Hubert Mania wrote:
> Eugene Leitl wrote in response to Damien Broderick:
> > > Each of them protected by a force field and ray guns, to keep the next
> > > lot of terrorist-hijacked planes at bay.
> > Actually, nuke plants with a containment are claimed to be engineered to
> > withstand the impact of a crashing plane.
> *Claimed* to be.... That`s the problem. Maybe the US nuclear plants are
> safe, which I cannot believe. German Environment secretary said last week,
> case of a Boeing 747 crash, the containment of Biblis nuclear plant near the
> city of Frankfurt
> might prevent a meltdown, but is not supposed to provide an overall
> protection. German Government always boasted of having built the safest
> plants in the world. And lately built plants do have a concrete shield of
> almost 2 meters and might withstand a plane crash, but Biblis doesn`t seem
> to be safe at all. And it is the most dangerous reactor in the heart of
> as far as population density is concerned.
I see a bunch of assertions. Where are the facts?
> The attacks on nuclear plants are a serious problem. And obviously no
> Government official has ever thought about an *intentionally initiated*
> crash. Imagine a Boeing 747, heading from Frankfurt to the USA is going
> to be hijacked and with the full load of fuel is flown at full speed into
> Biblis containment. I bet the concrete shield will not withstand that
How is this obvious? Again, stopping plane hijacking and use as
missiles is just not that hard a problem. Certainly not hard
enough to risk WWIII by continuing screwing around in the
MidEast just for the sake of a little oil.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:59 MDT