Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amd!dual!ames!al From: al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oil vs nuclear power Message-ID: <439@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Aug-84 22:04:57 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.439 Posted: Wed Aug 1 22:04:57 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 02:01:41 EDT References: <447@tty3b.UUCP> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 16 One argument against nuclear power that is seldom brought up is defendability. I believe this is because most anti-nuke folk don't know or think much about military matters. I'm an exception. Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks, and taking one out - done 'properly' can make entire regions unihabitable. For example, a Scientific American article some time ago pointed out that a single atomic bomb dropped on the right nuclear power plant during normal wind conditions could contaminate the ENTIRE RUHR INDUSTRIAL REGION for decades. A nuke isn't necessary to take out a reactor, as the Israeli's proved in Iraq. What's more, if you get the coolant input pipes you can cause a melt down without too much trouble. Presto chango, no one can live nearby for years, if not centuries. Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed. Nuclear plants compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon.