Sheriff Responds to AOPA

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