Slashdot Mirror
Greenpeace Breaks Into French Nuclear Plant
dotancohen writes "Greenpeace activists secretly entered a French nuclear site before dawn and draped a banner reading 'Hey' and 'Easy' on its reactor containment building, to expose the vulnerability of atomic sites in the country. Greenpeace said the break-in aimed to show that an ongoing review of safety measures, ordered by French authorities after a tsunami ravaged Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant earlier this year, was focused too narrowly on possible natural disasters, and not human factors."
Said, with tongue firmly in cheek.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Nuclear power is one of the less polluting ways to get energy out there. Yet they protest against it. Guess they would be more happy with coal plants. (I have no real life idea about the situation, but this is what I learned from SimCity)
Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?
..."Homer Simpson"? Because it sounds like their plants are run about as well as the one on The Simpsons.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Nukes are not going away. Too many reasons to continue it. HOWEVER, between Japan and now this, I think that France requires some massive upgrades. However, job #1 MUST BE SECRUITY.
And these ppl should NOT be ripped for this. THey should be scolded publicly and then privately thanked.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Your nuclear plants are belong to us.
And when one of these fuckers gets smoked by GIGN or whatever the French use for this sort of thing, I don't want to hear the damned whining of bleeding hearts on the interweb.
Too bad they didn't get their asses shot off by the guards.
I have to wonder what sort of spin they would put on it if the alternate heasline outcome happend: Greenpeace Activist Shot While breaking into Nuclear Power Plant?
Greenpeace said the break-in aimed to show that an ongoing review of safety measures ... was focused too narrowly on possible natural disasters, and not human factors.
Reasonable and responsible activists would have hired safety and security experts to write a report, lobbied a politician to present it, and run a media campaign to raise awareness. But hey, they made their point: there are dangerous radical groups in France that will break into nuclear power plants. They even pointed out one in particular, called Greenpeace.
It's funny that nearly half the comments are asking what would be happening if they were shot, or that they actually deserved to be shot. That's the whole point. Security was so lax nothing like that happened. You should be thanking them for exposing this bullshit.
Let me know when they actually get inside the building. Then I might care a bit.
I only hope these people live long enough to see the consequences of the abandonment of nuclear power. Seriously, why don't they pull this shit in coal stations?
"People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
... how a single comment has yet to say the obvious.
No matter if you are pro or anti nuclear GP has just proven that obviously security measures need to be beefed up. There is absolutely no reason that a hostile, unOKed, group of people should be able to break into a nuclear power plant and have enough time to hang up a big sign in the middle of the factory and then escape.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
That involved being on the other side of this airtight hatch.
How long would it take to actually penetrate the containment building?
From Wikipedia:
The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.
Have they tried breaking into coal or hydro plants? Because they can cause huge damage by breaking into those ones as well.
Oh well, hope they shut down all the nuclear plants around the world and go back to oil, coal, gas and hydro, see how well that works out for the environment.
BTW., do you realize that the natural outcome of this 'greenpeace' movement agenda would be further destruction of economy and society? Aren't they acting like people we love to call 'terrorists' here?
You can't handle the truth.
What amazes me is that it wasn't the outcome. Here in Mexico in far less sensitive power installations but still related to national security the detachment in charge will fill the body of pranksters with lead, and that was before the security situation became as bad it is now. So if the French are not able to secure nuclear sites, then at least they should drop the security theater in airports, since is clear that they don't care about security.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
If they care about the planet so much maybe they should invest some money, hire some scientists, develop new technologies and fix something for a change instead of protesting pointlessly.
So maybe for once they could take all this money from donations and build say a windfarm and sell clean electric energy to people?
But wait, I bet they are protesting those as well.
The only thing these activists managed to get through was the fence, they then hung their banners on the outside of the containment building. No risk to security.
I can't even imagine a more disingenuous stunt.
Greenpeace are extensively established as absolutely against almost all uses of nuclear power. They don't give a flying fuck about "increasing security" or pointing out possible threats; they want those plants shutdown entirely, and yesterday.
Putting on a white hat doesn't make you a White Hat; they're only dressing up their usual tactics in the guise of a benevolent hack. This is just a publicity stunt in their campaign to destroy nuclear power.
I am amazed at how well the authorities responded to this. They are taking this as evidence of a security breach rather than a chance to make political enemies. The president's advisor says "we'll have to learn some lessons" and the interior minister said "we have to understand what's behind this [security] malfunction" and is reviewing the security breach. That's amazingly coherent, logical, and useful!
Here in America, I imagine the intruders would be shot, labeled terrorists, and used as an excuse to invalid [insert random non-nuclear nation here].
- France and German dismantles their nuclear power plants
- Suddenly France and Germany need to replace the power produced by their nuclear power plants from another source!
- Good thing there is a well-integrated European power net to draw on!
- Who feeds the power into that power net? Well:
http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/59478,Russia-bids-to-build-nuclear-power-station-in-Poland
This is for internal use, but if you're happy to build two, what stops you from building a few more?
"Not In My Back Yard" literally, hence totally okay if the nuclear power plant is in my neighbour's back yard.
I have to wonder what sort of spin they would put on it if the alternate heasline outcome happend: Greenpeace Activist Shot While breaking into Nuclear Power Plant?
Why spin it? They'd do well to play it straight - it was unauthorised intrusion into a security area of a nuclear faciltiy. Would have looked very bad for Greenpeace without tarnishing the plant operator or nuclear agency one iota. Sometimes people get completely screwed up and believe they have to spin and hype things, when very little will do quite well. Further, spin and hype tend to cost credibility - at least among jaded cynics like myself.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Because the nuke industry would be more than happy to give Greenpeace researchers full access to their facilities. And the media would be tripping over themselves to publish their findings. And Greenpeace is dangerous. Can I live in your world?
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
Clean energy would be unnecessary, because as far as I've been able to figure, Greenpeace wants the human race to simply all die. No energy required after that.
Greenpeace call the French authorities and told them that they'd sent guys sneaking into the nuke plants.
The French authorities then told their snipers to stand down, and allowed the Greenpeace guys to finish their climb and deploy their banner before the French arrested them.
So, they were saved from being put in boxes for return to next-of-kin by a timely phone call by Greenpeace types who were NOT willing to risk their own asses to pull this stunt.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
In Soviet Russia the nuclear reactor Hey Easy's you.
Since a law passed in 2009, it's the responsability of special teams of the Gendarmerie called peloton spécialisé de protection de la gendarmerie, trained by National Gendarmerie Intervention Group to secure special site like nuclear plant.
The question is why did they not intervene? Officially they are saying it's because they recognized it was some GP activists and as such did nothing. Sounds like a huge BS to me. There is some history between the French government and Greenpeace which demonstrate the French could be more than happy to shoot, and the role of such special team would have to intervene in some way.
Anyway Kudos to GP.
--- Bouh !!! ---
This does suggest that the plant's security was inadequate and you can do some serious damage to equipment outside of containment.
However, with jackass stunts like this, Greenpeace discredits the whole environmental movement as the ignorant nutbars they tend to be. If they cared about the planet, they should be promoting nuclear power, not fighting it.
in a world where nuclear power plants don't have half-assed security. Call me crazy.
To be effective, regulators must have an adversarial relationship with those they regulate. When that's gone, you get Deepwater Horizon, or Fukishima. I agree Greenpeace shouldn't be doing this kind of thing, but unfortunately they're all we've got since federal regulators crawled into industry's bed. I don't know if the same is true in France, but I'd be surprised it it wasn't.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Sounds like proper hacking protocol to me. You don't necessarily balk at doing something dangerous to yourself, but you take sensible precautions.
I think most of us wouldn't see anything intrinsically immoral about, say, experimenting with homemade explosives, so long as the risks are borne by the person doing the experiment. Not taking reasonable precautions to protect yourself would be stupid, and inconsiderate at the very least of whoever has to scrape up your remains.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Seems to me that this will end up being good for nuclear power.
In all likely hood, security will now get better, no radiation was leaked, and nothing was blown up. Not only that, but some greenpeace protesters will probably get lumped in with terrorists as far as law enforcement is concerned from now on. Overall, I'd say greenpeace is doing Nuclear Regulatory Commission work for them...
Sniping people should NOT be the first response. This is France, not some hellhole governed by a warlord.
Dilbert RSS feed
...a terrorist attack on a coal station doesn't have the potential to render a huge piece of real estate uninhabitable for generations. Not to mention the effects on those currently inhabiting said real estate.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Not able =! Don't want to go the way of frontiersman "step on my lawn and I'll kill you" America.
You can go two ways about security. First is to just wall everything important up, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (in turn creating more of those who will storm your walls, requiring more walls..). That is the path that USA and many third world countries choose, because it's the fairly cheap way of doing it, especially when you only care about a few percent of wealthy who can afford the walls and guards.
Other way is to control what happens before people who actually do mean harm ever get to the plant. That is the way used in Europe in general. Society lives in a more happy and to extent more controlled way of life, and as a result people who want to be terrorists stand out badly and get nailed before the act. That's why Breivik et al are rare exceptions to the rule, and why we have a whole lot less crime while having a whole lot less prisoners at the same time. Just recently after Breivik we had a big wave of even more scrutiny over "what comes in" in Europe, with arrests of people ordering "strangely big portions of fertiliser". And as investigation has showed, Breivik had a ridiculous amount of luck on his side, coming close to being found out several times during his preparations, because he really stood out with his bomb making antics even in very sparsely populated rural Norway and being very smart and cautious.
Now imagine someone trying to do the same in much more populated rural France. Security forces will have your ass before you get your bomb half done because you'll stand out. That is if european ETA-like terrorists will have not get you first for indiscriminate targeting that would harm their currently widespread agenda of "kill only certain politicians, cause maximum property damage and avoid damage to civilians at all costs".
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant"? Reactor? It's solid steel - there are no welding seams. You'll need a shitload of explosives, and some way of actually strapping them onto the reactor vessel to do the damage to it, not to mention that blowing it up... will terminate criticality so all you get is localized spread of fissile material from reactor as far as your bomb can carry it which will usually mean inside the reactor building meaning just to get fissile materials out, you'll have to raze that too. Better bring many truckloads of high explosives. Cooling systems? Reactor will just be scrambled with boric acid and all the damage you do will be limited to having to get a new reactor vessel. This is one of the parts that many anti-nuclear "but TERRORISTS" people like to ignore - nuclear power plant is just not an attractive target for indiscriminate bombing - especially since there are far, FAR easier targets to bomb if you want to cause massive mayhem, such as large population centers.
I was expecting, "French army surrenders to Greenpeace..."
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
The French surrendered to the Greenpeace invading forces.
So maybe for once they could take all this money from donations and build say a windfarm and sell clean electric energy to people?
Guess what Greenpeace Germany is doing!
Any airport in europe, break down any of the secure doors and count how many people subduing you will not have guns.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm sorry, but breaking into a nuclear plant should equal automatic sentence of federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant". Assuming it is not passive-safe:
a) diesel backup generators
b) electric lines bringing in external power
c) generators
to cause a station blackout as in Fukushima.
d) waste storage
This assumes a suicide squad since it's likely they'd be surrounded.
#d is to make it unlikely that authorities will enter in order to ascertain that a,b,c have been compromised
I don't give up hope that there are people out there who know about the origin of sabotage from reading (p.e. Gibson/Sterling's The Difference Engine) instead of Star Trek marathons.
I had no recollection of Sabotage and the origin of the word being in a Star Trek episode. I knew this from studying French and the little bit of French history where striking workers threw their shoes into machinery to bring the machinery to a halt.
In the US we learn (or at least used to) the word in elementary school during social studies (history) when we get to the part about the industrial revolution. That incident was one of several that occurred across the industrializing nations, this one happened to be more visually evocative and happened to be in France. Its a notable event in world history, its not really specific to French history.
First of all, I hope they got irradiated.
Second, no where in the article does it stay how far into the reactor facility they got. Merely having access to the premises is a bad enough breech, but I highly doubt they got through to any really sensitive area where controls could be accessed. I'm pretty sure if I tried my luck getting into a number of any type of secure facilities, I'd eventually find success. This should not be surprising.
What a good idea it is, however, to have regular, random pen tests for all facilities like these. This is about the only thing this accomplished aside from scaring a bunch of people who were already frightened by the word "nuclear" and know absolutely nothing about physical security.
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Just one example: GreenFreeze tecnology
If brown people did it they'd be labelled terrorists and any associated organization would be a terrorist organization. Frankly I would agree with them as well. Yet I bet these fellas wont be in trouble.
Nuclear power is one of the less polluting ways to get energy out there. Yet they protest against it. Guess they would be more happy with coal plants.
Actually during the 60s and 70s various European green and peace movements were infiltrated and indirectly funded by the Soviet Union in an attempt to weaken the resolve of western europe. Nuclear power got caught in that propaganda. Interestingly the former Soviets running Russia are pretty happy with the current course, the likely result is western europe becoming dependent upon Russian natural gas.
Well, maybe you could just shut up, stop stuffing your fat ass with chips, stop driving SUVs and use the amount of energy that you can produce without raping the environment?
Or wait a minute... You are saying I can just take any resources that I need? I'll come by your house and fucking excavate!
Have you been to France lately? It's as third world as London is!
Sniping people should NOT be the first response.
Yeah, they should definitely let terrorists get into the reactor and blow it up rather than risk shooting a lefty retard who's out for a publicity stunt.
No, the other side would have seized the opportunity for publicity:
Terrorist attack on nuclear facility foiled
"Lame" - Galaxar
The story was posted on Al Jazera, this is obviously a ploy to get sleeper terrorist cells to attempt to breach the plants.
Had there been armed guard sharpshooters stationed there and knocked off a few Greenpeace people. Nothing like domestic terrorists causing trouble...world can use a few less.
..where people think that exposing software security flaws in order to fix them is good, but complain about the "ugly hippies" who expose a security flaw in a nuclear power plant.
If they used the money that way, I doubt they'd get the donations they get now.
So they do what they're good at, and that's bringing public attention to matters they deem important.
Like it or not, but don't tell them what to do; if you don't like what they do, then simply do not donate.
For the record, I would love to see my country become more like Western Europe or Japan than the picture of a nightmarish future USA/world it is today.
Power generation and transmision installations are key to the security and welfare of people, so if decent people, untrained managed to break the security of a nuclear power station what could have been done by trained enemies that intended to do damage? The problem is that the managers of Fukushima and the managers of EDF can't understand that the whole power plant complex is necessary for the proper security of the power station. If they don't see it that way then they will begin to cut corners until the security of the critical parts become irremediably compromised, just like it has been demonstrated in this case and in the case of Fukushima Daichi. The effects, of course, are not comparable, but this breach and the disaster of Fukushima are things that simply shouldn't never have happened.
Best regards
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
A little to the north Sweden has been doing the same thing. Old nuclear power plants get shuttered, new ones cannot be built... but the Finns are happily keeping theirs running and selling the excess electricity to make up the shortfall.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Nominate parent for most ignorant post on subject.
Wreck the cooling system, dude. Just like at Fukushima. Wreck all the backup diesel generators. Blow up a couple of the towers connecting the plant to the grid. Screw with the spent-fuel storage. Rip out all the wiring you can find. Have the suicide squad find radioactives and sprinkle them around everywhere. Set some smoky fires and leave cyanide gas generators behind.
Did you sleep through Fukushima?
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/
..not the nuclear physics. I kinda thought this way before, but reading http://www.gregpalast.com/vulturespicnic/ really exposed the problems. That book gave me some understanding on why greenpeace pulls these stunts, which always felt a bit silly to me.
Now if they could conway the message that the problemis the companies, not some inherent problem with he physics.
did Greenpeace attach a bomb to the underside of the reactor's hull and sink it in an NZ port?
sag
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
If they care about the planet so much maybe they should invest some money, hire some scientists, develop new technologies and fix something for a change instead of protesting pointlessly.
So maybe for once they could take all this money from donations and build say a windfarm and sell clean electric energy to people?
But wait, I bet they are protesting those as well.
Your're so wrong. Please inform yourself before complaining about their actions. In fact they are selling pollution-free energy for years.
See (in English): http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/sonstiges/gpe_A-brief-introduction.pdf and http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/fileadmin/docs/sonstiges/gpe_factsheet.pdf
That paticular piece almost entirely lifted from some crap written by Alex Gabbard and marks a very low point for Scientific American. If you had actually read and understood it you would not be using it as an example of anything other than bullshit for hire.
Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?
Gazprom is known to give money to Greenpeace, thus we see them attacking every usable energy source except for natural gas. Corruption infects whole societies (including Greenpeace), not just selected groups (eg. banksters, government). Theories like generational dynamics quite well explain why is it so (and explains why things in general will get much worse before they'll get better).
While I agree that current (that is, 50-years old) nuclear reactor designs are inherently dangerous, my question is why research & development of nuclear reactors nearly halted in 70's. Don't tell me about that Three Mile Island incident (and then Chernobyl) is the only cause of this. Part of it might be that both US and USSR stopped developing more and more powerful bombs and moved into different fields (eg. star wars project pursued by Reagan administration). But htat's not all. My (somewhat conspiracy) theory is that progress in this field has been deliberately stopped (eg. molten salt reactor designs - see ORNL fiasco). Should I be greenpeace activist, I would push for modernisation/rebuild/securing of nuclear facilities and ask inconvenient questions about ties of oil/coal industry with (lack of) progress in this field, indirect subsidies to both coal and oil (tax breaks, military support in many regions, breaks from environmental protections), artificially lowering energy cost (and thus making alternate energy sources unprofitable) and corruption inside nuclear industry itself (ignoring safety concerns - you know - 'cost cuts'; corruption in NRC - covering up security issues instead of enforcing them; selling old, expensive+profitable designs instead of less expensive and less profitable [like: molten salt reactors?]).
Regarding Greenpeace: it's been started for noble causes 40 years ago, but now it is just another corrupt political organization, not different from republicans, democrats or any other political party. In their 'fight' against nuclear energy itself they focus on banning it and actively cut off any discussion about safer designs. No arguments needed - removing inconvenient posts from their forums seems to be fine for them. If censoring of (inconvenient), then I see no sense in arguing with them on any topic - its either corruption of sect-like behaviour (which boils down to corruption at the top of said sect). Now let's look at other fields of their activity. Al Gore and carbon credits fiasco: they've helped Al pushing carbon credits scam down our throats which is bad for two reasons: it's a financial scam and it does not solve (very real) AGW problem at all. Regarding Gazprom and Greenpeace - they conveniently ignore environmental impact of extracting gas in Siberia and actively help to make Europe fully dependent on russian gas (by blocking efforts to develop / maintain any other energy sources in european countries). Last example: look how silent they were when BP/Gulf of Mexico fiasco broke off: only after enough people noticed and started asking why greenpeace does'nt react, they've managed to organize one or two silly 'protests' to shut everybody up.
To sum this up. Current nuclear designs are dangerous indeed, but we should NOT rely on Greenpeace help in solving this problem. They're utterly corrupt, corporate-sponsored organization and should be perceived the same as banksters, most politicians and most or our lovely corporate overlords.
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
Clean energy would be unnecessary, because as far as I've been able to figure, Greenpeace wants the human race to simply all die. No energy required after that.
Your comment is just trolling. No serious arguing.
Oddly enough nuclear fuel is made by digging up huge amounts of rock and then refining it a great deal to produce the highly concentrated fuel. There's nothing "clean" about it or really any other way to generate electricity. At some Uranium mines there are major problems with contaminated water for instance.
There is no free lunch.
The French have shot protesters over the years including anti-nuclear protesters. It is not the USA.
Come to think of it, they bombed a Greenpeace ship and killed a photographer by using the popular terrorist trick of having a second set of delayed charges designed to kill whoever turned up to look at the damage from the first one. Two French agents were convicted of that but only served about a year of their life sentence.
They hardly contribute to the creation of new energy sources. There has been a documentary on WiSo, here is the gist of it (german sorry): http://www.dailygreen.de/2011/11/03/wiso-okostrom-anbieter-fordern-kaum-die-energiewende-in-deutschland-28318.html
something clever to make me stand out!
Many nuclear central you can go easily outside the containment building, heck many are not even protected agaisnt a truck full with explosive. The things is, the truck full of explosive or even the human going outside would not be able to do a lot of damage. The really sensible zone , like battery , pump, circulations, and controls are what's guarded 24/7. The rest isn't sensible but still taken.
If the only two option you see to protect something are:
1) Sniping
2) Do nothing
Remember me no to hire you as a security guard.
Dilbert RSS feed
Well, technically while "disaster of Fukushima is a thing that should never have happened", before that I'd think of "safety measures for tsunami and earthquake around Sendai should have been better".
You have to remember, they lost over 30.000 people, took a shitload of property damage, huge regions of country were flooded leaving many homeless and jobless and so on. Fukushima, while nasty, hasn't been in the same league, or hell, even same game when it comes to sheer destructiveness. That is what caused the difficulty in getting reactor cooled after everything shut down after tsunami hit - complete devastation of infrastructure in tens of kilometers around Fukushima. Not the Fukushima itself.
I think it's time you picked IAEA's report on what exactly went wrong in Fukushima. It's a pretty good debunk of everything you imagine that will happen. Because even if you "wreck" all of the aforementioned systems simultaneously, people will just pull new cables in a matter of hours, as surrounding infrastructure will not be devastated by massive flooding and earthquake damage.
Seriously, do you even understand how much of an undertaking hauling enough explosives AND chemical weapon dispersal systems you want along would be? These guys basically climbed over the damn fence and sat in the yard, far away from any important systems. You'd need to essentially hit all the control rooms at the same time to prevent reactor scramble, hold it long enough to rig explosives where you need, time your explosives well enough to cause damage you want, and during all this time hold the station against special forces and the army storming it..
I didn't read TFA, but the summary hints that Greenpeace are not protesting against the plant itself or even nuclear power but at the lack of security which could prevent more potential disasters. This seems completely reasonable and unlike most protests we associate with such organisations and Greenpeace should be commended as an example to the activists that go over the top by trying to ban a video game simply for featuring a racoon hat.
I can agree with Greenpeace that nuclear is kinda itchy stuff - lots of shit can go wrong. However, there's lot of research in nuke field and LFTR (aka Liquid fluoride thorium reactor) are kinda hopeful stuff. No one knows if it turns out to "good guy" and saveour of our energy needs, but I would be very happy to Greenpeace express some sense and support less harmful and potentially dangerous nuclear energy ways. However, they deny all nuclear outright even without slipping into discussion. And that's hurts, because there's lot of stuff I and Greenpeace can fully agree with.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
White cotton-padded clothes with replica Gucci handbags
White cotton-padded clothes with little black ribbons, and add white hat the plush makes the whole dress is very lovely. With a black skirt and furry high with boots, the autumn change do a lovely girl. If you think waking too depressing and drab coat, so this winter, you can in your coat take the small state of mind, as long as add a collars can present a completely different style tide, both keep warm and do not break luxuriant gas, lovely elegant style is made easily. The replica GUCCI medium tote is a nice handbag , this replica GUCCI handbags is the bag with detachable pocket beige/ebony GG fabric with light brown leather trim , its outside has light gold hardware and detachable leather zip-top pocket with embossed vintage gucci trademark. There are double braided handles with 20 cm drop , you could carry this replica GUCCI handbags on hand , it is deserve for you have one.
Pics or it didn't happen ;)
The plant security must be pretty poor to let this happen, but who deserves at least equal shame is Greenpeace, who is doing a very effective job of getting roughly carbon-neutral nuclear plants shut down and replaced with eco-friendly COAL. Great work guys, great work, as usual. *slow clap*
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I am sure that will win them friends. Hey world, we lit a nuke on Dayton to show how unsafe it is, don't you love us now?
>> How long would it take to actually penetrate the containment building?
It's not needed to penetrate the containment to show that security is zero
It's not needed to penetrate the containment to sabotage a nuke plant.
The most vulnerable part is the wires running in open shafts. damage them, and you have a time bomb. You will even not be catched, because everybody will fight the melting reactor.
aaaaaaa
Have you ever tried to damage a coal or hydro plant ?
Whatever you do in a hydro plant, you CANNOT flood an entire region (except if you bring in a few tons of explosives)
On the other side, with nuke, any small error can make a country inhabitable for thousands of years. all you need to do is damage a sensor and it's backup, and control is lost.
aaaaaaa
>> No risk to security.
Wrong
Most of the critical stuff is outside the containment as well.
The containment is designed to contain radioactivity inside, not as a security fend.
aaaaaaa
Whatever you do in a hydro plant, you CANNOT flood an entire region
ok.
You can't handle the truth.
I heard it wasn't a tongue in the cheek..
Even if that's the case, it's proof that all you need to do is claim to be activists just hanging a sign to get in. I'd call that lax security!
"I was there in the immediate aftermath and people had to cut down energy usage, but the country coped."
Yes. For awhile. Do you think that Japan can really survive, and feed it's current population, if they have to dramatically reduce power consumption basically forever?
Well, you say, Wind and Solar. Ok, so Japan is a relatively small and densely populated island nation. Their ability to build wind and solar on-shore is very limited. So, that means offshore. Building things off-shore is very, very expensive, which means the power produced by off-shore wind (or solar; although I don't think I've ever heard of an off-shore solar project, but I suppose it would be perfectly possible with enough money) would be very expensive power.
Japan, in order to feed and provide for itself, from what I've heard, depends pretty heavily on industrial exports to make money which they can then trade for food and resources/materials. If your power is more expensive than most other nations, how will you be able to produce goods for export at a price that most other nations are willing to pay?
For example, according to Wikipedia's page on Cost of Electricity By Source, on-shore wind is the only form of renewable energy which is projected to be cost competitive with coal, gas, or nuclear.
A useful sampling of info from that page:
advanced nuclear: $113.9/mWh
On-shore wind: $97/mWh
Off-shore wind: $243.2/mWh
At twice as much cost as "too expensive" (at least, that's what a lot of anti-nuke pro-renewables advocates try to say) nuclear, off-shore wind really seems like a non-starter for Japan.
There's one other factor which I'm pretty sure is not even reflected in the above figures. . . In order to get more than 20% of your power from renewables, you MUST, MUST implement large-scale energy storage solutions. There's some companies working on ideas on how to do this (compressed gas, flywheels, and molten salts are three interesting looking approaches). I have no idea what it'll cost to implement massive amounts of energy storage, but I'm sure it can't be cheap.
It'll be interesting to see. I'd love to be wrong - I'd love for Japan, and the rest of the world to be able to generate sufficient supplies of power, at competitive/affordable prices, from renewable power. I just don't see how you make that happen.
One possibility which, I dunno why, but for some reason, often isn't discussed is "Enhanced Geothermal Power". Perhaps Japan can implement EGP on a large scale - although, since they are already one of the most tectonically active places on earth, they probably don't want to risk triggering *more* earthquakes by trying to do EGP, or at least it might be politically unpopular because of fear, even if it isn't a real threat.
This is very impressive, I really applaud this initiative by German Greenpeace. I wish they did such constructive things in other countries as well.
Same for GreenFreeze effort. But why is it that only Germans do something positive?
A nuclear plant is a big thing. Unless you establish a huge perimeter and monitor it then it is going to be hard to station enough people to overcome a significant number of attackers without the use of lethal force.
Snipers have the advantage of being able to delay or stop a much larger force while alerting the plant and not being at much risk of counter-attack.
Random guard patrols require a lot more people to cover the same area as a guy in a tower, and if one or two guards run into 15 intruders (possibly armed), those guards could be overpowered if they just engage them. A sniper can fire without much risk of counter-attack unless the intruders have fairly heavy weaponry.
Nuclear power plants are serious business - while I agree that law enforcement should show restraint we're not talking about a few vandals breaking into a shopping mall. A sniper might only have 100 yards before an intruder can break inside a building and be harder to reach, and once somebody is inside it only takes a little explosive in the right place to create big problems. Unless the exterior doors are designed to resist breaching it wouldn't take long for somebody determined to get inside - presumably they're carrying explosives to do damage to the interior, so sticking a bomb on a door isn't a big deal.
Unless you establish a huge perimeter and monitor it then it is going to be hard to station enough people to overcome a significant number of attackers without the use of lethal force.
Then do establish a huge perimeter and monitor it. And use something better than a simple fence around it. If you force the attacker to blow up a piece of wall to enter the perimeter, you've established that he's dangerous and using lethal force makes sense. If your obstacle can be bypassed with a pair of pliers, you have no idea if you're dealing with a real threat or not.
Dilbert RSS feed
What amazes me is that it wasn't the outcome. Here in Mexico in far less sensitive power installations but still related to national security the detachment in charge will fill the body of pranksters with lead, and that was before the security situation became as bad it is now. So if the French are not able to secure nuclear sites, then at least they should drop the security theater in airports, since is clear that they don't care about security.
Yeah, eveyone's going to be impressed with security advice from someone whose country has had 40,000 gang related murders in the last five years.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Sniping people should NOT be the first response.
Yeah, they should definitely let terrorists get into the reactor and blow it up rather than risk shooting a lefty retard who's out for a publicity stunt.
If you can't differentiate between a peaceful protester and a terrorist, you shouldn't be working in law enforcement, security or the military, at least in any sort of democracy.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
Why don't you show me the clean energy research and development that large multinational corporations do? They're the ones who can afford to, them and government.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
as far as I've been able to figure, Greenpeace wants the human race to simply all die.
Would you kindly share your references for this statement?
Oh, sorry, no you can't because you just made it up.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
We had 2 attacks from Zetas and guerrillas in oil installations around 3 years ago. They have been stopped since these installations are under surveillance of a fleet of drones made in Israel and USA and army detachments. The narco war was begun by american imposed drunken moron SOB, at the beginning only as a mean to start a propaganda war, but now it is being used as a mean to sink more the country in a semi colonial state. USA's TSA and customs agents supervise our main airports and ports since 2008, so, if the flow of drugs and the killings didn't stop is because some guys in Washington don't want to stop it.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
How do you make a wall that requires the use of explosives to scale? Or, is there some minimum amount of fuss that you need to make somebody go through before suddenly protesters will have no qualms with being shot?
Why not just have a simple fence with big signs saying "yes, we see you standing here, and as soon as we see you standing on the other side of this fence we'll pull the triggers on the guns already pointed at you?"
Or, better still, "Danger - minefield."
There will always be something more that could have been done to prevent people from being shot by security forces. The problem becomes how much money do you want to spend extending the life expectancy of troublemakers?
So tell me this: a group of foolish fourteen year olds get a tool from their father's, cut the fence and approach the building. What do you do? Snipe them?
Assuming everyone is an intelligent adult that can fully comprehend the risks by simply reading a sign is absolutely foolish. You *need* some sort of obstacle that only someone with the intent of doing real damage can overcome it, so that you can approach anyone who does as a real threat. Otherwise the potential for collateral damage is too great.
Dilbert RSS feed
So tell me this: a group of foolish fourteen year olds get a tool from their father's, cut the fence and approach the building. What do you do? Snipe them?
Suppose a foolish fourteen year old decides to blindfold himself and run into traffic? They end up injured or dead. Fourteen year olds understand this, which is why they don't do it. If tales were circulating the local middle school about the kid who was killed last year for climbing the fence then chances are nobody else would try it.
Kids have a remarkable ability to avoid death (usually). That's why most of us are still here.
You *need* some sort of obstacle that only someone with the intent of doing real damage can overcome it, so that you can approach anyone who does as a real threat. Otherwise the potential for collateral damage is too great.
Propose such an obstacle. You suggested a wall - but fourteen year olds can steal ladders and climb walls.
I'm fine with having some kind of perimeter so that blind people don't inadvertently walk into the minefield or whatever. However, I really don't see much value in coddling people out to make trouble. You can protest on wall street all you want (and I'd even let you do it ON wall street and perhaps join you), but if you want to sneak into a reactor or missile silo or whatever then you become an example to the next person who wants to try it.
You can spend a ton of money idiot-proofing something, and then somebody else will just come along and build a better idiot.