one of these religous extremists goes to uni; comes out as a scientist and then quite calmy send the nuclear power station into a bomb while at the controls. Remember, some of these terrorsits as in 9/11 are highly intelligent and extremly clever. For site rules I can't explain my position any further, but if any of you know the attempts made to stop discrimination you'll find discrimination is made in getting certain minorities into positions of power so as to prove they are not being discriminated against.

[beefhole]

From my limited knowledge of how modern day nuclear power plants work, I don't believe it would actually be possible to manually overload it. One would think there is too many safeguards.

[Craig.]

An instant core meltdown would be almost if not totally impossible. It would take I suppose long enough for other workers to notice any attempt at a power overload.