Media after NUKES - Again!

by Amazing 10 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Amazing

  After 9-11 events, the media, mostly CNN, made sensationalistic claims about American nuclear power plants, some of which were blantant lies or braindead journalists.

  I posted the following in response:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=13956&site=3#166901\

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=15287&site=3#184257

  Now FOX News is doing much the same thing: I normally like Fox News, unlike CNN, because it seems more balanced. Nevertheless, they must have hired the same brain-dead journalists to do yet ANOTHER NUCLEAR SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF THE PUBLIC STORY.

  They target Indian Point plant near New York City (33 miles away frm downtown). This plant is even safer because it sits right on the water's edge, and can shut down and bring the plant to a safe condition with plenty of extra cooling water.

  What if Fox's little plane could have dropped a BIG BAD BOMB right on the Indian Point Dome? So what!? At the moment of explosion, the plant would SCRAM and shut down safely. There would NOT be major radio active fallout ... at best the 3 mile zone might be evacuated, but that is mostly for precautionary purposes and to make sure idiots stay away from the plant.

  Why would a Big Bomb not hurt the Dome?: The typical containment dome is 12 to 15 feet thick, and are designed to withstand a direct hit from aircraft going 550+ miles per hour. A Big Bomb would have to be so big that it would destrpy everthing instantly ... but, if the Bad Guys have such a bomb, they don't need to mess with a Nuke Plant, they can just detonate it in New York City and cause much more panic and harm. Why? Because it would take Nuke Bomb to do what they wold need to do to a Nuclear Power Plant.

  What does surprise me, and is a legitimate discovery by Fox is: The FAA, and DOD, and the new Homeland Defense Dept. eliminated the NO-FLY Zone near nuclear plants. I am not concerned with terrorists making an air attack, because they obviously have enough information to know that it is a stupid act that will not work ... but the government needs to keep the No-Fly Zones in place to keep the idiots in our own country from spreading sensationalistic fear.

  Anyway, I just hate this scare tactic stuff ... and that makes me want to puke when they spread crap about nukes.
• 

  Francois

  I agree totally. I despise scare tactics and the hypocrits who use them. Here's another example. Every time there is a national election, more so in presidential election years, marginally less in off-year elections, the democrat party does all it can to scare the bejesus out of the wrinkled class that the mean, nasty ol' republicans are goin' to take away their social security benefits. All of 'em. They'll have to go live under bridges.

  The dems have been doing this since christ was a corporal. Result? Nothing. At no time have the hated republican party even made a move in the direction of eliminating social security.

  And the biggest part of this lie is that the dems allow the wrinkled ones to believe that there is this big pile of money over at Treasury just waiting on them to get old enough to start getting their money back, money that has been confiscated from them their entire lives. No such thing. The only thing that Treasury's got over there is a big, big IOU from the congress.

  Social security is without doubt the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the American people; one huge ponzi scheme. What is the most you can get per month out of ss? Something like $1,985 or close to it.

  Remember what happened to Galveston, TX (I think it was) who, years ago withdrew from the ss system, recognizing it for what it was? Galveston set up their own retirement system which was to invest the money in the stock and bond markets. They hired a sharp guy to manage it for them.

  Now people are beginning to retire from working for Galveston. Guess what their benefits are a month? Go on. Guess. Remember SS produces, say, two grand a month. Have you guessed? If you guessed somewhere around $6,600 a month, you'd be right. That's about $80,000 a year in retirement income. And social security? $24,000 a year. I'm impressed.

  What has the government of this country ever put its hands on that didn't turn immediately to shit? Name me one thing. What power has it ever been given that it did not abuse? Again. Name me just one thing. Just one.

  Francois
• 

  Amazing

  Hey Francois: You speaketh my tongue !!! Great points about Social Security ... Even if government just left it to people to place it in a secured annuity or in REITS, then the fund would grow the same, but avoid the 'Liberal' scare tactic regarding the Stock market. Thanks again.
• 

  sf

  Eventually, they all kiss Rockefellers ass.
  "ANOTHER NUCLEAR SCARE THE CRAP OUT OF THE PUBLIC STORY."

  Exactly what the media is Designed to Do. Amazing, isn't It?

  Keywords for the engines: Rockefeller-msnbc-mind control-elite media...throw freemasonry in for good measure.

  sKally, not a rocket scientist....Still!

  Message to Ted and his Crooklyn "Dodgers":

  If man was supposedly created in gods image, then.....holy krap...we're all doomed.-sKallyWagger

  “What a blessing such integrity keepers are to the congregation!”(5/15/02 WT magazine, pg. 27)
• 

  Francois

  Right you are Amazing. Just think of the implications of your statement: We all WOULD be better off if the government would just leave us all the fuck alone.

  Francois
• 

  Xander

  The typical containment dome is 12 to 15 feet thick, and are designed to withstand a direct hit from aircraft going 550+ miles per hour.

  Just FYI, there are a number of bombs in the military inventory that would punch through that fairly easily. No, they are not nuclear. And no, they would not do more damage if dropped in a city - they certainly do not cause nuclear-sized damage. For example, the BLU-113 (GBU-28 -> sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete), BLU-109, and GBU-24. Obviously, the Russians also have corresponding weapons.

  Xander F
  (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  VM44

  Hi Amazing

  This is off the main subject of the thread, but when I found
  this on the internet, and knowing you were trained in nuclear
  engineering, I thought you mind like to look at it.

  "The High Energy Weapons Archive
  A Guide to Nuclear Weapons"
  [ http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html]

  There is a FAQ available in a zip file.
  [ http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Nwfaq/Nwfaq.zip]

  which contains sections such as:

  2.0 Introduction to Nuclear Weapon Physics and Design
  3.0 Matter, Energy, and Radiation Hydrodynamics
  4.0 Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons

  which might be of interest to someone who likes technical
  details.

  --VM44
• 

  Amazing

  HI Xander and VM44: First, the bombs you mention that can penetrate 28 ft of concrete are bunker bombs. The containment design is not constructed the same way as a bunker. The rebar configuration and special type of concrete will withstand tremendious force. The test conducted used a wall that was only 1/4 the thickness of a standard containment wall ... and the aircraft disintegrated into dust, while the wall only had some minor surface scratches. A Bunker Bomb might very well cause greater damage, the plant wuold have time to bring itself to a safe condition.

  Thanks VM for the references to various nuclear powers. Many people falsely believe that nuclear power plants can blow up like a nuclear bomb. They cannot. The fears promoted by the media are because the journalists are ignorant, or deliberately evade the truth to sell sensationalism.

  I might add a new post about the differences between nuclear bombs and nuclear power reactors ... and the difference in radioactive materials.
• 

  Xander

  that can penetrate 28 ft of concrete are bunker bombs

  And, what? The military doesn't harden it's C&C facilities as much as a nuke plant? Uhhh....RIGHT.....

  In point of fact, these are the very weapons that the military planned on using to take out enemy nuke plants in the event of a regional war.

  A Bunker Bomb might very well cause greater damage

  Might very well?!?!? That's an understatement! Trust me, a BLU-113 would have *no problem* punching through to the reactor core.

  Many people falsely believe that nuclear power plants can blow up like a nuclear bomb

  I thought everyone knew that. The danger is in kicking the radioactive material into the air from the bomb's explosion. Very, VERY limited area would thus be affected (the bomb would be going off above the rods, in fact forcing most of the radioactive material down rather than up).

  It still would be a mess, and about as widespread an effect as terrorists could possibly hope to accomplish with conventional weapons. (Of course, that is assuming they get a penetrator that big, and the aircraft to deliver it - a Cessna just couldn't carry any bomb big enough)

  Xander F
  (Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America - Ohio order)

  A fanatic is one who, upon losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.
  --George Santayana
• 

  Amazing

  Xander: Military bunkers are built to withstand a lot. I am not questioning that the bunker bombs can take out various designs. But, you statement that they would have no problem punching through to the reactor core tells me that you are not familiar with reactor and containment design.

  In PWR's the Dome is the Secondary Containment. Primary Containment houses the reactor vessel. The Vessel itself is a containment that houses the reactor core. The fuel is housed in fuel rod that also act as a containment.

  IN a BWR, there are the plant building of concrete and steel, the Secondary Containment houseing the primary containment. The primary houses the reactor vessel and boiler/steam generator.

  My Point: A bunker bomb would destroy these outter containments, but the plant would be able to Scram into a safe shutdown position.

  American Security: Terrorists would be, and are, hard pressed to get a hold of these types of weapons. For if they had them, they would have already used them. Then, they would have to be able to load it onto a plane that could carry and deliver the ordinance to its target. If they used a military plane capable of this, they would again be hardpressed to fine one, and get close enough to deliver the bomb. Also, if they missed their target, which is likely unless they have the type of aircraft that will aloow proper delivery, and the training necessary to deliver it on target, they stanbd a chance of never hitting the containment. If they reached the containment, they would need to be able to deliver at least two bombs minimum to reach the reactor vessel. It would likely take another third bomb to break open the vessel.

  The ONLY nuclear plant ever bombed in history was done by the Israelis when they bombed an Iraqi plant while under construction. It took several bombing raids to do significant damage ... to an incomplete plant.

  I am not suggesting that it cannot ever be done, rather, I am saying that the vessel could be shut down safely before serious damage is done. And as you state, if the bomb drive the vessel down into the ground, that is ever better ... and my point that the media is scaring the public with sensationalism is made.