Hamas: We attempted to hit the nuclear reactor

[RoccoR]

irosie91, et al,

A "meltdown" is the worst case scenario.

Excuse me folks-----uhm ----I have been told----by a person who did learn about
and worked with nuclear reactors-------that bombing a nuclear reactor is
very unlikely to initiate a MELT DOWN. ----<< heresay

the problem with the meltdown issue requires a very specific set of circumstances
to happen-----with the attainment of critical mass and all that stuff-----fission in
an unrestrained and self perpetuating -----thingy. One is unlikely to cause that to
happen by BOMBING it

(COMMENT)

Neither the Chernobyl event or the 3-Mile Island event were "meltdowns." In Chernobyl, there was steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq. At 3-Mile Island began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was caused by the shaking associated with an Earthquake causing massive amount of radioactive water to leak and spill.

You don't have to cause a "meltdown" to create a catastrophic event, especially with the older reactors. If the reactors at the NNRC are not already shutdown, I'm betting that they are seriously considering it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Daniyel]

irosie91, et al,

A "meltdown" is the worst case scenario.

Excuse me folks-----uhm ----I have been told----by a person who did learn about
and worked with nuclear reactors-------that bombing a nuclear reactor is
very unlikely to initiate a MELT DOWN. ----<< heresay

the problem with the meltdown issue requires a very specific set of circumstances
to happen-----with the attainment of critical mass and all that stuff-----fission in
an unrestrained and self perpetuating -----thingy. One is unlikely to cause that to
happen by BOMBING it

(COMMENT)

Neither the Chernobyl event or the 3-Mile Island event were "meltdowns." In Chernobyl, there was steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq. At 3-Mile Island began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was caused by the shaking associated with an Earthquake causing massive amount of radioactive water to leak and spill.

You don't have to cause a "meltdown" to create a catastrophic event, especially with the older reactors. If the reactors at the NNRC are not already shutdown, I'm betting that they are seriously considering it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Either way playing with fire is A Toast to stupidity

 

[irosie91]

irosie91, et al,

A "meltdown" is the worst case scenario.

Excuse me folks-----uhm ----I have been told----by a person who did learn about
and worked with nuclear reactors-------that bombing a nuclear reactor is
very unlikely to initiate a MELT DOWN. ----<< heresay

the problem with the meltdown issue requires a very specific set of circumstances
to happen-----with the attainment of critical mass and all that stuff-----fission in
an unrestrained and self perpetuating -----thingy. One is unlikely to cause that to
happen by BOMBING it

(COMMENT)

Neither the Chernobyl event or the 3-Mile Island event were "meltdowns." In Chernobyl, there was steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq. At 3-Mile Island began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was caused by the shaking associated with an Earthquake causing massive amount of radioactive water to leak and spill.

You don't have to cause a "meltdown" to create a catastrophic event, especially with the older reactors. If the reactors at the NNRC are not already shutdown, I'm betting that they are seriously considering it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Either way playing with fire is A Toast to stupidity

oh ok -----various kinds of misfunctions that CAN certainly be caused by a bomb---
a kind of hit of miss thing------the kind of things that are GUARDED against by a legion
of technicians-----that's what the techs are for-----maybe the issue is double the techs--
or triple them ok ok Point taken NUKE techs rejoice -----we need lots more
of you
A

 

[RoccoR]

irosie91, Daniyel, et al,

Agreed, you have to work it from both directions.

irosie91, et al,

A "meltdown" is the worst case scenario.

(COMMENT)

Neither the Chernobyl event or the 3-Mile Island event were "meltdowns." In Chernobyl, there was steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq. At 3-Mile Island began with failures in the non-nuclear secondary system, followed by a stuck-open relief valve in the primary system, which allowed large amounts of nuclear reactor coolant to escape. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was caused by the shaking associated with an Earthquake causing massive amount of radioactive water to leak and spill.

You don't have to cause a "meltdown" to create a catastrophic event, especially with the older reactors. If the reactors at the NNRC are not already shutdown, I'm betting that they are seriously considering it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Either way playing with fire is A Toast to stupidity

oh ok -----various kinds of misfunctions that CAN certainly be caused by a bomb---
a kind of hit of miss thing------the kind of things that are GUARDED against by a legion
of technicians-----that's what the techs are for-----maybe the issue is double the techs--
or triple them ok ok Point taken NUKE techs rejoice -----we need lots more
of you
A

(COMMENT)

You have to neutralize the potential threat of a rocket/missile strike (ie detect, exploit and neutralize HAMAS) and constantly improve safety, security and suppression systems at the site.

Most Respectfully,
R