Greenpeace Sweden exposes lax security at nuclear plants - Polidicks

[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] Those are only the two biggest meltdowns, Wikipedia has listed 16 meltdowns and some toxic substance leaks: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdown_incidents[/url]

Well, if the Swedish nuclear plants are lax in security and seriously behind in technology, they should invest in some serious upgrades; we don't need another incident to erode humanity's confidence in atomic power.

For those of you wanting to learn more about how unlikely a nuclear meltdown is, how unlikely it is to actually harm anything, and how unlikely it is for a terrorist group to take control of a nuclear reactor, here's a snippet from a lecture in UC Berkeley- [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4&t=53m13s[/url]

[QUOTE=Hawke7;38030316]Those are only the two biggest meltdowns, Wikipedia has listed 16 meltdowns and some toxic substance leaks: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdown_incidents[/url][/QUOTE] The vast majority of them back in the 70's and 80's when nuclear power plants were in their infancy with weaker security and safety measures. Every modern reactor is built to kill the reaction the second there's even the possibility of something going wrong. I'm pretty sure that the reactors here in the UK have Boron control rods in an electromagnet in the reaction chamber so that if anything goes wrong they can kill the power to the magnet and the control rods get dumped into the reaction vessel and kill the plant and I'd bet both my bollocks that there's even better safety systems not to mention the fact that the internal security in the plants will be near unfathomable.

[QUOTE=Hawke7;38030316]Those are only the two biggest meltdowns, Wikipedia has listed 16 meltdowns and some toxic substance leaks: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Meltdown_incidents[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah but those are not really any worse than those that have happened due to oil, coal and other fossil fuel power plants. Most of those also only really happened in the early days any way.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38026791]Greenpeace, bugger off and go harass coal plants instead. They're much more dangerous.[/QUOTE] Tar sands are a bigger threat than any other coal, nuclear or oil plant could ever hope to be. But what they did here was a good thing. It wasn't necessarily protesting nuclear power as much as it was exposing weaknesses, which is important. So no need to bugger off this time, IMO.

[QUOTE=ironman17;38030331]Well, if the Swedish nuclear plants are lax in security and seriously behind in technology, they should invest in some serious upgrades; we don't need another incident to erode humanity's confidence in atomic power.[/QUOTE] Well, it would be nice to do that, and people are pushing for it. But there was a major nuclear scare in 1980 after Three Mile Island that made people vote for a ban on building new reactors and to phase out the older ones. It's rather recently that there has been a push to upgrade and replace the reactors Also i don't see how we could phase out nuclear without buying a lot of energy for countries like Germany. Nuclear supplies between 35 - 40% of the power for the country. If anything we need newer or at least upgraded reactors since there has been some maintenance and uptime problems with the reactors

[QUOTE=mac338;38030361]Tar sands are a bigger threat than any other coal, nuclear or oil plant could ever hope to be. But what they did here was a good thing. It wasn't necessarily protesting nuclear power as much as it was exposing weaknesses, which is important. So no need to bugger off this time, IMO.[/QUOTE] They were a bunch of protesters chilling outside the plant in a field, if they tried to get inside the plant they would have massacred.

[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;38030363]Well, it would be nice to do that, and people are pushing for it. But there was a major nuclear scare in 1980 after Three Mile Island that made people vote for a ban on building new reactors and to phase out the older ones. It's rather recently that there has been a push to upgrade and replace the reactors Also i don't see how we could phase out nuclear without buying a lot of energy for countries like Germany. Nuclear supplies between 35 - 40% of the power for the country. If anything we need newer or at least upgraded reactors since there has been some maintenance and uptime problems with the reactors[/QUOTE] Atomic power is a high-yield energy source, and shunning it just because it's dangerous when not kept on a leash is just foolish. It'd be like having battle dragons in a medieval army, which give the kingdom a massive military advantage over the other kingdoms, and yet the peasantry don't want them around because they are very dangerous; they don't know shit about the dragons, especially about how the dragons aren't necessarily a danger to others if properly trained, and should probably have to actually learn about the dragons before voicing their concerns. Yes, atomic power is dangerous if not properly managed and kept secure, but when kept on a good enough leash it's very useful indeed. Without upgrading or replacing the old reactors, as well as ensuring the plants are kept safe and secure from dangerous meddling, people still won't appreciate the power of the atom.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38028522]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] I would guess that British Plants are among the safest in the world, we have the most dense population in Europe so we gotta be pretty fucking careful. I live quite local to Hinkley point and they have not just the kind of walls seen in that video with the British Woman earlier but they also have ex-army security guards with SA80 assault rifles patrolling the outer fence. I would love to see Greenpeace try and get in there! I imagine Sizewell is even better protected, it's up in the north so someone might try to pikey the uranium and sell it!