That's still small compared to a dense metropolitan target.
We could figure out the equivalent if you want, but you'll have to help me find the numbers.
For example,
Assuming Indian point's containment shell is steel reinforced cement, we need to know how thick it is to estimate the energy it would take to seriously compromise that.
Then we could look at how much damage that amount of energy would do directed to a densely populated civilian target in the city.
The reactors at Indian Point are protected by containment domes made of steel-reinforced concrete that is four to six feet thick, with a carbon steel liner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
It is. Might not be quite that thick, though, when I follow the source.
This bomb could probably penetrate it, although I'm not sure given the liner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-109_bomb
The BLU-109/B has a steel casing about 1 inch (25.4 mm) thick, filled with 530 lb (240 kg) of Tritonal.
That doesn't mean that would be adequate to actually take the thing out. This is usually for punching a hole then detonating inside to kill personnel in a bunker. And it should be remembered that it's a bomb that's dropped from a high altitude, so it also carries a significant amount of kinetic energy (the whole thing weighs nearly a ton, and is designed for a precision strike).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritonal
The 87 kg of tritonal in a Mark 82 bomb has the potential to produce approximately 863 MJ of energy if detonated.[2]
I think that would amount to 2,380 megajoules from that bunker buster.
Around a half-ton TNT equivalent of energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAYVMXYYAp4
This is one ton, pretty close, to give you a sense of perspective on how powerful such a weapon would have to be.
A plane crashing doesn't come very close.
You may remember the formula for kinetic energy:
1/2 * 439,985 kg * (256 m/s)^2 = about 689 megajoules.
The jet fuel being burnt does... but that would just be splashing around outside if the plane just exploded and went to pieces on site.
The mass of the concrete shell and steel far exceeds that of the plane itself. Over 100 times its mass, most likely (based on my crude calculations assuming a cylinder with no top). It would probably be like a motorcycle hitting a semi.
A dome shell also distributes force very well, and so does an easily crumpled giant aluminum can (meaning it doesn't have the piercing power of artillery). It's dubious that even a 747 would take it out, and it's much harder to hijack those these days. (The US military also provides air defense for the site already, so it's very unlikely any kind of threat would come by air).
If you're not just a nutty suicidal jihadist, but you have means and access to that kind of explosive and the expertise and men to coordinate such an attack, it's actually much more damaging to put it in a bunch of cans with nails covered in biological agents (like shit, or something more sophisticated) and distribute it around the city in densely populated areas with time delay fuses.
Or millions of other plots that would kill far more people. It's very difficult to think of a plot that wouldn't be more effective than this absurd attack on a nuclear power plant.
EquALLity wrote:
Just because it looks like a terror attack wouldn't work doesn't mean it won't.
When it looks like a cement and steel containment shell, unless that's all a prop, then it probably does.
Remember, Indian point just has to be harder to attack than the next best target.
Can you find a detailed proposed scenario of how these hypothetical terrorists are supposed to do this?
Chances are you'll find that it's just people speculating on what seems reasonable or "possible" (AKA scary) without any sound basis in reality.
EquALLity wrote:
Here's something I found from the Union of Concerned Scientists*
*Note that they're scientists. This is why suspicion of nuclear energy is very different from climate-denial.
They're also inordinately concerned about transgenic food. I'd have to look more into the group, but they sound like left wing nuts trying to come across as reasonable and advocating a "middle-ground" (while in fact just perpetuating these fears without employing anything resembling actual science).
the plants remain vulnerable, both to air attacks and to ground assaults by large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry.
I am forced to conclude that these people are morons, or just dishonestly fear mongering (I'm not sure why).
New York City is also vulnerable to large terrorist teams with paramilitary training and advanced weaponry, and while I'm at it, flying sharks with laser beams on their heads.
This is not how terrorism works. Terrorism is inherently conspiratorial. The U.S. government can't keep secrets under wraps, and people planning to do harm to innocent civilians as part of a terror plots certainly can't. People have consciences, and the larger your team has to be, the more likely you get a leak.
Terrorism is usually done in teams of one or two, often a lone wolf, rarely more than that except as occasionally administers by the terrorist generals.
The estimation you quoted also requires optimal weather, meaning that this team of terrorists with paramilitary training and advanced weapons also has the magical power to predict the weather with supernatural accuracy.
To their credit, they at least mention that in the article (although to their discredit, they clearly fabricated this whole thing based on equally improbable notions, and promoted that as their headline despite knowing it's unrealistic):
Attacks capable of causing the peak consequences that we calculate would be difficult to achieve because of inaccuracies in weather forecasts, restricted windows of opportunity and other factors, but remain within the realm of possibility.
(You should read it if you haven't. Most things like this can be debunked referencing the source material and their methods critically).
I can understand the desire to improve the already quite good security at the site, but I think it's asinine given we have so many other vulnerabilities more easily exploited, it's like barring all of your windows when you don't even lock your doors, and it assumes a level of competence and organization we've never seen from terrorists. 9-11 was only made possible by the extreme degree of incompetence exhibited by the US government and its allies (a problem that has now been remedied).
We might as well spend trillions building a border wall, or installing a giant net around our coasts so sharks can't get in. None of these things will fix very real problems of national security.
If you can cite the other specific arguments and the details of the analysis (like what kind of remediation it involved, and the nature of the supposed attack) I can address it better.
EquALLity wrote:
A nuclear meltdown sounds pretty dangerous.
It's just the fuel rods getting too hot and melting into the substrate (steel, cement, rock) until it's too diluted with neutron capturing elements to continue the chain reaction.
It's not really scary unless you're in it.
Some of the elements are volatile at those temperatures, that's all, so they can spread on the wind in trace amounts.
The issue is not some burst or radiation coming from the meltdown, as people might imagine (like a bomb).
Wikipedia wrote:For example, in the Chernobyl accident, by the time the core melted, there had already been a large steam explosion and graphite fire and major release of radioactive contamination (as with almost all Soviet reactors, there was no containment structure at Chernobyl).
It wasn't just the lack of containment, but also the way the reactor was designed and it's use of carbon to moderate the reaction (very foolish by modern standards), which caused the radiation to be spread very widely since when the carbon overheated it exploded. We don't do that anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-moderated_reactor
And we don't do what Fukushima did either (put backup generators below grade where they can easily flood).
Wikipedia wrote:Also, before a possible meltdown occurs, pressure can already be rising in the reactor, and to prevent a meltdown by restoring the cooling of the core, operators are allowed to reduce the pressure in the reactor by releasing (radioactive) steam into the environment. This enables them to inject additional cooling water into the reactor again.
EquALLity wrote:So it isn't really dangerous on paper, but in practice it could be.
No, this steam is fine, it's just tritium and deuterium.
Not all radioactivity is created equally. Radioactive water will diffuse into the environment, and doesn't meaningfully affect people.
EquALLity wrote:I asked my teacher about this. According to her, gamma is dangerous, because it can easily penetrate the skin and do damage.
What makes it unlikely? That's not what she said.
Gamma is dangerous in the environment, but people are rarely if ever exposed to meaningful levels.
Gamma rays interact only very weakly with matter unless it has a very large/heavy nucleus.
If you have a gamma emitter in your body, it's about the same as it being anywhere else, and it's much safer than an alpha or beta emitter because most of the radiation will leave your body without affecting you (and radiate your neighbor).
It can give you cancer like any ionizing EM radiation, it's just unlikely to collide with your molecules.
Higher energy photons are even more benign, even potentially passing through the entire Earth without interacting with matter (although that's a long way to travel without hitting anything).
What we're worried about in terms of radiation is not so much environmental radiation that is hitting us from outside, but from radioactive materials that get into our bodies from the environment and radiate us from inside with alpha and beta radiation where it can do serious damage.
EquALLity wrote:Yeah, it would be best if the isotopes produced alpha radiation, because that is blocked by the skin.
Alpha can be blocked by a sheet of paper, but you have this totally backward: that can be the worst kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay#Toxicity
When you read something as being "blocked", read it instead as being "absorbed", or "colliding" like an automobile accident.
The reason Gamma is so harmless be comparison is because is does not get absorbed by other atoms in your body. Gamma has a very long mean free path, which means it will probably make it out of your body and away from you before it collides with something and does damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_free_path
You may want alpha and beta emitters around you, but you do not want them IN you, and that's how radioactive fallout harms people.
EquALLity wrote:There' something called the "emergency planning zone" or something, which is about a ten mile radius around Indian Point that the government would evacuate people from. That area, from my understanding, includes millions of people.
There are sound evacuation plans. What would be better is if people just weren't afraid of radiation, it was made optional, and only encouraged for young people.
EquALLity wrote:Are you sure about that?
I'm pretty sure about that, yeah. I think fewer people would be hurt that way.
EquALLity wrote:I know tsunamis don't happen on the east coast of America, but if an earthquake+tsunami caused Fukushima, I think we should be concerned about earthquakes regarding nuclear power plants.
I don't think there's any reason to be, given how unlikely it is. Even with the occasional disaster (which kills very few people), Nuclear is safer.
We play the odds every time we get in a car, every time we walk, swallow, etc.
We do this because the benefits outweigh the risks. These risks are minuscule here.
While the risk of earthquake may be highest for this plant, that has to be taken into perspective. It's one in tens of thousands that there would be an Earthquake strong enough to cause problems, and the outcome isn't the disaster people think it would be.
EquALLity wrote:Did Fukushima have backup generators?
Yes, they were flooded. This was bad engineering. I see no such problems at Indian Point.
EquALLity wrote:The reason why solar energy causes less death per year is probably because there haven't been that many nuclear disasters. However, if for example, terrorists attacked Indian Point, that could kill hundreds of thousand of people. That would impact those yearly averages substantially.
If the sun gets mad that we're sucking up all of its light for power without permission, and then sends a solar flare to wipe out the Earth, that will increase the death toll for solar.
I don't find that probable either, though, so I'm sticking with the data we have and what's probable.
EquALLity wrote:Don't forget that wind energy causes the least deaths per year.
Not sure where you got that.
Deaths per year don't matter, what matters is deaths per Gigawatt year output (or some other consistent measure of power output). We pay for our energy, no matter its proximal source.
Don't forget the massive number of birds killed by these turbines, and the waste generated. Remember that EROEI is important too. Nuclear beats everything but Hydro and Coal there, which both have higher death tolls than nuclear (a dam breaking is scary).
EquALLity wrote:What makes you think the radiation from staying wouldn't be dangerous?
As I write that question, I'm reminded of that random beach in Brazil with more radiation than Fukushima... Hm...
The levels were not very high, and the fallout was not particularly bad. Evacuation and displacement were probably more harmful.
EquALLity wrote:According to my teacher, adding a cooling tower is one of the requirements for Indian Point to meet to get re-licensed. If it doesn't get re-licensed, which I believe that will expire at the end of the year, it will shut down.
I don't think holding a gun to their heads over the plant closure is appropriate, although I think it should have a cooling tower. That's like the tea party threatening a government shutdown.
EquALLity wrote:It poured 3,000 gallons of oil into the river even with supervision.
That has nothing to do with it being nuclear. A coal plant could have done the same.
EquALLity wrote:brimstoneSalad wrote:This doesn't sound like a problem.
Sometimes numbers that seem really large like that aren't actually very relevant when you put them into context. However, according to my teacher, that is a problem... IF people were exposed to the radiation.
That doesn't make it a problem. It makes it potentially a problem IF they were exposed. The other question you must ask is how much.
Everything is harmful, nuclear much less so than other sources of power.
EquALLity wrote:What if the second backup didn't work, though?
Then the third backup can take over.
Guess what happens if the third one doesn't work.
As I understand it, there are four backups. And they aren't below grade (so they won't flood). And with serious safety features.
http://observer.com/2013/09/why-indian-point-wont-kill-you/
This is a good article putting the risk in perspective (and addressing the absurd fear-mongering predictions that were made about Indian point and a terrorist event; the author has apparently read more details on their supposed scenario than I have).
EquALLity wrote:
How minimal is it, really?
You have a better chance of being eaten by a shark.
The proposed doomsday scenarios are absurd.
EquALLity wrote:
Oh, a longer half-life makes it more dangerous? Why is that?
A long biological half-life makes it more dangerous.
The element is still radioactive. Biological half-life just means how long it stays in your body until you poop or pee it out.
The most dangerous radioisotopes have a LONG biological half-life, and a SHORT radiological half-life (meaning they decay faster and emit more radiation).
You might want to reread my description with that in mind. And with what I explained earlier on beta radiation vs. gamma.
EquALLity wrote:Why wouldn't cesium-137 be dangerous when ingested as well?
You poop or pee it out. It doesn't stick around in your body.
Compare Fluoride and Lead.
EquALLity wrote:So according to this, a short half-life is healthier.
And tritium is dangerous when ingested.
No, a short biological one. A short radiological half-life is more dangerous.
Tritium isn't very harmful unless ingested in very large amounts or for a long time. Otherwise, you pee it out like any other water.
EquALLity wrote:Ok, so people shouldn't drink the water etc.. But people still will, so... What then?
Even if it's in the water, they can drink the water, it's probably fine. It's incredibly diluted.