Ha
Figured that would get your attention.
A friend who works at our local Nuclear power plant sent me a video of a test with a US F4 Fantom Jet deliberately flown into a wall the simulates a US nuclear facilty containment wall.

Not sure how to post a link here, but it shows BIG-BOYS.COM up in the corner of the video. If you search the site for "nuclear" you'll find the video.
Site comes up as break.com

..and Homeland Insecurity will park in front of your house.

I've worked in Nukes for 25 years. It's NOT the containment walls around the reactors that present potential nuclear catastrophy. Those structures were well designed and accounted for in a major accident scenerio, such as a 747 accidentially crashing into a nuclear plant. These designs and tests were done years ago, before the conceivable notion of an intentional crash.

The biggest liability and weak link for potential disaster, right now, is the spent fuel pools and the 'average' strength buildings that house them. Why?
Because the pools were only designed to temporarily store spent fuel rods. When Jimmy Carter put the cabash on nuclear fuel re-processing in 1978, plants were forced to store spent fuel indefinately.

Then, in 1982, the U.S. Government promised all nuclear facilities a permanant place to store these spent fuel assemblies and virtually all nuclear waste. It NEVER HAPPENED, and probably never will.

So, over the last twenty years, almost every Nuke plant in the U.S. has had to re-design and replace their fuel racks with racks designed for more capacity. The buildings haven't been strengthened. Do you know what would happen if a pool lost it's water?

All other nuclear fueled utilities around the world re-process their nuclear fuel. The U.S. Navy re-processes their fuel. We're NOT ALLOWED TO BY FEDERAL LAW. Plants must store it all. This does not make sense in our current energy climate, or terroristic level of threat.

Whadaya think of that?

I've worked in Nukes for 25 years. It's NOT the containment walls around the reactors that present potential nuclear catastrophy. Those structures were well designed and accounted for in a major accident scenerio, such as a 747 accidentially crashing into a nuclear plant. These designs and tests were done years ago, before the conceivable notion of an intentional crash.

The biggest liability and weak link for potential disaster, right now, is the spent fuel pools and the 'average' strength buildings that house them. Why?
Because the pools were only designed to temporarily store spent fuel rods. When Jimmy Carter put the cabash on nuclear fuel re-processing in 1978, plants were forced to store spent fuel indefinately.

Then, in 1982, the U.S. Government promised all nuclear facilities a permanant place to store these spent fuel assemblies and virtually all nuclear waste. It NEVER HAPPENED, and probably never will.

So, over the last twenty years, almost every Nuke plant in the U.S. has had to re-design and replace their fuel racks with racks designed for more capacity. The buildings haven't been strengthened. Do you know what would happen if a pool lost it's water?

All other nuclear fueled utilities around the world re-process their nuclear fuel. The U.S. Navy re-processes their fuel. We're NOT ALLOWED TO BY FEDERAL LAW. Plants must store it all. This does not make sense in our current energy climate, or terroristic level of threat.

Whadaya think of that?

Are you posting classified info???? :confused:

So all you would be terrorists out there, don't read that.

Classified? Hardly... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool

I really didn't think terrorists would be interested in Chevelles, so it would be safe here. But then again, maybe not. So keep it to yourself and don't tell anybody, especially your neighbor, Mujiban.

I really didn't think terrorists would be interested in Chevelles

Unless they're in a hurry!

Yep waste has always been the big issue. I think it should be stored on site though, but the storage facilities must be upgraded. I have a big issue with spent fuel being transported off site, that's asking for trouble. Nuke plants do have security and they're going to be "hot" for gozillions of years anyway, so why not keep all the "gamma bugs" together at the plant site.

I have a big issue with spent fuel being transported off site, that's asking for trouble.

Anyone remember the SNL "news item" where they were blasting a rocket full of spent fuel to space? The flight video in the background makes the whole thing as funny now as it was then!

I've worked in Nukes for 25 years. It's NOT the containment walls around the reactors that present potential nuclear catastrophy. Those structures were well designed and accounted for in a major accident scenerio, such as a 747 accidentially crashing into a nuclear plant. These designs and tests were done years ago, before the conceivable notion of an intentional crash.

The biggest liability and weak link for potential disaster, right now, is the spent fuel pools and the 'average' strength buildings that house them. Why?
Because the pools were only designed to temporarily store spent fuel rods. When Jimmy Carter put the cabash on nuclear fuel re-processing in 1978, plants were forced to store spent fuel indefinately.

Then, in 1982, the U.S. Government promised all nuclear facilities a permanant place to store these spent fuel assemblies and virtually all nuclear waste. It NEVER HAPPENED, and probably never will.

So, over the last twenty years, almost every Nuke plant in the U.S. has had to re-design and replace their fuel racks with racks designed for more capacity. The buildings haven't been strengthened. Do you know what would happen if a pool lost it's water?

All other nuclear fueled utilities around the world re-process their nuclear fuel. The U.S. Navy re-processes their fuel. We're NOT ALLOWED TO BY FEDERAL LAW. Plants must store it all. This does not make sense in our current energy climate, or terroristic level of threat.

Whadaya think of that?
It's just wonderful. We have one of the largest cluster @#$%'s in my backyard, so to say. Hanford in Richland WA. What a nightmare this area is. :(

I've worked in Nukes for 25 years. It's NOT the containment walls around the reactors that present potential nuclear catastrophy. Those structures were well designed and accounted for in a major accident scenerio, such as a 747 accidentially crashing into a nuclear plant. These designs and tests were done years ago, before the conceivable notion of an intentional crash.

The biggest liability and weak link for potential disaster, right now, is the spent fuel pools and the 'average' strength buildings that house them. Why?
Because the pools were only designed to temporarily store spent fuel rods. When Jimmy Carter put the cabash on nuclear fuel re-processing in 1978, plants were forced to store spent fuel indefinately.

Then, in 1982, the U.S. Government promised all nuclear facilities a permanant place to store these spent fuel assemblies and virtually all nuclear waste. It NEVER HAPPENED, and probably never will.

So, over the last twenty years, almost every Nuke plant in the U.S. has had to re-design and replace their fuel racks with racks designed for more capacity. The buildings haven't been strengthened. Do you know what would happen if a pool lost it's water?

All other nuclear fueled utilities around the world re-process their nuclear fuel. The U.S. Navy re-processes their fuel. We're NOT ALLOWED TO BY FEDERAL LAW. Plants must store it all. This does not make sense in our current energy climate, or terroristic level of threat.

Whadaya think of that?


I hate to say it but I agree. I am a nuclear plant equipment operator and there is no question in my mind that spent fuel pools are more vulnerable than reactor containments.


Having said that all of the plants in the nation are now either storing or looking into storing their used fuel in "Dry Casks". These casks, much like reactor containments, are far less vulnerable than the old spent fuel pools.

I have seen film of "dry cask" damage testing. Good luck on breaching one of those bad boys.

http://www.sandia.gov/recordsmgmt/ctb1.html

Here's the test fuel cask test.
My company owns that cask and another just like it. I've loaded it many times.

James, the time will soon come when that on-site storage problem will be addressed. laws must be changed, but the safe technology for moving fuel is solid and proven.
The Nuclear transporation business is VERY proud of their safety performance and rightfully so. Transport of over 300 radioactive shipments per month and over 51,000 shipments without a hazardous materials incident.

If just 1 incident does occur just think of the repercussions. We should be into wind, sun, and corn. Note, I hauled gas in super tankers, I cannot tell you how many close calls I had on the road with other drivers. They are crazy!!!!!
link to my day job.
www.leverfamilysite.com/glenn's_day_job.htm (http://www.leverfamilysite.com/glenn's_day_job.htm)

Security HA! I know of at least one reactor I could walk up through open unguarded gates and touch. I will not reaveal wich one for obvious reasons. It does not mean they do not have cameras that would spot people but the place in not very well lit either.