"Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 [nuclear] reactors"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Dean warned - nothing happens.
Bush warned - twin towers go down.
decisions decisions...
Both are BS. Hindsight is worthless in that respect.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Although the states do manage complex projects on a regular basis (think Mass/Boston recently) none of them have responsibility for handling nuclear fuel. This problem at Yankee is more like the kinds of problems we see at airports with every Tom Dick and Harry being able to carry a tactical thermonuclear weapon on board without being caught. :) j/k

Anyway, no country allows its municipalities or states to run nuclear power programs, at least not to my knowledge.

Heartsurgeon I would never bait you. Needle, yes..... :)
Now if you were Fisherman....
-Robert
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj




"Every other nuke plant has had tight security before Bin Laden even thought of his plan. "

Care to back that up? How do you define tight? What metrics are you using to define tight security as compared to the Vermont Plant, and how specifically did Howard Dean contribute to that? How did his actions compare to those of other governors both before and after 9/11? This whole argument has no context.

I drove into Calvert Cliffs with four other people unnanounced in a police car to use thier ranges prior to 9/11 (back in 2000). All terrorists would have had to do would be to steal a car and make up some uniforms to do the same. That is not possible now. All domestic facilities have made changes since September 11.
Nuclear plants typically allow local police forces to use their firing ranges because the local police often do not have adequate facilities. The practice range is never within the secure area and access is not required to be limited. It is likely that plants today have expanded the security but this is not necessarily required. Nuclear plants typically have at least three levels of access security and that will not be obvious to the casual visitor.

Security is different now, but nuclear plants have always had much better security than most vulnerable facilties.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
69,418
4,796
126
How convenient, now Bush can slightly modify his "Mushroom clouds" speech and use it in the campaign, provided Dean is chosen. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY