E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA paragliding Greenpeace activist who dropped a smoke bomb over a French nuclear reactor on Wednesday added a new element to the presidential race there -- and raised the question of whether the same, or worse, could happen at a U.S. nuclear reactor.
"At no moment was the safety of the installations at risk," said the plant's operator, French utility giant EDF, adding that the pilot was arrested by security staff at the Bugey nuclear plant in southeast France.
EDF acknowledged that a second activist was arrested at another nuclear site in southwest France after entering via a truck gate and hiding for an hour in brush within the "surveillance zone," Reuters reported.
Greenpeace said it was raising awareness of nuclear power issues ahead of France's presidential elections on Sunday.
It "illustrates the vulnerability of French nuclear to the threat of air attack," Greenpeace France spokeswoman Sophia Majnoni d'Intignano said in a statement. "While Germany took into account the aircraft crash in its safety testing, France still refuses to analyze this risk for our plants."
France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, pledged special safety tests at its 58 reactors after Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011.
Those tests include standing up to floods, earthquakes, power outages and cooling system failures -- but not terrorist attacks or even a plane crash.
So could a paraglider attack happen in the U.S. -- or would it be shot down before even getting to a nuclear site?
"Completely speculative," Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, told msnbc.com. "Our facilities are extremely well-defended. Let's leave it at that."
Over at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that says it's neither for nor against nuclear power, two nuclear experts said that while a reactor's containment dome would be hard to penetrate other targets are available.
The intake structure, where water is brought in to cool the reactor fuel, "is an easier target," Dave Lochbaum told msnbc.com. Without coolant, that fuel could cause a meltdown.
The aerial threat exists, added Edwin Lyman, because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "decided in 2007 to exclude any kind of aerial attack from the 'design basis threat' -- that is, the set of attacks that reactor operators must provide protection to defend against.
"So the NRC doesn't require that nuclear plants have means to detect or defend against intrusions from the air," he added. "And the federal government also does not require 'no fly zones' around nuclear plants that could be enforced by the military."
Kerekes countered by noting that an independent study in 2002 found that U.S. nuclear containment structures can withstand even a crash from a commercial airliner.
As for paragliders, Lochbaum said a more likely scenario is where one or more are used at night in an attempt to get into a nuclear plant.
"While nuclear plant security perimeter fences are well lit, the lighting is to allow security officers to catch anyone trying to climb over, cut through, or tunnel under the fences," he said. "The lights and the camera angles might not readily show someone flying in. That someone could be carrying sufficient weapons to cause problems."
At that point, Lochbaum said, "it becomes a race -- can the intruder access area(s) needed to sabotage the plant before the security officers intervene?"
Japan wants Fukushima residents to bury radiated soil in their own backyards, but how dangerous is the dirt and where should it go? NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel reports.
Nuclear plants already test such scenarios, and Lochbaum said "the good guys sometimes lose the race" in testing -- even with the six weeks notice given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"Typically, the force-on-force tests are conducted once every three years at each U.S. nuclear plant," he said. "A test may consist of four exercises -- different entry points and different targets. It would be useful to periodically throw in a glider or parachute entry to make sure the security officers practice handling such threats, too."
Nuclear power debate in France includes Libya project
Back in France, the stunt certainly got attention -- but not all of it flattering for Greenpeace.
"The main consequence of this stupid action will be to prevent any air recreation within more areas of France," posted one person on Greenpeace's main blog on the stunt.
An anonymous post on another Greenpeace blog criticized the stunt, saying a paraglider couldn't carry enough explosives to damage nuclear containment areas.
"You've also missed the point," the writer added, "that someone could cause far graver damage by carrying out a similar attack on the Olympic Stadium in London later in the year."
Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- George Zimmerman's old Myspace page includes slurs against Mexicans
- Chicago pays $45 million in 3 years to settle complaints against cops
- Maryland court finds pit bulls are 'inherently dangerous'
- Video: Obama describes raid that killed bin Laden
- NJ mom arrested after allegedly taking daughter, 5, tanning
Leave a Comment:
Talk about putting ideas in people minds ! some people will jump right on this one for sure !
End of story !
"PULL"! Just like at the trap shooting club. It would be fun to tour a plant and see just how safe they are. I was at a pro football dome last year and talked my way every where but the locker rooms. But I am quite an honest looking fellow.
Hey Stonepipe!
Which Stadium? You don't paraglide, do you?!
Peace
Now some one will try it for sure !
This greenpeace incident could never happen in the US, we have 2,000 plus troops guarding every neclear site with shoot to kill orders in place.
This is yet another reason to switch to Molten Salt Reactors, or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. They don't operate under pressure, so they can't blow up, which means they won't eject nuclear material downwind or downstream. If they are damaged or destroyed, the liquid fluoride fuel would spill out and solidify to a solid blob.
Dangerous stuff? Yes, indeed, but it would be solid and self-contained - imagine a radioactive load of spilled concrete. The spill would be measured in square meters, not square kilometers, which means virtually all of the nasty material can be recovered, remelted, and re-used.
"Without coolant, that fuel could cause a meltdown."...he's one dumb scientist. The plant would shut down automatically if it detected any interruption in it's cooling water supply.
You're one uneducated arm chair nuclear engineer. The article author is correct. Without cooling, decay heat from a stopped nuclear reaction will melt down the core of a reactor. That is the main reason that cooling is supplied 24/7/365 on a shutdown core. Just because a reactor scram's and stops the chain reaction, a core is still going to generate intense heat, the heat just doesn't go away.
Thanks S. Mcilnay.
James-1822028
"You're one uneducated arm chair nuclear engineer"
The understatement of the week. And he's just one of many.
This is a joke right??? A hang glider! You could fly a 757 fully loaded into a power plant with a well built containment building and it might scratch the outside of it 25 feet of steel renforced concrete, If these power plants could be destroyed the towel heads would have done it a long time ago!!! Just like the locks and dams on the Mississippi River! They have no idea how to do it!!! If you think the security at these places is just "Rent a cops" go snooping arount the fence at one of these and prepare to get your ass "Smoked" We have one in central Illinois and Homeland Security is over there all the time just aching to try out some new "Toys" You could get on the White House grounds before you could get in a Nuke plant. MSNBC let us know when you have some real news!!! This just in "Water found at the bottom of the ocean"
To Spades. Actually the NRC is very worried that a jet airliner could severely damage a nuclear reactor. Remember they are gigantic bombs full of fuel and reactors are not designed for that scenario.
Note also that despite the presence of antiaircraft guns and probably missiles no order was given in time to shoot down the airliner that hit the Pentagon.
No one thought it was possible that a jet airliner could topple two of the largest sky scrapers in the world either.
Anyone that thinks reactors are safe from attack is very naive.
A threat to a nuclear facility can be considered a threat to national security. Therefore, I think it would be reasonable to shoot a paraglider pilot out of the sky if he or she approaches said facility. Then, of course, the pilot's known associates and family should be arrested and questioned in an undisclosed holding cell for a really long period of time without due process.
Otherwise, if such a persons BELIEFS are the magic key, I have beliefs, and I'd be happy to run on down to the nuclear plant and fiddle around with the controls in the name of environmental purity as I see it.
hey...ya know...isn't that why we have the Simpsons? To watch a bumbling moron fiddling around with the controls of the atomic pile? Why do we need Greenpeace? We have enough idiots in nuclear facilities.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!.. wait.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Now that I'm done laughing at the absurdity you have posted, take a long hard look at the operators of US Navy"s nuclear fleet. Yes, I am one of those former operators. They have operated more cores than the entire US commercial grid carries, and have done so safely, for over 50 years. You are gravely, gravely mistaken if you think that operators at a commercial nuclear plant are bumbling idiots. The bumbling idiot posted above me.
S. McIlnay
"look at the operators of US Navy"s nuclear fleet. Yes, I am one of those former operators. They have operated more cores than the entire US commercial grid carries, and have done so safely, for over 50 years."
*************************************************************
Not too difficult to understand. That simply means that even a bumbling Naval idiot hasn't melted a reactor that's SURROUNDED BY OR SUBMERGED IN WATER!
Doh! as Homer would say.
A much different story at a land-based facility.
Lokay5:
The Navy trains operators from 1.5 years to a little over 2 years from when you enlist depending on your rate. Officers get trained even longer. Naval cores operate on the exact same engineering and physics principles that land based commercial cores do. Just because it is surrounded by water is a non-factor. You give a naval core a double ended shear of a coolant pipe, it will melt down due to lack of cooling. Just dumping sea water into the core room isn't going to stop the melt down.
Again, ascertaining that naval nuclear operators are bumbling idiots is insulting and ignorant.
S. McIlnay, you misinterpreted what I said. The idiots I was referring to (besides homer) were the greenpeace idiots that would presume to hang-glide into a nuclear power plant. Didn't my discussion of what I thought should happen to them, their associates and their relatives clue you? I would include the idiot politicians that attempt to keep us from building more nuclear facilities, and the "environmental" self appointed "experts" that lobby for illogical rules and regulations for nuclear power.
So...to recap: Nuclear good...Greenpeace bad. Are we clear? Now...can we jump off our paranoia chair, yank the cob out of our butt and relax a little? Thank you for your service to our country. The Nuclear fleet's batting average at safety is 1000. The civilian Nuclear energy picture is almost that stellar.
All I was saying was that greenpeace (idiots) should be shot down in their attempts to disrupt nuclear power production, and that their friends and relatives should go to Gitmo for a talk on terrorism. Capeesh?
No corn cob, but calling nuclear operators idiots does them no service for an already vilified and beleaguered industry that the US couldn't be without.
.
They should have shot him before he got close enough.
John Carter you are correct and I agree at a minimum 3 with 3 or more hidden in the countryside...
The intake structure, where water is brought in to cool the reactor fuel, "is an easier target," Dave Lochbaum told msnbc.com. Without coolant, that fuel could cause a meltdown.
WOW Just tell all the terrorists what to aim for. Stupid STUPID STUPID
Jake Darnell
"The intake structure, where water is brought in to cool the reactor fuel, "is an easier target," Dave Lochbaum told msnbc.com. Without coolant, that fuel could cause a meltdown.
WOW Just tell all the terrorists what to aim for. Stupid STUPID STUPID"
******************************************
Anyone who thinks that a terrorist group or individal doesn't already know that is;
Wait for it....
That's right....
Stupid STUPID STUPID
should shoot to kill if that happens. there is no second guessing on this. that guy is lucky to be alive
Oh Sure. Let's just tell everyone the best, most vulnerable place to strike these facilities. (just to get a word in on the story) Nice job Dave Lochbaum. How about posting some blue prints.
Sorry Jake, just read your post. I agreee. Just plain STUPID!!!
If we had more Nuclear plants and less coal plants, we'd be far better off with this Global warming crisis. Too bad that Nuclear had to be a political football with environmental pin-heads. I remember a GM MotorRama many years ago that forecasted in the future that Electric Cars could be powered by electrical induction coils buried in the highway. Such was the vision with an electrified USA. I say bring'um on. Replace fossils fuels with Nuclear Plants. The recent problem is Japan wasn't a Nuclear safety issue, but more stupidity in not located emergency equipment not being located where the sea couldn't flood them. All they had to do was keep this equipment on the roof.
JJ-4261947 said;
"I remember a GM MotorRama many years ago that forecasted in the future that Electric Cars could be powered by electrical induction coils buried in the highway."
Uh huh. Wasn't that at about the same time "they" said that nuclear generated electricity would be Too Cheap to Meter ?
Holy Shiite, we never thought about bombing the olympics. Great idea GreenPeace/MSNBC!
So much false stuff. Don't take these Greenpeace commando's word for anything. They got caught at the stage they happened to be at but not where they could have gone. To the Bastille with them for 20 years!
"Completely speculative," Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, told msnbc.com. "Our facilities are extremely well-defended. Let's leave it at that."
__________________________________________________________________________________
Indeed. Uh, isn't it the responsibility of the NEI, the NRC, or some-damn-body to "speculate" about what might happen at a nuke plant? As for "Let's leave it at that", maybe we ought not do that. There are plenty of ways our war-loving country could be less threatened by the rest of the world, but the military contractors wouldn't stand for it.
These guys should be sent to GITMO.
Stand Your Ground - if you see a paraglider, with or without a large yellow bomb, near any structure that could endanger you, your family or your community, shoot the sucker down. If you cannot find a bomb in the debris, paint a cardboard box yellow and tape it to the pilot's leg.
As a nuclear engineer, I can assure you that no terrorist attack could breach a "modern" (generation III and III+) reactor's containment. A 747 was crashed into a US containment once, so some idiot with Greenpeace proved nothing. The most devastating attack on US soil occurred by flying a plane into an exposed building, and anything worse happening, especially to a nuclear reactor, is extremely unlikely.
Also, I still don't know why all these Greenpeace idiots live on the grid. The ones here in the US protest stuff like nuclear plants but still live on the grid, powered by coal, which produces greenhouse gases. Nuclear virtually doesn't.
I feel far less safer after this irresponsible journalism here explains what the best way to target a nuke plant is...
Greenpeace is clever but only to the unthinking public, apt to fall for headline grabbing incidents where the imagination, not fact, takes over. A single paraglider could not do anything of substance against a fortified as designed power plant. But, nuclear detractors project that the small incident could point to a massive bomber sneaking up on a incredibly dangerous site. This is nowhere near reality just imagined fear producing conjecture. The flip side of the coin would be if the security forces reacted with violence, Greenpeace would then claim victory because the world is dangerous when citizens are under fire from national security forces. I may or may not agree with Greenpeace's policies. My problem: They are diabolical, deceitful and incorrect in the measures.