Greenpeace Sweden exposes lax security at nuclear plants - Polidicks

[URL]http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/greenpeace-sweden-exposes-lax-security-at-nuc/blog/42512/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenpeaceNews+%28Greenpeace+News%29[/URL] [QUOTE]They poured onto the sites of two nuclear reactor plants in Sweden this morning with minimal problems: more than 70 Greenpeace activists, from five countries, conducted peaceful stress tests of the sites. The goal: to show how weak security arrangements are at the two plants. At the Forsmark nuclear site, on the east coast of Sweden, 50 activists put ladders up against a chain link fence, scaled over the so-called 'barrier' and got up close to the reactor buildings. One activist was on the site for four hours before she was discovered! Apparently a Forsmark spokesperson told the media: "We can confirm that GP came in over the fence, as usual." Yes … today wasn’t the first time Greenpeace Sweden got on to the site. At the Ringhals nuclear site, on the west coast, 20 activists bicycled onto the property and explored the terrain. The [URL="http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLL4kU_n6kO7FsDKGQFjwgbhv2Sh8Gk6iG&feature=view_all"]videos[/URL] reveal just how weak the security is. In fact, it took police 40 minutes to get to Ringhals, 15 to get to Forsmark. Today should alert the public, the nuclear industry and the Swedish environment minister of the serious safety deficiencies at the plants. There are seven reactors on the two sites, all of which are well over 30 years old. [URL="http://risksofnuclear.greenpeace.org/"]More than 1.3 million people live within 75 kilometers of the sites[/URL]. Today’s Greenpeace Sweden “stress tests” showed again that people are exposed to unacceptable risks from the nuclear plants. But Sweden isn’t the only country in Europe where reactors are a concern. On 4 October, [URL="http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/wn20121004a1.html"]a European Commission report[/URL] showed that its stress tests on the 134 reactors at 68 sites across Europe had revealed serious deficiencies. The tests were ordered after the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011. The results are worrisome. Almost all the plants need improvements. Equipment to detect earthquakes was inadequate, plants could not withstand flooding and safety equipment was not sufficient. The list goes on. Plants can’t withstand threats from aircraft either. Improvements that should have been put in place after the nuclear accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and at Chernobyl in Ukraine are still lacking in some cases. The cost to fix the deficiencies at EU reactors is between [URL="http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2012/stress-tests/"]10 and 25 billion euros[/URL], the EU report says. Greenpeace Sweden has confirmed again that the nuclear industry and governments don’t take lapses in safety measures very seriously. Greenpeace has often pointed out deficiencies at nuclear reactors. Our report on the disaster in Japan, [URL="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Nuclear-reports/Lessons-from-Fukushima/"]Lessons from Fukushima[/URL], shows that the real cause of the disaster was inadequate safety measures and regulatory controls, not the earthquake and resulting tsunami. Greenpeace Sweden is calling on the government to stop putting its population at risk and take dangerous reactors out of service. And maybe the government has finally started listening. The country's Environment Minister said she is “very irritated” by the breach of security and wants to see company officials tomorrow. It's about time. [/QUOTE]

In a way I don't trust GreenPeace at all because they are defector canadians but at the same time I do kind of agree that when you are operating things such as nuclear reactors and the implications ranging from either mischief to sabotage you should at least have a monitored perimeter fence.

Using Greenpeace as a source for news regarding Greenpeace. Good job! They didn't compromise any real security at all. It's no secret that Forsmark and Ringhals (and pretty much all other Swedish reactor sites) have only basic outer perimiter security (essentially only high fences and cameras). They would never be able to reach the nuclear material.

Greenpeace, bugger off and go harass coal plants instead. They're much more dangerous.

[quote]At the Forsmark nuclear site, on the east coast of Sweden, 50 activists put ladders up against a chain link fence, scaled over the so-called 'barrier' and got up close to the reactor buildings. One activist was on the site for four hours before she was discovered![/quote] so? great? and then what? it's like this article expects the reader to believe that breaking into a nuclear reactor is any more realistically dangerous than breaking into any other powerplant, like you can press a big red button and cause an apocalyptic nuclear meltdown

[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;38026802]so? great? and then what? it's like this article expects the reader to believe that breaking into a nuclear reactor is any more realistically dangerous than breaking into any other powerplant, like you can press a big red button and cause an apocalyptic nuclear meltdown[/QUOTE] Disable coolant systems, sabotage backup systems. Hello meltdown.

While I fucking hate Greenpeace, for once, they did something useful. NPPs need to be far more secure than this.

[QUOTE=Ereunity;38027144]Disable coolant systems, sabotage backup systems. Hello meltdown.[/QUOTE] There are multiple redundancies that trigger a shitton of alarms all over the place if they get broken, and likely activate shutdowns if a redundancy is broken.

[QUOTE=TestECull;38027382]While I fucking hate Greenpeace, for once, they did something useful. NPPs need to be far more secure than this.[/QUOTE] The outer fences only mark "you shouldn't be here". There is nothing in this area that can be damaged or threaten the security of the plant. In order to actually pose a threat you need to go through walls capable of standing against a 747 (among other things) crashing into it. Relevant: [video=youtube;25vlt7swhCM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25vlt7swhCM[/video]

Actually obtain some nuclear material, and we will talk, Green peace. My guess is that if you get anywhere near it, the security personnel will actually shoot you. The only reason Greenpeace risks shit like this is because they know the outer fence is just there to keep casual wanderers out of the area and that the guards aren't going to gun them down.

They scaled a perimiter fence. Wow. They were there for hours, obviously they weren't a threat. There's no point in having security waste their time to shoo some idiots from a field. If they had tried to get into the plant proper they would have been aprehended in minutes at most.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] Its a srs problem guys!!!!

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38028383][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZreEBnqlZlk[/media] Its a srs problem guys!!!![/QUOTE] What the fuck is that video even trying to prove and/or say?

[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;38028456]What the fuck is that video even trying to prove and/or say?[/QUOTE] That greenpeace are stupid fucks. [url]http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/aircraftcrashbreach/[/url] Even a large commercial airliner striking in ideal conditions with more fuel than it could possibly actually have would fail to successfully breach a nuclear power plant. Not only that, but if you read the damage done, the reactor would still technically be functional. EDIT: Note that this study is for American plants, but I can't imagine British plants being any less safe, particularly given the increased population density of the nation.

[QUOTE=Ereunity;38027144]Disable coolant systems, sabotage backup systems. Hello meltdown.[/QUOTE] Which would require you to get inside the building and not just dick around near the inner side of the fence.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McB9tsabPn0[/media] Jump to 1:30 for relevance.

These people have to be fucking retarded to not realize that nuclear is their only ally.

[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;38028723]These people have to be fucking retarded to not realize that nuclear is their only ally.[/QUOTE] It's Greenpeace, the higher ups who were actually intelligent left in the 70's and 80's because the group was becoming fanatical and focused solely on anything with nuclear in its name. So now we have Greenpeace being a bunch of screaming retards while coal burning plants choking the world to death in smog.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38026791]Greenpeace, bugger off and go harass coal plants instead. They're much more dangerous.[/QUOTE] Or they could just bugger off altogether for being a down right terrible environmentalist group. Honestly they're like the PETA of environmentalist groups

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38030168]Or they could just bugger off altogether for being a down right terrible environmentalist group. Honestly they're like the PETA of environmentalist groups[/QUOTE] They're not like the environmental PETA, they are. They're a fucking joke, they protest here in Scotland all the time cause of the nuclear subs and warheads in Faslane, when really those people would be put to far better use protesting things that are actual problems not missiles that will never be fired or reactors that will never leak.

Just out of interest, how likely are nuclear plants to get hit by terrorists? I mean, how much explosive would it take to cause enough damage to either create a serious explosion or leak large amounts of radioactive dust or smoke into the atmosphere? Frankly I'm quite concerned that people can be running around a nuclear power plant for 4 hours before they get caught [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] I don't want to sound like a nuclear fearmonger, because I'm not decided one way or the other on nuclear power just yet, but [QUOTE=Rocksalt;38030182] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster"]reactors that will never leak.[/URL][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Maloof?;38030188]Just out of interest, how likely are nuclear plants to get hit by terrorists? I mean, how much explosive would it take to cause enough damage to either create a serious explosion or leak large amounts of radioactive dust or smoke into the atmosphere? Frankly I'm quite concerned that people can be running around a nuclear power plant for 4 hours before they get caught [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] I don't want to sound like a nuclear fearmonger, because I'm not decided one way or the other on nuclear power just yet, but[/QUOTE] Well considering there have only been two nuclear melt downs, one was caused by a terrible soviety designed reactor which was designed awfully and the other required both an 8.9 earthquake and a tsunami I'd say they're pretty damn safe.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;38030188]Just out of interest, how likely are nuclear plants to get hit by terrorists? I mean, how much explosive would it take to cause enough damage to either create a serious explosion or leak large amounts of radioactive dust or smoke into the atmosphere? Frankly I'm quite concerned that people can be running around a nuclear power plant for 4 hours before they get caught [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] I don't want to sound like a nuclear fearmonger, because I'm not decided one way or the other on nuclear power just yet, but[/QUOTE]Thing is, they weren't running around inside the actual nuclear power plant, they were running around the land outside it. If they tried to force their way into the actual reactor building, they'd likely be shot long before they reach the core or any important machinery.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;38030188]Just out of interest, how likely are nuclear plants to get hit by terrorists? I mean, how much explosive would it take to cause enough damage to either create a serious explosion or leak large amounts of radioactive dust or smoke into the atmosphere? Frankly I'm quite concerned that people can be running around a nuclear power plant for 4 hours before they get caught [editline]14th October 2012[/editline] I don't want to sound like a nuclear fearmonger, because I'm not decided one way or the other on nuclear power just yet, but[/QUOTE] It would take more explosives than someone could carry if you tried to just straight up get through the outer walls and shit, no idea about getting through doors and shit though since doors have their weak points. Really all depens on how the internal security is. Fukushima was a shit reactor with out dated safety measures, built on a fault line in Japan. I'm talking about submarine reactors and even if there was a leak it would pretty much be a flash in the pan since as a species we routinely dumped nuclear waste into the oceans a while back and I think we still do in some areas. Even in the case of full meltdowns and disasters most health problems that follow them can be dealt with. As bad as nuclear disasters are, they really aren't the harbingers of death and decay that people like to think they are, they're not a spectre of horror, they're the bringers of thyroid cancer most of the time which thankfully can be shot in the face with Iodine and everything is gravy.

[QUOTE=Ereunity;38027144]Disable coolant systems, sabotage backup systems. Hello automatic shutdown.[/QUOTE]fixed that for you.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38030208]Well considering there have only been two nuclear melt downs, one was caused by a terrible soviety designed reactor which was designed awfully and the other required both an 8.9 earthquake and a tsunami I'd say they're pretty damn safe.[/QUOTE] The thing is with Chernobyl as well is that if I remember correctly they were purposefully putting the reactor into a dangerous state to see how well it could handle it and how well they could handle it, but I read that ages ago and I might be wrong, so who knows.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;38030188]Frankly I'm quite concerned that people can be running around a nuclear power plant for 4 hours before they get caught[/QUOTE] These guys were only in the outer perimeter, where you can't do anything to affect the plant. If you showed up with anything capable of getting you inside, security would be on you in a snap.

[QUOTE=Rocksalt;38030233]The thing is with Chernobyl as well is that if I remember correctly they were purposefully putting the reactor into a dangerous state to see how well it could handle it and how well they could handle it, but I read that ages ago and I might be wrong, so who knows.[/QUOTE] Yeah they were doing simulations with the reactor, but due to the people who designed it cutting corners so as to build it in time to get their bonuses from the communist party or whoever was employing them, it went wrong.

[QUOTE=Cone;38030238]These guys were only in the outer perimeter, where you can't do anything to affect the plant. If you showed up with anything capable of getting you inside, security would be on you in a snap.[/QUOTE] Got two quotes from Vattenfall (owners of the plant) [quote=Vattenfall]"The activists only reached areas with a lower safety classification," the state-owned firm said in a statement, adding that security measures had worked as planned.[/quote] [quote]Eva Hallden, director of the Ringhals plant, told the TT news agency that the security response would have been more intense if the intruders had been considered dangerous.[/quote] So yeah. If they had tried to get in to the actual plant, they would have been stopped

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38030244]Yeah they were doing simulations with the reactor, but due to the people who designed it cutting corners so as to build it in time to get their bonuses from the communist party or whoever was employing them, it went wrong.[/QUOTE] Yeah I thought it was something like that. So basically nuclear power's all gravy, anyone who's against it is probably not educated in the matter and agrees with all this alarmist bullshit in the media about nuclear power. Thankfully I think nuclear plants in the UK have their security handled by the army so if anything happens any attackers will get royally bum fucked.