Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by moe | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

moe

probably has similar kinetic energy to a smaller passenger plane

The most widely used passenger plane is the Boeing 737.

F4 Phantom empty weight: 29,500 lbs

Boeing 737 empty weight: 62,000 lbs

The average operating weight difference is probably quite a bit larger. You know, fuel, baggage, passengers.

You may want to review those videos from 9/11 to see what a passenger plane does to a building. You may also want to listen to the narrative of your video: The wall in your video is a specially hardened wall. Your reactors are not equipped with such walls because that would be cost prohibitive. And even these hardened walls are unlikely to withstand a passenger plane (ever wondered why the US government selected such a small plane for your video?).

View on HN

I listened. Kinetic energy is the mass times the square of the velocity. F4's go way faster than 737's. Thus kinetic energy is comprable between the two.

On the second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Containment_building

"The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.[3][not in citation given]"

It's also not my nuclear reactor. My power comes from hydroelectric thank you very much.

F4's go way faster than 737

The Phantom was crashed into the wall at 500 MPH

The cruising speed of a Boeing 737 is 485 MPH[1].

Also I'll ask you a very simple question: Why did the US Government not use a passenger plane for that video-demonstration, which would undoubtedly be a much more realistic scenario?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737

737's don't go that fast at sea level. Air is too dense. An f4 could probably go 2-3x as fast as a 737 at any altitude. I'm too lazy to look up the specific values.

As to why they used an f4? Probably a heck of a lot cheaper than a 737 at the time.

Sometimes the government isn't out to screw you you know...

An f4 could probably go

But it didn't in the video.

As to why they used an f4? Probably a heck of a lot cheaper than a 737 at the time.

It would seem like there are plenty of scrapped 737s available[1] to carry out such a test. I'm too lazy to look up prices on these things, but I'd be very surprised if those were significantly more expensive than a scrapped Phantom.

[1] http://airchive.com/html/scrapped/ardmore-graveyard

> * Why did the US Government not use a passenger plane for that video-demonstration, which would undoubtedly be a much more realistic scenario?*

Because retired jets that are going to be scrapped are easier to obtain from the military.

Actually, most of the damage came from the burning of the fuel. It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster... like significant portions being designed to operate continuously at high temperatures...

It's worth noting that most nuclear plants have very different construction and design that make them far more resilient in the face of such a disaster

We've seen how these designs fare in the face of an earthquake and flood.

We're both arguing on the grounds of mere guessing here, but my guess would be that a plane crash might very well cause similar disruptions.

Also if I was a terrorist plotting such an event, I might just fly two planes into the same reactor - because, why not?

The question is not about how such an event is executed but how likely it is. I hope we can agree that a dedicated team of individuals will find a way to cause a catastrophic event in these facilities.

And that's precisely the problem; Nuclear plants require something that we can't provide: Perfection.

We may be able to keep the nominal failure rate at the level that we've seen (Chernobyl, Fukushima). But all economic calculations that these plants have going for them are immediately invalidated when you start considering a single successful deliberate attack.

A dedicated group of individuals capable of harnessing a number of planes in the air simultaneously and get them on a trajectory to a nuclear plant, with an impact exceeding a military bombing attack...

...can probably just build a bomb on their own just fine.

Nuclear power plants don't require perfection. There are minute possibilities of terrible disasters with almost any facility. Nuclear plants do have some particularly disconcerting problems that seem fairly obvious and must be mitigated against, but I think we can allow for the fact that with or without a nuclear plant, bad shit can happen, and actually without said plant, bad shit will happen.

Bhopal didn't have a nuclear power plant, just a measly ol' pesticide plant.

...can probably just build a bomb on their own just fine.

Building a bomb with effects comparable to a reactor meltdown requires significant resources. Running a few planes into a building requires - plane tickets.

You do remember that 9/11 thing, do you?

There are minute possibilities of terrible disasters with almost any facility

You pull every last ridiculous straw, don't you?

Yes, other bad things happen, too. If you think long and hard then you might grasp the difference in magnitude.

Hint: Chernobyl is estimated to have caused 250.000 deaths. 1700 square miles of land have been rendered permanently inhabitable. The numbers for Fukushima are still outstanding.

Also we're not only talking about the main reactor housing. Much more radioactive material resides in spent fuel pools which might not be as well protected as the reactor, see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_fuel_pool#Risks

Reply on news.ycombinator.com