Hi, that would probably come under the same 'law of common sense' that
allows Police vehicles to exceed the national speed limit, and Ambulances
to go through red traffic lights.

Just wondering... Does any country still use 'Fire Bells' on their
fire-engines. A friend of mine had a pair of 4 foot long air horns on
his Fiat Uno... Sounded really good, even half a mile away.


At 14:55 27 January 2013, John Firth wrote:
If there is a fire at a nuclear facility, can the fire service legally
fly a surveillance draone (or helicopter) over the
zone below 2000ft??
Who can authorise this?

John F



At 11:15 21 January 2013, Peter Higgs wrote:
At 05:38 21 January 2013, GC wrote:
On 21/01/2013 11:46, Bill Palmer wrote:
The reality is that the nuclear containment domes are virtually
impenetrable by aircraft. I recall seeing a video study wherein they
ran an F-4 (or something similar) into a section of one and the
airplane was vaporized while the cement structure was unscathed. The
public doesn't quite understand the fragile nature of an airframe,
and that ramming a nuclear facility with one is about a worrisome as
pelting it with eggs.


Can't blame people really. Everybody knows now how fragile skyscrapers

can be when rammed by a 767 and, to most people, large tower buildings
look to be at least as solid as a nuclear dome. That's the reality to
be dealt with.

GC


I think two facts remain...

Even a 66% efficient power station produces 33% waste heat. So if it
is
a
100 MW station, there is a nice 33 MW Thermal continuously rising on the
lee side.

In the UK (world leaders in democracy?) ALL Nuclear Facilities have a 2
mile and 2000ft Restricted Safety Zone around them.

You can't have your cake and eat it.... Please decide.

phiggs