Nuke Power Plant Article in New Scientist
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nuke Power Plant Article in New Scientist
New scientist
Nuclear jet crash 'could kill millions'
By Rob Edwards
"Fears that the UK's nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11-style attack or accident are growing. Evidence is emerging that the no-fly zones around nuclear plants are regularly breached by both military and civilian aircraft. And a report for the UK parliament leaked to New Scientist says that such an attack might kill millions.
Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington DC, the area of the ban has been doubled to cover a radius of two nautical miles (3.7 kilometres). Planes also have to stay above a certain height, which varies for different sites.
But these restrictions have been flouted on numerous occasions. Over the past five years, the operators of 19 nuclear sites around Britain have lodged more than 100 complaints about aircraft flying too close. The sites include reactors and stores of radioactive waste or nuclear bombs.
Alleged breaches of no-fly zones around UK nuclear sites
Declassified reports from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal that there were 56 alleged breaches of the no-fly zones by military aircraft between 2000 and 2003.
Four of the complaints came from the MoD's own nuclear weapons sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, and at Faslane near Glasgow. Most of the other complaints were made by the government agencies and private companies that run the UK's civil nuclear programme.
The incidents include one on 24 April 2002, when a jet flew so close to the Torness reactors in East Lothian that it set off three intruder alarms on the perimeter fence. And on 10 June 2003 three military jets were seen rehearsing a flypast for the queen's birthday near the Sizewell reactors in Suffolk.
Hot air balloon
The MoD's internal investigations have confirmed only five breaches of the no-fly zones: three at Berleley in Gloucestershire, one at Torness and one at Dungeness in Kent. "We can only confirm that a breach has occurred when we have proof," an MoD spokesman says.
There have been 71 complaints of civilian aircraft breaching the no-fly zones since the beginning of 1999. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, there was only enough evidence to launch formal investigations in 12 cases, including three at Aldermaston, two at Burghfield and two at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Four investigations are ongoing, and there have been two successful prosecutions: one for a hot air balloon at Aldermaston in 2001 and the other for a powered hang-glider at Heysham nuclear station in Lancashire in 2003.
The breaches will do little to reassure the public that nuclear sites are adequately protected from a terrorist attack or an accidental aircraft crash. In 2002 the UK House of Commons Defence Committee requested a report on the risks of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, and the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology is due to publish its long-awaited reply in the next few weeks.
New Scientist has seen a copy of the report and can reveal that it says that a large plane crashing into a reactor could release as much radioactivity as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, while a crash into waste tanks at Sellafield in Cumbria could cause at worst, "several million fatalities".
Confidential information
The report acknowledges that the risks are difficult to assess because so much information - including operators' estimates of the health impacts of radiation releases - is kept secret.
But it concludes that it would be possible for terrorists to cause a radioactive release - and that the UK's current emergency arrangements may not be sufficient to cope.
"It is totally unacceptable that the information we need to judge the risks is kept confidential, and that we have to take so much on trust," says Llew Smith, a Welsh MP who has been investigating the risks of nuclear attacks by terrorists.
But the British Nuclear Group, which operates the Sellafield site, has dismissed the report's suggestion that flying a plane into the waste tanks might kill millions, saying the idea is implausible.
Smith says this attitude is dangerously misleading: "The consequences of deliberately crashing an aircraft into a nuclear plant would be horrific."
"
Tut tut.... Scare-mongering from such a venerable magazine....
Since when did ACCIDENTAL miltary aircraft incursions warrant labelling as a potential terrorist attack?
Nuclear jet crash 'could kill millions'
By Rob Edwards
"Fears that the UK's nuclear plants are vulnerable to a 9/11-style attack or accident are growing. Evidence is emerging that the no-fly zones around nuclear plants are regularly breached by both military and civilian aircraft. And a report for the UK parliament leaked to New Scientist says that such an attack might kill millions.
Since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington DC, the area of the ban has been doubled to cover a radius of two nautical miles (3.7 kilometres). Planes also have to stay above a certain height, which varies for different sites.
But these restrictions have been flouted on numerous occasions. Over the past five years, the operators of 19 nuclear sites around Britain have lodged more than 100 complaints about aircraft flying too close. The sites include reactors and stores of radioactive waste or nuclear bombs.
Alleged breaches of no-fly zones around UK nuclear sites
Declassified reports from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) reveal that there were 56 alleged breaches of the no-fly zones by military aircraft between 2000 and 2003.
Four of the complaints came from the MoD's own nuclear weapons sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield in Berkshire, and at Faslane near Glasgow. Most of the other complaints were made by the government agencies and private companies that run the UK's civil nuclear programme.
The incidents include one on 24 April 2002, when a jet flew so close to the Torness reactors in East Lothian that it set off three intruder alarms on the perimeter fence. And on 10 June 2003 three military jets were seen rehearsing a flypast for the queen's birthday near the Sizewell reactors in Suffolk.
Hot air balloon
The MoD's internal investigations have confirmed only five breaches of the no-fly zones: three at Berleley in Gloucestershire, one at Torness and one at Dungeness in Kent. "We can only confirm that a breach has occurred when we have proof," an MoD spokesman says.
There have been 71 complaints of civilian aircraft breaching the no-fly zones since the beginning of 1999. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, there was only enough evidence to launch formal investigations in 12 cases, including three at Aldermaston, two at Burghfield and two at Sellafield in Cumbria.
Four investigations are ongoing, and there have been two successful prosecutions: one for a hot air balloon at Aldermaston in 2001 and the other for a powered hang-glider at Heysham nuclear station in Lancashire in 2003.
The breaches will do little to reassure the public that nuclear sites are adequately protected from a terrorist attack or an accidental aircraft crash. In 2002 the UK House of Commons Defence Committee requested a report on the risks of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities, and the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology is due to publish its long-awaited reply in the next few weeks.
New Scientist has seen a copy of the report and can reveal that it says that a large plane crashing into a reactor could release as much radioactivity as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, while a crash into waste tanks at Sellafield in Cumbria could cause at worst, "several million fatalities".
Confidential information
The report acknowledges that the risks are difficult to assess because so much information - including operators' estimates of the health impacts of radiation releases - is kept secret.
But it concludes that it would be possible for terrorists to cause a radioactive release - and that the UK's current emergency arrangements may not be sufficient to cope.
"It is totally unacceptable that the information we need to judge the risks is kept confidential, and that we have to take so much on trust," says Llew Smith, a Welsh MP who has been investigating the risks of nuclear attacks by terrorists.
But the British Nuclear Group, which operates the Sellafield site, has dismissed the report's suggestion that flying a plane into the waste tanks might kill millions, saying the idea is implausible.
Smith says this attitude is dangerously misleading: "The consequences of deliberately crashing an aircraft into a nuclear plant would be horrific."
"
Tut tut.... Scare-mongering from such a venerable magazine....
Since when did ACCIDENTAL miltary aircraft incursions warrant labelling as a potential terrorist attack?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, mbga9pgf, the article shows entirely muddled thinking. How does a mandatory avoidance area, which, in this case, is designed to prevent the accidental collision of an aircraft with a nuclear installation, have any bearing on a potential terrorist act? Such avoidance regulations rely on aircrew adhering to them and, as we are all too aware, aircraft hijackers have an annoying habit of ignoring the finer points of flying regulations.
The only way to stop a terrorist ploughing an aircraft into a nuclear power station, a tower block or any other type of structure, is to prevent the aircraft being hijacked in the first place. You don't have to be scientist (new or old) to figure that one out.
The only way to stop a terrorist ploughing an aircraft into a nuclear power station, a tower block or any other type of structure, is to prevent the aircraft being hijacked in the first place. You don't have to be scientist (new or old) to figure that one out.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The scouse end of the M62
Age: 48
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.wise-paris.org/english/ou...ellafield3.pdf
This is an interesting read, although you do have to question the logic of including a detailed map in their report ?!?
This is an interesting read, although you do have to question the logic of including a detailed map in their report ?!?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article. Perhaps a good case could be made for saving some of those RAF Regt AD sqns and deploying them around Sellafield. How feasible would an up-to-date version of the barrage balloon be, as a defence measure for nuclear installations, at times of heightened threat? I read they proved highly effective during WW2. I still think hijack prevention is the only realistic defence.
Last edited by Scud-U-Like; 24th Aug 2004 at 20:42.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Danza, would agree. But, with many things, these individuals wish to fight Terrorists with one hand; yet they also give them information on a silver platter as illustrated above; the FOI act in my personal opinion will only make things FAR worse once people suss out the power that they can access. Unfortunately, the FOI act does not recognise that although a little information may seem inconspicuous in itself possibly verging on UNCLASS, when combined with lots of other little pieces of information, the picture can then begin to confer towards significant accurate assumptions... I fear this may cause us major problems in this new age of Freedom of Information.
All good giving honest members of the public snips of data, but when you consider data will be published academically and through national newspapers, those who are more unscrupulous will blatantly benefit... alas, only time will tell. Where did that PDF come from?
All good giving honest members of the public snips of data, but when you consider data will be published academically and through national newspapers, those who are more unscrupulous will blatantly benefit... alas, only time will tell. Where did that PDF come from?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other side of the coin, of course, is that suppressing FOI is often a convenient way for government to bury unpalatable (as opposed to sensitive) information. Let's not kid ourselves terrorists do not have sufficiently detailed technical knowledge to select those targets that are likely to cause maximum damage and disruption. In that respect, it's better to leave them in no doubt we know how they're thinking. Of course, I would never advocate disclosing substantive intelligence, but that's a different matter altogether and there are sufficient safeguards in FOI legislation to prevent such disclosure.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oxford
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least New Scientist printed my letter, in which I pointed out that their logic went:
An airliner hitting a nuclear plant could do lots of damage.
Some light aircraft/ballons and the odd fast jet sometimes bust the RA's around nuclear plant.
So there is a significant risk of lots of damage...
A microlight would hardly leave a scratch on a nuclear reactor shell, and even a Tornado wouldn't make much of a dent.
Tim
An airliner hitting a nuclear plant could do lots of damage.
Some light aircraft/ballons and the odd fast jet sometimes bust the RA's around nuclear plant.
So there is a significant risk of lots of damage...
A microlight would hardly leave a scratch on a nuclear reactor shell, and even a Tornado wouldn't make much of a dent.
Tim
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Under the FOI there is nothing to stop that very nice man in A********** asking where the juicy targets are and who makes the locks.
