Just seen on Fox news:

The pilot of a Piper Cherokee was reportedly forced to land at a
Philadelphia area reliever airport after "flying right over" the
International Airport. The news reader also said that the pilot FLEW
NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT (emphasis from the news reader, not me).

Video showed the plane on the runway or taxiway surrounded by police
cars. The pilot was seen exiting the plane and assuming the prone
position on the ground.

"Jack McAdams" wrote:
> Just seen on Fox news:
> The news reader also said that the pilot FLEW
> NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
> (emphasis from the news reader, not me).

Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Jack McAdams" wrote:
> > Just seen on Fox news:
> > The news reader also said that the pilot FLEW
> > NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
> > (emphasis from the news reader, not me).
>
> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!

So...which story was more newsworthy: CNN or Fox?

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jack McAdams" wrote:
> > Just seen on Fox news:
> > The news reader also said that the pilot FLEW
> > NEAR A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
> > (emphasis from the news reader, not me).
>
> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!

Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on CBS (which
apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t) they asked rhetorically
why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted by fighters and shot down.

Hard to top that.

David H
Boeing Field (BFI), Seattle, WA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Visit the Pacific Northwest Flying forum:
http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/pnwflying

"David H" wrote:
> > Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
> > This is war!
>
> Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
> CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
> they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
> by fighters and shot down.

Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux. It
will be interesting to see how they top it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "David H" wrote:
> > > Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
> > > This is war!
> >
> > Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
> > CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
> > they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
> > by fighters and shot down.
>
> Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux. It
> will be interesting to see how they top it.

Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You know...the
worst possible security risk?

Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
pre-conceived notions.

The question is how near the plant was he? I know the airport where
the guy is based and it happens to be near, yeah you guessed it, a
nuclear power plant. On a XC to Reading PA after my checkride I flew
right over the airport and the stacks of the power plant were about 4
miles off my left wing. So flying into Pottstown puts you in the
vicinity of a nuclear power plant no matter what.

Dave

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message >...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "David H" wrote:
> > > > Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
> > > > This is war!
> > >
> > > Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
> > > CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
> > > they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
> > > by fighters and shot down.
> >
> > Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux. It
> > will be interesting to see how they top it.
>
> Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You know...the
> worst possible security risk?
>
> Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
> pre-conceived notions.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:
> Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT?
> You know...the worst possible security risk?

Oh dear, oh dear! Better ground all these dangerous little airplanes!
They might blow up a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT! You remind me of the Time
magazine picture of GA airplanes with a nuke plant in the background.

> Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
> pre-conceived notions.

You sound like CBS/Fox. Just which side of this thing are you on,
anyway?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Hi all,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:

> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "David H" wrote:
>>>> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
>>>> This is war!
>>>
>>> Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
>>> CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
>>> they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
>>> by fighters and shot down.
>>
>> Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from
>> Faux. It will be interesting to see how they top it.
>
> Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You
> know...the worst possible security risk?
>
What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if someone
flew a Cherokee into a plant?
Here are some things to consider:

* The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.

* The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other buildings.
It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that contains the
reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee would be similar to
the result of the 172 that hit the office building in Fla. You might break
a window or two in the building.

The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of these
plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that we're dealing
with here in Ohio.

I sure hope that the population of this country gets a clue sometime soon.

Neil

"David B. Cole" > wrote in message
m...
> The question is how near the plant was he? I know the airport where
> the guy is based and it happens to be near, yeah you guessed it, a
> nuclear power plant. On a XC to Reading PA after my checkride I flew
> right over the airport and the stacks of the power plant were about 4
> miles off my left wing. So flying into Pottstown puts you in the
> vicinity of a nuclear power plant no matter what.
>
> Dave

Too bad their lack of omniscience missed that little point in the news
_brief_.

Let's see: CBS suggests he be shot down by an F-16 -- Fox make the point
that he flew neara nuclear plat (which he in fact did).

So......


>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "David H" wrote:
> > > > > Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
> > > > > This is war!
> > > >
> > > > Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
> > > > CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
> > > > they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
> > > > by fighters and shot down.
> > >
> > > Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux.
It
> > > will be interesting to see how they top it.
> >
> > Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You
know...the
> > worst possible security risk?
> >
> > Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
> > pre-conceived notions.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Hi all,
>
> Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:
>
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "David H" wrote:
> >>>> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
> >>>> This is war!
> >>>
> >>> Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
> >>> CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
> >>> they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
> >>> by fighters and shot down.
> >>
> >> Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from
> >> Faux. It will be interesting to see how they top it.
> >
> > Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You
> > know...the worst possible security risk?
> >
> What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if someone
> flew a Cherokee into a plant?
> Here are some things to consider:
>
> * The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
> would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.
>
> * The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other buildings.
> It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that contains the
> reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee would be similar to
> the result of the 172 that hit the office building in Fla. You might break
> a window or two in the building.
>
> The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
> power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
> catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of these
> plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that we're dealing
> with here in Ohio.

Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?

>
> I sure hope that the population of this country gets a clue sometime soon.
>

Me too. But remember that FOX supposedly just "reports" ( far cry from
CBS's SHOOT HIM DOWN...hell, FOX didn't even suggest "Th'ow him to the
floor")

The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security, so
"why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security, so
> "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?
>

Because maybe the threat was accurately assessed as nil?

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened security,
so
> > "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?
> >
>
> Because maybe the threat was accurately assessed as nil?
>
You know that, and I know that, but does the media? Well, yes, but that
don't sell!

Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
>> someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
>> Here are some things to consider:
>>
>> * The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
>> would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.
>>
>> * The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
>> buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
>> contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
>> would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
>> building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.
>>
>> The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
>> power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
>> catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
>> these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
>> we're dealing with here in Ohio.
>
> Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?
>
The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
by private utilities.

As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
rules and deregulation. In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
been in deep trouble.

> The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
> security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?
>
The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Neil

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
> being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
> where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
> is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
> built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
> sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
> present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
> version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.
>


Exactly, as it diverts resources from dealing with real issues. This is
akin to yelling "FIRE" in a theatre.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> > Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?
> >
> The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
> utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
> by private utilities.

Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road with _no_
oversight, do you?

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Hi,
>
> Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:
>
> > "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> What's the security risk, here? What do you think would happen if
> >> someone flew a Cherokee into a plant?
> >> Here are some things to consider:
> >>
> >> * The easiest "target" would be one of the cooling towers. A Cherokee
> >> would simply compact itself on the side of the towers and fall off.
> >>
> >> * The reactor in the plants around here is surrounded by other
> >> buildings. It would be *very* difficult to hit the building that
> >> contains the reactor. But, the result of doing so with a Cherokee
> >> would be similar to the result of the 172 that hit the office
> >> building in Fla. You might break a window or two in the building.
> >>
> >> The fear of danger caused by someone flying a GA plane into a nuclear
> >> power plant is simply irrational. There is a *far* greater risk of
> >> catastrophe from poor maintenance practices in the every day use of
> >> these plants, as can be exemplified by the Davis-Besse fiasco that
> >> we're dealing with here in Ohio.
> >
> > Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?
> >
> The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as other
> utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned and operated
> by private utilities.
>
> As for poor regulation... well, that's one of the by-products of relaxed
> rules and deregulation.

_relaxed_ , how?

I'd like to know your definition of "deregulation". Remember: The roughly
same poeple that regulate the nuclear industry also regulate avaition
safety. (shudder!!!)



> In this particular case, the Davis-Besse plant has
> been down for the last couple of years because of maintenance and
> operation problems. The problem that got the most attention was a hole
> about the size of a football eaten almost all the way through the reactor
> lid by dripping acid. Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
> been in deep trouble.

I'd heard something along that line -- do you have a reference with more
detail?


> > The point, though, is that we are supposedly under tightened
> > security, so "why wasn't the action deal with more severely"?
> >
> The fact is, we're under the *illusion* of tightened security, based on
> being pointlessly harrassed in fairly meaningless ways. And, in areas
> where we have some *real* problems, we're far too laxadaisical. A Cherokee
> is just not likely to do any serious damage to a building, much less one
> built to the standards of a nuclear (or *any*) power plant. Visit one
> sometime, and imagine yourself in the cockpit trying to do some damage. To
> present such as scenario as a plausible threat to our safety is one
> version of terrorist activity, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I know howthey're built...and you're right -- most of it is meaningless
scare tactics.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!
>
>So...which story was more newsworthy: CNN or Fox?

Probably CNN this time. Fox always goes for the shouters.

Rob

"Rob Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
>
> >> Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them! This is war!
> >
> >So...which story was more newsworthy: CNN or Fox?
>
> Probably CNN this time. Fox always goes for the shouters.

('scuse...CBS, not CNN, the one's that aired their laundry about the lies
they told)

Fox goes for shouters, but CBS is shrilling to shoot down Cherokee's? --
man, what are YOU smoking?

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
> been in deep trouble.

That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
when people who don't know anything about general aviation
irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
same about something they don't know about.

"Bruce Bockius" > wrote in message
om...
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> > Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
> > caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would have
> > been in deep trouble.
>
> That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
> by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
> when people who don't know anything about general aviation
> irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
> same about something they don't know about.

Would you elaborate on that (the nuclear part)?

Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>>
>>> Poor maintenance in a government run/regulated facility?
>>>
>> The nuclear plants in Ohio are run by private companies, just as
>> other utilities. I suspect that many, if not most plants are owned
>> and operated by private utilities.
>
> Yes...., but you don't mean to infer they just slide down the road
> with _no_ oversight, do you?
>
If whatever "oversight" that is imposed is insufficient to detect
situations that can lead to catastrophic failures, then what does it
matter? The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

I don't wish to be misunderstood... I am not against nuclear power. I *am*
very much against the deregulation of utilities (too late, though). And
I'm not under any illusions that our best interests are being protected in
any way by the way things are being done.

Neil

Recently, Bruce Bockius > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
>> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
>> have been in deep trouble.
>
> That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
> by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
> when people who don't know anything about general aviation
> irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
> same about something they don't know about.
>
I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given
that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
please.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
>
> The nature of the problem with this particular plant was such that
> failure, averted only by luck AFAICT, could have killed far more people
> than any terrorist act in history and rendered hundreds of thousands of
> square miles of land useless for the foreseeable future.

Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can explode?

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Recently, Bruce Bockius > posted:
>
> > "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
> >> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
> >> have been in deep trouble.
> >
> > That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
> > by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
> > when people who don't know anything about general aviation
> > irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
> > same about something they don't know about.
> >
> I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
> in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention.

Sorry...that's not true. You're confusing a engineer with a scientist (and
one versed in nuclear physics at that).


> So. Given
> that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
> Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
> the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
> reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
> the investigators.

Hearsay doesn't not enhance your "position as an engineer".

> So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
> please.

That's what we're trying to find out, but your claim of credibility as a
engineer is rather misstated.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
>
> Really? How? Are you under the impression that commercial nukes can
explode?

I've always been under the impression that they certainly could, though
not in the same way a nuclear weapon does, i. e. a chain reaction
fission event.

Wasn't a mechanical pressure explosion possible, with the resultant
widespread release of radioactive material?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

What bothers me is that your homeowner's insurance won't cover you, the
plant operator won't cover you, the plant insurance won't cover you, the
state won't cover you, and the federal government won't cover you. However,
should there be a significant release of radioactivity, you WILL be
prevented from going back to your property indefinitely, and you WILL be
obligated to continue paying your mortgage AND even insurance premiums!

It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make
the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an
accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant
owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I
will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can
be done to assure safety.




"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Recently, Bruce Bockius > posted:
>
> > "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> >> Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
> >> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
> >> have been in deep trouble.
> >
> > That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers posed
> > by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that get upset
> > when people who don't know anything about general aviation
> > irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the exact
> > same about something they don't know about.
> >
> I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my background
> in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of attention. So. Given
> that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in Northern
> Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly relieved to know how
> the release of radioactive steam and the resultant inability to cool the
> reactor is not a problem. Both of these consequences have been stated by
> the investigators. So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
> please.
>
> Neil
>
>
>

Hi,

Recently, Tom Sixkiller > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Bruce Bockius > posted:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>>> Had that gone far enough that the operating pressure
>>>> caused the lid to fracture, a good portion of Northern Ohio would
>>>> have been in deep trouble.
>>>
>>> That statement is as accurate as CBS's assesment of the dangers
>>> posed by general aviation. I am continually amazed by people that
>>> get upset when people who don't know anything about general aviation
>>> irrationally express fear of it, but then turn around and do the
>>> exact same about something they don't know about.
>>>
>> I am not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on TV. But, my
>> background in engineering does make this scenario one worthy of
>> attention.
>
> Sorry...that's not true. You're confusing a engineer with a scientist
> (and one versed in nuclear physics at that).
>
Where is the confusion? The problem with the reactor lid was a
*mechanical* one, within the realm of strength of materials and structural
integrity. Guess what? That's what engineers study. So, if you are under
the impression that this was *not* a scenario worthy of attention, then
offer some insights as to why, and why the proposed fixes were rejected,
keeping this plant closed for a couple of years?

>> So. Given
>> that the threats posed by GA are near to nil, and as I live in
>> Northern Ohio (and downwind from this plant), I'd be greatly
>> relieved to know how the release of radioactive steam and the
>> resultant inability to cool the reactor is not a problem. Both of
>> these consequences have been stated by the investigators.
>
> Hearsay doesn't not enhance your "position as an engineer".
>
>> So, if you, in fact, know differently, enlighten me,
>> please.
>
> That's what we're trying to find out, but your claim of credibility
> as a engineer is rather misstated.
>
To begin with, I'm not claiming credibility on the basis of my background
in engineering. I think it helps me to understand the nature of the
problem. Beyond that, people can draw their own conclusions.

What puzzles me about your response is that you're turning it into some
kind of personal matter, rather than dealing with the facts. DON'T take my
word for it. But, for some reason, you don't even go so far as to Google
on "Davis-Besse" to find out for yourself what the circumstances are. It's
not a new situation, and much has been written about it. So, to put an end
to this, here's the first of many pages that turn up with that simple
phrase:

cleveland.com: Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station
.... Is it safe? Is the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station safe? The Plain
Dealer investigates...
» Latest: Davis-Besse workers slip up during restart preparations. ...
http://www.cleveland.com/davisbesse/ - 36k - similar pages
toledoblade.com
.... JANUARY 16, 2004 Managers changed at Davis-Besse Akron-based
FirstEnergy, which is
still trying to obtain approval to restart its troubled Davis-Besse
nuclear ...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS30 - 60k -
Jan 17, 2004 - similar pages
Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head
.... fact sheet Davis-Besse: The Reactor with a Hole in its Head The
reactor
core at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant sits within a metal ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=790 -
40k - similar pages
Davis-Besse Retrospective
.... analysis Davis-Besse Retrospective, ... The FirstEnergy Nuclear
Operating Company,
the owner of Davis-Besse, was prepared to contest an order. ...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/page.cfm?pageID=1133 -
31k - similar pages [ More results from www.ucsusa.org ]
US Nuclear Reactors - Davis-Besse
Davis-Besse Ohio ... PWR= Pressurized Light Water Reactor Description: The
Davis-Besse
power plant is located in Oak Harbor, Ohio, on a site covering 954 acres.
....
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/davisbesse.html -
15k - similar pages
Davis-Besse nuclear power plant -- Ohio Citizen Action
FirstEnergy and Davis-Besse. Jan 17: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
investigating
overtime at Davis-Besse ... OAK HARBOR -- Davis-Besse plant suffers new
setback. ...
http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/electric/nucfront.html - 26k - Jan
17, 2004 - similar pages
Davis-Besse
.... Davis-Besse Oak Harbor, Ohio, United States Pressurized Water Reactor
(PWR) Net Output: 877 MWe Operable. Initial criticality: 08/1977. ...
http://www.nukeworker.com/nuke_facilities/North_America/usa/NRC_Facilities/Region_3/davis_besse/index.shtml -
25k - similar pages
Beacon Journal | 12/13/2003 | NRC may observe Davis-Besse test
.... Business. Posted on Sat, Dec. 13, 2003, NRC may observe Davis-Besse
test. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission could begin a three-day ...
http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/business/7482782.htm - 40k - similar
pages
Scoop: Anger Against Re-Start of Davis-Besse Reactor
.... DESTRUCTION SOON RE-OPEN? Public Anger Mounting Against Re-Start of
Davis-Besse Reactor By Harvey Wasserman http://www.freepress.org. ...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00060.htm - 27k - Jan 17,
2004 - similar pages
Ottawa County Emergency Management
.... Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station produces electricity much like a
coal power plant. ... Davis-Besse is a pressurized water reactor. ...
http://www.ottawacountyema.org/davisbesse.html - 16k - similar pages


When you've consumed this material, I'd be happy to hear how you think
this is less of a problem than any threat posed by GA, which is what my
point was to begin with. Or, you can keep your head in the sand. Your
choice.

Neil

I've landed at this airport a number of times and I can assure you
that everyone that flys there is flying adjacent to the power plant.
That's why runway 28 has a right hand pattern. If it were a left hand
pattern you would be able to look right down into the cooling towers
while turning crosswind to downwind. This fellow did a lot of things
wrong, but as far as the power plant goes he was the same as any other
pilot flying into PTW.
Rich Russell

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:20:14 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>
>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>> "David H" wrote:
>> > > Damned if they're going to let CBS out-alarm them!
>> > > This is war!
>> >
>> > Well, I didn't see how it was covered on Faux News, but on
>> > CBS (which apparently now stands for Complete Bull Sh*t)
>> > they asked rhetorically why the Cherokee wasn't intercepted
>> > by fighters and shot down.
>>
>> Yep, that trumps the "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT!!!!" hand waving from Faux. It
>> will be interesting to see how they top it.
>
>Was, or wasn't he, flying adjacent to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? You know...the
>worst possible security risk?
>
>Dan, you sound like you're trying to fill in the blanks of your
>pre-conceived notions.
>

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message >...
>
> It is not right that homeowners take the risk while the plant operators make
> the profit. They have their plant insured so they will come out of an
> accident ok, while thousands of families will be ruined. When the plant
> owners cover the homeowners for the loss resulting from a major accident I
> will begin to feel like they will take some care to make sure everything can
> be done to assure safety.

Is there some kind of law that I don't know about that would make
the plant operators not responsible for damage to others property?
Why do you assume that they will come out OK because their plant is
insured. In real life, I would imagine that the homeowners would sue
them right out of business and everyone would be equally screwed.
There are no winners in a nuclear accident.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)