Another black eye for GA

Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
we're dealing with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation. In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.



Exactly, as it diverts resources from dealing with real issues. This is
akin to yelling "FIRE" in a theatre.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road with _no_
oversight, do you?

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as
other utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned
and operated by private utilities.

Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road
with _no_ oversight, do you?

If whatever "oversight" that is imposed is insufficient to detect
situations that can lead to catastrophic failures, then what does it
matter? The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

I don't wish to be misunderstood... I am not against nuclear power. I *am*
very much against the deregulation of utilities (too late, though). And
I'm not under any illusions that our best interests are being protected in
any way by the way things are being done.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:

The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can explode?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:

Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can
explode?

I've always been under the impression that they certainly could, though
not in the same way a nuclear weapon does, i. e. a chain reaction
fission event.

Wasn't a mechanical pressure explosion possible, with the resultant
widespread release of radioactive material?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
ink.net...
Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
we're dealing with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation.

_relaxed_ , how?

I'd like to know your definition of "deregulation". Remember: The roughly
same poeple that regulate the nuclear industry also regulate avaition
safety. (shudder!!!)



In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

I'd heard something along that line -- do you have a reference with more
detail?


The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I know howthey're built...and you're right -- most of it is meaningless
scare tactics.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

"Bruce Bockius" wrote in message
om...
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

Would you elaborate on that (the nuclear part)?

Recently, Bruce Bockius posted:

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
have been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

Neil