You know Marc, Your attempt to perpetuate the public sector belief that nuclear reactors are crash proof is nearly criminal.
Yes, they were designed for greater stresses than a parking garage. Yes, some consideration in design were included in a few to theoretically counter earthquake or some level of human attack.. But to use such mis-leading phrases as safe from attack as "the Matterhorn" or "would have no effect whatever" are not only an insult to common sense but a gross infringement on reality. There is an enormous difference between the absorption and dissipation capacity of a broad and thickly solid object such as the Matterhorn and the relatively narrow and hollow structure of a containment building. There also exists the enormous peculiarity as to why you opt to utilize the Trade Towers in your counter-intelligent dissuasions, rather than comparing the toll exacted upon the concrete reinforced Pentagon. The latter would most certainly be less self-serving and more revealing While most are in disbelief that any humans would initiate such devastation, many engineering professionals are amazed at the level of physical destruction effected by impacts and subsequent events, having never imagined that such subsequent events would transpire. This is already giving cause for many structural engineers to rethink their arrogant and decades old beliefs based upon their slide rule theoreticals and laboratory materials testing. Your expression of absolutes is a mirror of the typically "arrogant" response that engineers and other professional types usually give when their self-imposed deity status and infallibility is questioned, or worse yet - stripped away. It is one thing to prepare as best as possible for eventuality, with such efforts being commended. It is yet another to proclaim - as do you - that eventuality will never occur. Worse still, it is an insult to every fraction and fiber of intelligence and decency to proclaim or elude to something as being impossible, yet to fail to mention the risk assessment numbers assigned to the supposedly "impossible." Crap happens. Engineers and "authorities" are completely aware that crap happens. Yet getting self-deified engineering types to admit fallibility is perhaps the closest any human will ever get to a "zero possibility" event. Todd Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "... Mr. Clements said threats from the air -- such as missile attacks > and crashing airliners -- haven't been given much thought, and that > these installations are just as defenceless to such an attack as the > Pentagon and other office buildings." > > If he means defenseless in the sense of being unable to PREVENT attack, > then of course I must agree. But if he means unable to SURVIVE then he > is wrong. The conditions that containment are meant to survive are much > more stringent than an airliner impact. > > You need to understand that aircraft are not high-density objects - in > ordnance terms their ballistic coefficient is low. They HAVE to be light > in order to fly! In addition, they are frangible - they burst easily - > and most of their mass dissipates with the residual fuel, so they cannot > penetrate hard targets. The World Trade Towers were soft-shell targets, > and even they were not destroyed by impact, but by the subsequent fire. > A fire on the outside of a nuclear plant containment dome would have no > effect whatever except to scorch the shell and raise the temperature > inside by a few degrees. > > Marc de Piolenc ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> FREE COLLEGE MONEY CLICK HERE to search 600,000 scholarships! http://us.click.yahoo.com/47cccB/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Please do NOT send "unsubscribe" messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
