|
|
Post by lighttraveller on Oct 12, 2012 3:59:59 GMT 9.5
This was mentioned on Facebook yesterday, with a link to the Greenpeace press release (at CommonDreams) -- with all the hysteria that you would expect, of course. Greenpeace activists got inside and went undetected for a day. They're claiming it "proves" that security is not sufficient. I've only found a couple of "real" news stories on it: www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/09/us-sweden-nuclear-activists-idUSBRE89814K20121009online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578046113803986042.htmlMy question: Does anyone know more about this incident? Particularly, did the activists get inside a containment building, or have access to any control rooms -- that is, were they really in any place where someone intent on causing damage could possibly have done so? Or is this just another case of Greenpeace doing what they do best? Just trying to arm myself with some facts and details, in case I end up in a discussion about it. |
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Oct 12, 2012 4:26:56 GMT 9.5
Does anyone know more about this incident? I do not know more than what the intl press said about it. But Greenpeace staged the same stunt (and others) in France a few months back. What they did is break into the NPP precinct, but not the buildings. In one case, they went on to climb on the reactor dome. In that case, of course, they were detected, but instead of picking a fight with the security at least one managed the climb. In another case the same day, they chose hide & seek, thus stayed away from the buildings. They managed to stay for about 12 hours. Or is this just another case of Greenpeace doing what they do best? This particular happening is certainly in this category. Particularly, did the activists get inside a containment building, or have access to any control rooms -- that is, were they really in any place where someone intent on causing damage could possibly have done so? It all depends on what you call damage and the if's you want to add. Of course, if they entered the station with a truck loaded with explosives they could have caused a lot of damage. But they did not. Frankly, if you see a crowd of people running to climb a reactor dome with no heavy loads, there's little chance they can cause any real damage. Same with any ultralight aircraft... If they had tried to enter nuclear buildings, I hope security would have stopped them. From my point of view, it's better to let them do some of their stunts than to shoot them or go to other extraordinary lengths to prevent entrance in all imaginable cases. On the other hand, it's best not to let them stay for too long. |
|
|
|
Post by lighttraveller on Oct 12, 2012 6:30:18 GMT 9.5
Oh, I totally agree. Security knew they were not there to actually cause damage or sabotage, so there's hardly a need to use deadly force to prevent them. And that's essentially what I got from what little reporting there was in the incident. They knew the activists were not a genuine threat, so they didn't over-react.
Thanks for the reply, Proteos!
|
|
|
|
Post by proteos on Oct 14, 2012 3:02:02 GMT 9.5
Another remarks: Greenpeace does never stage the same stunts in oil refineries. No paraglider going over tanks full of chemicals, no invasion of the refinery. Do they think refineries are harmless? Or do they think there actually is some risk of performing stunts in a refinery?
Greenpeace has also organized invasions of coal plants. But never did they claim that is a security concern. Maybe they think coal is not flammable and that no one can put fire to the stockpile, or that it is harmless to do so.
These stunts just demonstrate that nuclear power is not judged by the same standards as other industrial activities that no one, even Greenpeace, think we should abandon. (Yes: Greenpeace does think we should abandon refineries: think about the hype about making fuel from micro-algae)
|
|
|
|
Post by lighttraveller on Oct 16, 2012 6:05:53 GMT 9.5
No doubt. I'm reminded of the passage in Tom Blees' Prescription for the Planet, where he lists out the mind-boggling amounts of radioactive materials released annually by coal-fired power plants, especially in comparison to nuclear generation plants (which, last I checked, don't typically release their "waste" into the environment at all).
|
|
