Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Lockport Blast: safety of oil vs nuclear power Message-ID: <4175@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 14:47:23 EDT Article-I.D.: utzoo.4175 Posted: Fri Aug 3 14:47:23 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 3-Aug-84 14:47:23 EDT References: <447@tty3b.UUCP>, <439@ames.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 56 > 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. Later commentary on that article pointed out that a nuclear power plant isn't exactly a "sitting duck": Western nuclear plants (as opposed to the Soviet ones) are probably the toughest structures ever built by man. They are built to shrug off direct hits by crashing airliners, after all. Hitting one of them with a missile would need silo-killing accuracy, and missiles with silo-killing accuracy will have more important targets in a war. Bombers are a different matter, but we have defences against them (or we're supposed to...). Splattering a nuclear plant would also be a rather stupid thing to do. Making a large and immensely valuable industrial area uninhabitable for years is the sort of mistake that generals get shot for. Tactical nuclear weapons are generally designed for *minimum* fallout for just this reason. (Strategic weapons don't figure in this because use of them will mean a situation sufficiently bad that the reactors will be only a minor worry.) I would consider it very surprising to find the Soviets planning to blast reactors (with nuclear or non-nuclear weapons) in anything short of dire extremity. Much more likely would be a non-nuclear strike against the generators or the switching gear, with intact survival of the containment shell an explicit *objective* of the mission. > .................................................... 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. The most likely result of a meltdown, actually, is a hell of a mess within the reactor building, and perhaps immediately underneath it, but not much of a problem outside. Why do you think those nice thick containment walls are there? > Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of > the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed. No argument. But this applies to many things in an industrial civilization, not just power plants. > Nuclear plants > compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon. Only if you've got a nuclear weapon, or something close, to liberate it with. There are other things that would also make an awful mess which are *not* so well protected. A few years ago, just west of where I sit typing this, an entire city was evacuated for several days when some chlorine tank cars were involved in a derailment accident. And there is alleged to be at least one hydroelectric dam in California where a major dam failure might kill a quarter of a million people. You don't need to invoke nuclear methods to achieve mass murder. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry