Greenpeace Breaks Into French Nuclear Plant 561
dotancohen writes "Greenpeace activists secretly entered a French nuclear site before dawn and draped a banner reading 'Hey' and 'Easy' on its reactor containment building, to expose the vulnerability of atomic sites in the country. Greenpeace said the break-in aimed to show that an ongoing review of safety measures, ordered by French authorities after a tsunami ravaged Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant earlier this year, was focused too narrowly on possible natural disasters, and not human factors."
Good thing nobody hates the French (Score:3, Funny)
Said, with tongue firmly in cheek.
Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (Score:5, Informative)
Funnily enough, the whole tongue-in-cheek thing was started by a frenchman
I forget the exact details, but he was sarcastically complimenting an englishman on his "invention", that the french had actually done years before
pressing your tongue lightly against your cheek prevented you from accidentally smiling after making a sarcastic comment
Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (Score:5, Interesting)
Funnily enough, the whole tongue-in-cheek thing was started by a frenchman
I forget the exact details, but he was sarcastically complimenting an englishman on his "invention", that the french had actually done years before
pressing your tongue lightly against your cheek prevented you from accidentally smiling after making a sarcastic comment
Sabotage is also a French word - throwing shoes into the machinery.
Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, some 25-40% of English words are of French origin, so this thread could easily become the longest ever on /.
Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (Score:4, Informative)
No.
A lot of the modern English language, particularly parts of the vocabulary related to law, justice, and rulership, are inherited from the Norman-French of William the Conqueror and his successors. Anglo-Norman [wikipedia.org] was the language of the Norman ruling class, and by assimilation part of English.
Now, it's fair to argue whether Norman-French is "French". I suspect it's as close to modern French as medieval Portuguese is to modern Castilian Spanish. But it is definitely French, not Latin, so those contributions to English are directly via French, not merely a common root of Latin.
Note, too, that a lot of specific legal jargon (i.e., words and phrases specific to the practice of law) is derived from Law French [wikipedia.org]. Such words as "mortgage", "parole", or "tort" come directly from Ango-Norman or Parisian French.
Re: (Score:3)
Does it really matter how information has been obtained, if at the end of the day, the information is the same?
Seriously. If they could make a 3 hour long action film that somehow taught algebra, would you look down on the person who learned it this way, instead of the individual who self-taught by studying an old maths book for a week?
Sabotage is an elementary school topic in the US (Score:3)
I don't give up hope that there are people out there who know about the origin of sabotage from reading (p.e. Gibson/Sterling's The Difference Engine) instead of Star Trek marathons.
I had no recollection of Sabotage and the origin of the word being in a Star Trek episode. I knew this from studying French and the little bit of French history where striking workers threw their shoes into machinery to bring the machinery to a halt.
In the US we learn (or at least used to) the word in elementary school during social studies (history) when we get to the part about the industrial revolution. That incident was one of several that occurred across the industrializing nations, this one happened to be more visually evocative and happened to be in France. Its a notable event in world history, its not really specific to French history.
What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Funny)
If they'd gotten shot they probably wouldn't be talking at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they were shot, they would be more proof how dangerous nuclear power plants are. The accident would double the victims of nuclear power in the recent decade!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on how you look at things.
If you count measurably shortened life span, though, the folks around Fukushima might argue with you about impact.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
but the expanded life span due to having heat on demand and the ability to light you home at night with something other than smoky fires counters that as well.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not claiming that coal doesn't kill through pollution, too. Claiming that nuclear never kills, including by accidental emission and mishandling of waste, however, is naive and deceptive.
Probably would have been better had I used Chernobyl as opposed to Fukushima for my example; those statistics are in and readily available.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear apologists seem to be fixated on this comparison with coal, but as the GP said it is highly misleading and a straw man. Greenpeace, or the mainstream green movement for that matter, are not arguing for more coal. They are arguing for clean and reliable energy.
Look at Japan, a nation heavily dependent on nuclear power because it has few natural resources. 80% of their reactors are still offline but the country has not reverted to the stone age. I was there in the immediate aftermath and people had to cut down energy usage, but the country coped. Now they have lifted most of the restrictions, so it just goes to show that even when forced to drop most nuclear power with no warning or preparation it won't completely cripple a country.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Informative)
While it is true that Japan has a functioning grid now without most of their nuclear units, you can not look only at that fact. To get back to minimum capacity, they had to restart many of their old coal plants which had been partially or recently decommissioned. These plants were shut down because they were really filthy, and more expensive than nuclear- Japan imports 100% of their coal.
They restarted some of their old hydro facilities also. Mostly those were shut down because of environmental reasons also. They are lucky that they were only recently shut down and the dams were not demolished yet.
They borrowed a bunch of portable power units (generators in a container) from Taiwan, and purchased many also. These are diesel generators or gas turbines mounted in a container, producing maybe 3 to 7MW apiece. I am not sure about the details of Japan's pollution laws, but in the US, these container generators are only allowed to run in extreme emergencies, or for less than a few dozen hours a year since they have very little pollution controls.
The conservation effort is also still in progress, but maybe you didn't notice it. Our factory still has power saving measures in place, mostly relating to lighting and heating/cooling. I was there recently and working at a desk in my winter jacket might not have been "the stone age", but it was not very comfortable.
I did a quick calculation on how much energy would be saved by the earthquake victims and their companies not using electricity, but this is not that significant (around 25MW). Apologies if this is insensitive.
The country is still on the edge of a stable grid also. There is a big concern that later in the winter when it is much colder, there might be a big problem. Most Japanese apartments and houses use electric-based heating. In the summer, cutting off the AC might be a viable, if uncomfortable option, but you can't let people freeze.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Give it time. Nuclear hasn't been around as long as coal, and with nuclear the plants themselves become more dangerous to operate as they age.
Christ on a crutch. This is why people are advocating for newer, cleaner, safer designs! Instead of continuing to rely stuff built in the 70's with technology firmly rooted in the 50's, why not build new plants based off cleaner, safer designs that have emerged in the last decade or two?
The problem is all the NIMBYs and BANANAs and people who've been hyper-conditioned to think "Nuclear = bomb in my yard".
And such stockpiles of waste wouldn't accumulate as fast or in as vast a quantity if we use newer designs and actually recycled the damn fuel! Yet another thing the "Nuclear = China Meltdown System On My Children" hyperbole-spewers have prevented us from undertaking.
Yes, the final end-product is quite dangerous. But it's quite compact and can be stored away from the populace quite easily. Or would if, yet again, the "Nuclear = THE DEVIL!" crowd would stop blowing holes in comprehensive planning and then bitching because the plan is now no longer comprehensive.
Personally, I'd rather have a man-made cavern in a geologically safe area be dangerous as hell for the next 10,000 years than have to breathe that crap in every day of my lives from coal-fired plants. Or risk dying in a cave-in. Or having the state I live in become a vassal-entity to another state simply because all the "renewable" power schemes don't work here due to climate conditions.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Interesting)
Christ on a crutch. This is why people are advocating for newer, cleaner, safer designs!
TFA mentions that Greenpeace's aim was to demonstrate that no matter how safe you make the reactor design you can't make security perfect at the plant, let alone when transporting nuclear material.
You also have to consider the commercial viability of new designs, particularly Thorium which is the only option that is approaching clean and meltdown-proof. It would take a decade and tens of billions to get the first commercial Thorium reactor up and running, and demand is already falling. Plus you can only sell it to a very limited number of countries where as renewables have a global market. It just does't make economic sense, and even if it did that wouldn't stop it being prone to major accidents, natural disasters or deliberate attacks.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Interesting)
The massive stockpiles of highly radioactive waste that continue to accumulate also represent a not-so-slowly increasing risk.
That's not a risk from nuclear power, but from public hysteria. I think it's deeply hypocritical for society to deliberately worsen a safety issue at nuclear plants while simultaneously complaining about the safety of nuclear plants. My view is that waives the public's right to not be harmed by leaks from that particular failure mode,
A similar thing goes on with the public's resistance to building new nuclear plants. It's far harder to decomission a nuclear plant when there is no replacement for it (whether nuclear, fossil fuel, or alternative energy). That leads to nuclear plants operating for longer than they probably should be.
Fukushima is a classic example of both failures of society in action. The plant was originally planned to be at least mostly decommissioned by the time of the tsunami and the fuel rods were stored on site, which made the problem worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably would have been better had I used Chernobyl as opposed to Fukushima for my example; those statistics are in and readily available.
Well... According to the Wikipedia Charnobyl disaster effects [wikipedia.org] page, the reports vary from 62 deaths (UNSCEAR) to 985,000 deaths (New York Academy of Sciences). Not exactly a clear-cut case.
Also, as a comparison; Banqiao Dam in China (hydro power). The dam failure there killed an estimated 171,000 people.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see how that "measurability" was established, considering that scientists can't even figure out if minor increase in radioactivity is net negative or net positive, as there are different factors at play, which represent both directions.
Oh, you're probably referring to stuff like being exposed to elements for prolonged time, having to eat dirty food, and so on. Bad news: that was earthquake and tsunami. They also killed over thirty thousand people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.
There was this really funny research on survivors of people who were putting out Chernobyl fires. Of those who survived the ordeal and a couple of months after it (when most people who got lethal dose died), there was a greater portion of them alive now then there was of general population. This was (at least partially) attributed to significant increase in health checks of the rescue crews, which allowed medics to find many problems and fix them rather then have them evolve into something incurably lethal (as is the case with many cancers).
So should we now state that Fukushima accident will likely increase life expectancy of the workers who were fixing it like it was in Chernobyl. We'll know in a couple of decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Radioactivity is possibly healthy for you? Wow. Somehow, I'm reminded of the Chesterfield Cigareette adds from the '50's....
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's worth noting that not only was there a major change, but there also is an issue of significantly increased checks for cancers commonly associated with irradiation (but which may or may not be caused by radiation), which in turn results in more findings of said cancers and ironically, more people that survive those cancers as they are found early enough to be able to treat them.
Real killer in the territory around Chernobyl, and across all former USSR members is alcohol, and it's also by far the biggest factor in the shortening of life-spans (observable also by remarkable difference between average age of men vs women).
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
measurably shortened life span
You are wrong about the certitude of the shortened life expectancy. Marie-Curie who worked without any protection with Radium, Polonium and Uranium, died at 66. She was 1 years older than the US female average life expectancy at that time. You could counter argue that her husband, Pierre-Curie, died younger at 46. However his dead was the result of his skull crushed by the heavy wheel of an horse drawn cart, nothing to do with radiation at all...
And Fukushima is not in the same league as Chernobyl. Therefore on what do you based this affirmed mesurability ?
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong about the certitude of the shortened life expectancy. Marie-Curie who worked without any protection with Radium, Polonium and Uranium, died at 66. She was 1 years older than the US female average life expectancy at that time.
Okay, the first problem is that you are trying to make an argument based on an anecdote. A single case does not a trend make, one way or the other. But even if we ignore that, you're still doing it wrong: to do it right, you'd have to compare Marie Curie's actual lifespan against the lifespan Marie Curie would have attained had she not suffered from radiation poisoning. Comparing her lifespan against the average woman's lifespan is meaningless because Mme Curie was not the average woman -- no woman is. You might as well argue that getting a piano dropped on your head is harmless as long as you are 65 or older when it happens.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Informative)
So, you're arguing in favor of compete sociopathy towards anyone not in your immediate family.
there a big difference by being unmoved by a statistically normal event by a statistically unprobable cause (in that particular case the death of a 83 years grandmother caused by the a fallen piano) not affecting your immediate family and being a sociopath. If falling pianos would became something that occurred frequently I would be in favor of a public health campaign against falling pianos. I am a kind of small l libertarian. I believe in maximized personal freedom, however I understand that you need a certain level of government for things like health, education, territorial protection (against harm, thief and invaders), roads, money and contract enforcement to raise above the middleageous swamp.
Re: (Score:3)
She was 1 years older than the US female average life expectancy at that time.
Life expectancy for a woman who was Mme Curie's age when she started working with radioactive stuff, or life expectancy at birth? Because childhood diseases and accidents were still a substantial source of overall mortality in Mme Curie's day, and life expectancy at birth was heavily influenced by that reality. Those who made it to adulthood had life expectancies far more comparable to today's (heart disease and cancer - two maj
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Fukushima ends up having a cancer impact outside the error bars on normal cancer, as a health physicist, I will be shocked. Even Chernobyl was murky healthwise (besides the few children killed by iodine, and we watch closely for that now that we know its a risk), and leading opponents of nuclear have already started warning people that not seeing an impact doesn't mean there wasn't one. Which is true, hence our use of highly conservative models for these incidents. But to imply widespread cancer increases due to Fukushima is to be disingenuous at best and a liar at worst. I mean for Gods sake, even among the survivors of the atomic bombs the cancer incidence rate was such a small blip it is widely considered to be statistically useless.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Informative)
yeah accidents to measurably shorten life spans, but in day-to-day runnings there is significantly more radiation around coal-fired plants than by nuclear plants.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no "significantly more radiation around coal-fired plants" than around nuclear plants today, please stop misquoting that ancient article.
First, the study you quote was made in the early 70s and published in 1978. Currently, coal plants are already fitted with filters (and have been since mid-80s, due to concerns other than radiation) that have reduced the emitted ash (and radioactive isotopes) to levels that are significantly less than what they were back then. The problem simply does not exist a
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Versus what, the residents of West Virginia, China, or anywhere else where coal is the predominant source of electricity?
People are stupid. "Nuclear power is dangerous, look at Fukishima". The following month, a nuclear power plant (IIRC of the same vintage) in Omaha, Nebraska was flooded. No permanent harm came of the flooding. Why was that not "big news"?
The problem is that the Japanese put too much stock in their government, and their nuclear reactors were both out of date and ill maintained. This tragedy has been used politically well beyond the scope of the problem. The problem wasn't nuclear power, it was incompetence and negligence.
People talk about there being a "good, green alternative". I've got news for you: there are nuclear reactor designs which can take weapons grade whatever and turn it into relatively inert materials, all while being designed in a fashion which does not allow for a meltdown to occur using passive safety methods and different approaches in the reactors. China is doing this. France, to a limited degree, is doing this.
There's also talk about nuke power being expensive. Why is it expensive? The impoverished (relatively) Chinese seem to think it's an economically feasible situation, even though they've got more than enough coal and hydroelectric to power things completely if they wanted to. Is it more expensive than the loss of health, longevity, environment, and mental accuity that other power methods produce? Not really.
The real truth here is that Greenpeace is a group of crazed radicals. They burn industrial complexes in the name of saving the environment, kill animals off in the name of preserving them (particularly through subsidiaries like PETA), and protest the only clear, viable power source we have for the future (the US has hundreds of years of nuclear power in nuclear waste alone).
Re: (Score:3)
And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?
The French government has no need to underscore how mean they can be to Greenpeace [wikipedia.org] Ever been in the Paris Metro and see the soldiers with the rifles, just waiting for someone to start some trouble? You'll now see them inside the N-plants. Well played GP.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the point was to generate press coverage. Greenpeace's greatest cause is self-promotion.
Close. Greenpeace's main tactic is publicity: Doing showy stunts that bring popular attention to issues they deem to be important.
So yeah, they want press coverage. That's their schtick.
I worked for Greenpeace in the 1980s, and let me tell you, there is a LOT to complain about with this organisation. But this action is not one of them. It's a classic hacker tactic, showing with a single action what a thousand words of dry exposition could never convey: Civilian nuclear technology in France is not adequately secured.
Everybody seems to focus on the 'Green' part of their name and ignore the 'Peace'. Greenpeace was actually founded by a bunch of folks on the West Coast of Canada [wikipedia.org] who wanted to block underground nuclear tests in a tectonically unstable section of Alaska. Rather than march and Occupy and write letters and etc., they just got into a boat and sailed toward the test site. The front pages were covered with headlines to the effect of 'Who Are These Wackos', but in the process they got people to think about the dangers of nuclear testing in a geologically unsuitable location.
I have no truck whatsoever with the insanely stupid 'Save the Seals' crap that Paul Watson [wikipedia.org] and co. brought into the organisation. Personally, I think their take on environmentalism is crushingly stupid, for the most part. But their campaigns for nuclear security are often smart, focused and, while they're fraught with histrionics, they generally make a valid point.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Informative)
> Civilian nuclear technology in France is not adequately secured.
Besides generating bad publicity, what exactly can most attacks do to the outside of a containment vessel? From Wikipedia:
Any terrorist thinking that a containment vessel is a good target, relative to lots of other available ones, is frankly an idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The French government has no need to underscore how mean they can be to Greenpeace [wikipedia.org] Ever been in the Paris Metro and see the soldiers with the rifles, just waiting for someone to start some trouble? You'll now see them inside the N-plants. Well played GP.
Ripley: Lieutenant, what do those pulse-rifles fire?
Gorman: 10 millimeter explosive tip caseless. Standard light armor-piercing rounds. Why?
Ripley: Well, look where your team is. They're right under the primary heat exchangers.
Gorman: So?
Re: (Score:3)
And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?
The French government has no need to underscore how mean they can be to Greenpeace [wikipedia.org].
Why bother? Tell people in multiple languages to stay clear of the area, as you are doing nuclear weapon testing. Have ships and aircraft in the area to intercept anyone trying to breach the blockade and make sure they get the message. Have you any idea how much damage that nuclear weapon would suffer if they let it detonate with Greenpeace in the area?
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:4, Insightful)
The French government said they recognized it was some activists and did nothing
So if I want to plant a bomb on a nuclear reactor I just have to dress like a hippy and hand out pamphlets on my way into the plant?
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you did. This is a 100psi+ containment building you're talking about. What would you expect to accomplish... maybe scratch the paint?
There is no man-portable weapon that is a real threat to a nuclear facility.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, but the folks who would do that would do it anyway and likely are as we type.
The fact the Greenpeace team weren't sniped instantly shows France and any other country which doesn't post armed kill teams onsite isn't concerned with stopping terrorists. Cameras are nice but manned posts are necessary for instant response.
Gotta give Greenpeace credit for having balls.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta give Greenpeace credit for having balls.
Ever been to a Greenpeace function? Most of them don't. **
* * Well, at least on external inspection. My GF at the time would have frowned at more detailed research
Re: (Score:3)
According to the security they were monitored the whole time. Possibly they were trying to avoid having another Rainbow Warrior on their hands by recognizing a bunch of hippies as just that and _not_ shooting them on sight. People protest at all things related to Nuclear Energy all the time, I doubt they could really enforce security in the way you suggest (we all know what happens when you give Cartman Authoritah), and I hope they have a more intelligence based approach.
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if it turned out the other way? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I can promise you, the farm I lived on briefly in France had a few firearms on premises. If I remember correctly, the Swiss have among the highest percentage of armed citizens you'll find.
Don't let your TV spoon-feed you generalizations about very large and diverse places. They're often wrong.
It's funny how stupid they are (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's funny how stupid they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like they didn't protest against nuclear energy. They protested against lax security. This is one of the best white-hat real-world sneaks I've every heard of in my life. What a way to make their point!
Re:It's funny how stupid they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Article I read about the event mentioned that Greenpeace called the French authorities and said that their guys were doing this, so the French troops who were about to gun down the "white hats" came within a couple of minutes of reading about this in the obituaries.
Telling the French "oh, yeah, those are our guys, please don't shoot them" doesn't strike me as making nearly as much of a point as Greenpeace would like to think they made.
Re:It's funny how stupid they are (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read by glancing at French reports, the EDF says they had detected the intruders and followed them throughout the complex on the security systems, but decided not to intervene because they were "obviously" pacifist militants.
The question is whether we can trust the EDF's PR department.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck you TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I does depend on how you measure pollutants. Nuclear energy produces tons and tons and tons of extremely long lived nuclear waste, it is a completely different kind of pollutant but it is a pollutant just the same.
Re:It's funny how stupid they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Less polluting than WHAT exactly? Actually it's the MOST polluting, as well as most expensive way of boiling water that we know of. You need to read up on radioactivity.
And how exactly is it the most polluting? CO2? Radioactivity? Coal has nuke fission plants trumped on both of those.
Oh wait, coal plants put out more radiation in one day than a nuke plant would be allowed to put out in one year. Also a nuke reactor kicks out ZERO in the terms of green house gasses.
I'd also like to point out that radiation is not the instant killer a fireball from an exploding gas* tank is!
*Gas or petrol, take your pick.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's funny how stupid they are (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace will never be satisfied until the all energy resources are eliminated.
That would shut them up. But Greenpeace does occasionally make valid points. If a bunch of leftist yahoo girls can breach reactor security, then somebody is doing something very, very wrong.
Yes, nuclear power can be done safely and maybe even economically. No, it doesn't look like anybody but the US Navy is actually doing it right.
That is the big problem with nuclear power. It COULD be done safely. It hasn't been and likely won't be because it's expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
"wind turbines kill birds.."
"... up to 500 million birds are killed each year by cats... ..."
By contrast, 440,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/science/21birds.html [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Well, yes. You can put it next to a Peltier junction and power spacecraft off of it. You can also seal it up and chuck it in a hole in the ground and it will cause nobody trouble.
Actually, I think that this was BRILLIANT (Score:3, Interesting)
And these ppl should NOT be ripped for this. THey should be scolded publicly and then privately thanked.
Re:Actually, I think that this was BRILLIANT (Score:4, Interesting)
- sending a special-forces team onto a private vessel in dock in an allied nation to scuttle it with explosive charges.
- shooting TRESPASSERS infiltrating a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT on FRENCH SOIL.
"Inviting" them back before shooting them is the only PR problem I see in the GP's plan.
It appears that the only reason they weren't shot this time is because Greenpeace called in and said "don't shoot, they're only hanging banners". Quite why they didn't shoot, regardless, is beyond me. Even if Greenpeace have their own secret codeword for claiming responsibility like a terrorist organisation would, they've been infiltrated so many times that such a codeword could well be in the hands of even more dangerously stupid people.
Ironically it seems the French government's/security forces' fear of bad PR is what prevented the protestors being shot down which would have solved the security "problem" before they could hang their banners. Still this is good news for Algerian separatists, foreign spies etc, all they need do is take a banner with them and claim to be with Greenpeace whenever they try to infiltrate a French nuclear power plant.
Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to wonder what sort of spin they would put on it if the alternate heasline outcome happend: Greenpeace Activist Shot While breaking into Nuclear Power Plant?
Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not able =! Don't want to go the way of frontiersman "step on my lawn and I'll kill you" America.
You can go two ways about security. First is to just wall everything important up, and leave the rest to fend for themselves (in turn creating more of those who will storm your walls, requiring more walls..). That is the path that USA and many third world countries choose, because it's the fairly cheap way of doing it, especially when you only care about a few percent of wealthy who can afford the walls and guards.
Other way is to control what happens before people who actually do mean harm ever get to the plant. That is the way used in Europe in general. Society lives in a more happy and to extent more controlled way of life, and as a result people who want to be terrorists stand out badly and get nailed before the act. That's why Breivik et al are rare exceptions to the rule, and why we have a whole lot less crime while having a whole lot less prisoners at the same time. Just recently after Breivik we had a big wave of even more scrutiny over "what comes in" in Europe, with arrests of people ordering "strangely big portions of fertiliser". And as investigation has showed, Breivik had a ridiculous amount of luck on his side, coming close to being found out several times during his preparations, because he really stood out with his bomb making antics even in very sparsely populated rural Norway and being very smart and cautious.
Now imagine someone trying to do the same in much more populated rural France. Security forces will have your ass before you get your bomb half done because you'll stand out. That is if european ETA-like terrorists will have not get you first for indiscriminate targeting that would harm their currently widespread agenda of "kill only certain politicians, cause maximum property damage and avoid damage to civilians at all costs".
Finally, there's a really funny question of "what exactly will you bomb at a nuclear plant"? Reactor? It's solid steel - there are no welding seams. You'll need a shitload of explosives, and some way of actually strapping them onto the reactor vessel to do the damage to it, not to mention that blowing it up... will terminate criticality so all you get is localized spread of fissile material from reactor as far as your bomb can carry it which will usually mean inside the reactor building meaning just to get fissile materials out, you'll have to raze that too. Better bring many truckloads of high explosives. Cooling systems? Reactor will just be scrambled with boric acid and all the damage you do will be limited to having to get a new reactor vessel. This is one of the parts that many anti-nuclear "but TERRORISTS" people like to ignore - nuclear power plant is just not an attractive target for indiscriminate bombing - especially since there are far, FAR easier targets to bomb if you want to cause massive mayhem, such as large population centers.
Re: (Score:3)
Sniping people should NOT be the first response. This is France, not some hellhole governed by a warlord.
BFD, they jumped a fence (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know when they actually get inside the building. Then I might care a bit.
-Sigh- (Score:4, Insightful)
I only hope these people live long enough to see the consequences of the abandonment of nuclear power. Seriously, why don't they pull this shit in coal stations?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I only hope these people live long enough to see the consequences of the abandonment of nuclear power. Seriously, why don't they pull this shit in coal stations?
I hope people in the US live long enough to see the alternatives to coal and nuclear energy. One big point is power saving. Just compare the energy consumption of the US with oder industry nations (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption [wikipedia.org]). Why are the US folks unable to act more responsible? Why do they block Kyoto- and Post-Kyoto (or similar) efforts?
Re:-Sigh- (Score:4, Informative)
They didn't state it on the banners, but they do state it here. [greenpeace.org]
I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
... how a single comment has yet to say the obvious.
No matter if you are pro or anti nuclear GP has just proven that obviously security measures need to be beefed up. There is absolutely no reason that a hostile, unOKed, group of people should be able to break into a nuclear power plant and have enough time to hang up a big sign in the middle of the factory and then escape.
A very clever plan. (Score:5, Interesting)
That involved being on the other side of this airtight hatch.
How long would it take to actually penetrate the containment building?
From Wikipedia:
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.
So show me the clean energy research and develo... (Score:4, Insightful)
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
If they care about the planet so much maybe they should invest some money, hire some scientists, develop new technologies and fix something for a change instead of protesting pointlessly.
So maybe for once they could take all this money from donations and build say a windfarm and sell clean electric energy to people?
But wait, I bet they are protesting those as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So show me the clean energy research and development that Green Peace does.
Clean energy would be unnecessary, because as far as I've been able to figure, Greenpeace wants the human race to simply all die. No energy required after that.
Re:So show me the clean energy research and develo (Score:5, Informative)
So maybe for once they could take all this money from donations and build say a windfarm and sell clean electric energy to people?
Guess what Greenpeace Germany is doing [greenpeace-energy.de]!
Didn't actually break in (Score:5, Informative)
The only thing these activists managed to get through was the fence, they then hung their banners on the outside of the containment building. No risk to security.
Bullshit, just total bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace are extensively established as absolutely against almost all uses of nuclear power. They don't give a flying fuck about "increasing security" or pointing out possible threats; they want those plants shutdown entirely, and yesterday.
Putting on a white hat doesn't make you a White Hat; they're only dressing up their usual tactics in the guise of a benevolent hack. This is just a publicity stunt in their campaign to destroy nuclear power.
It's a setup... (Score:3)
Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)
..where people think that exposing software security flaws in order to fix them is good, but complain about the "ugly hippies" who expose a security flaw in a nuclear power plant.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:5, Funny)
Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?
People who would rather someone else get their hands dirty or risk their lives, while they go on enjoying a cup of tea and good book of poetry.
Interesting game, isn't it? Not entirely unlike the other side of the coin - Corporations and lawyers.
I'd like to enjoy my tea and poetry.... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be effective, regulators must have an adversarial relationship with those they regulate. When that's gone, you get Deepwater Horizon, or Fukishima. I agree Greenpeace shouldn't be doing this kind of thing, but unfortunately they're all we've got since federal regulators crawled into industry's bed. I don't know if the same is true in France, but I'd be surprised it it wasn't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in a world where nuclear power plants don't have half-assed security. Call me crazy.
To be effective, regulators must have an adversarial relationship with those they regulate. When that's gone, you get Deepwater Horizon, or Fukishima. I agree Greenpeace shouldn't be doing this kind of thing, but unfortunately they're all we've got since federal regulators crawled into industry's bed. I don't know if the same is true in France, but I'd be surprised it it wasn't.
True. Imagine the consequences if it were some band of ne're do wells who attacked the plant and resulted another Chernobyl, rather than some conscienous-raising protester-activists? May not seem like a good thing on the surface, but considering what they accomplished it needed to be done and exposed the flaw in the system before anything horrible happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Imagine the consequences if it were some band of ne're do wells who attacked the plant and resulted another Chernobyl
And how would they accomplish that? The French authorities claim they were monitoring the activists the entire time and decided not to create an incident by intercepting them. But suppose they were ne're do wells, climbing the walls of the containment building... what exactly are they going to do? Do you know what happens when you set off a man portable bomb next to the two meters of high-strength reinforced concrete of a reactor containment building? It bounces off.
The US airforce has specially designed we
Re: (Score:3)
in a world where nuclear power plants don't have half-assed security. Call me crazy.
And if the guards had shot the Greenpeas, people would be complaining about how awful that was.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?
I'm not sure that this act proves that they are insane - sounds like they proved that a very real security hole exists. (note that I don't agree with Greenpeace's message against Nuclear - I think Nuclear can be a safe, clean alternative to many other power generation methods)
They were stopped before they could penetrate several other nuclear plants, but they shouldn't have been able to penetrate any of them long enough to hang a banner.
I think the real question is - why did Greenpeace do this intrusion detection test rather than a nuclear regulatory body? if a group of crazy activists could penetrate the plants, then anyone could.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the came very close to proving that no such hole existed - when you call ahead to tell the police not to shoot your guys, you're not proving much.
And from what I've read so far, the only reason they managed to deploy their banner is that the French snipers were ordered not to take the shots after Greenpeace called and said that they had sent those guys....
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
So now when the real terrorists break in, they just have to phone to warn the police that Greenpeace is breaking in?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is likely to work.
Assuming the real terrorists can come across sounding like an upper-class 20-something, anyways.
If I'd been in charge, I'd have had them taken down, then reported that I'd received a call from Greenpeace two minutes later...but that's just me.
Note that realistically, being able to get to the outside of the building is meaningless from a security standpoint - they'd ne
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find astonishing about Fukushima is learning that we've decided to keep nuclear waste in a manner that is not failsafe. That we need to actively cool.
That is possibly the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. It's not like it's an infinite amount of heat.
Spread it out, pour some iron on it, and put in some giant heat sinks or something.
Christ, it's like everyone is an idiot or something. 'Hey, this generates a set amount of heat per second, forever, and if it ever gets above a certain temperature it will melt through things.'. 'Herp derp, let's pump water past it. There's no way that could go wrong.' 'Maybe we could rig it where it just distributes the heat to the air or the ground or something, which would only fail if the sun started consuming the earth and heated the atmosphere up massively?' 'Nope, takes too much space. Water pump, that's the plan!'
I understand reactors having problems when shut down, but the waste? Seriously?
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. It just means the security hole is that they didn't simply stick to the reply of "call your men off. We WILL shoot them.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:4, Funny)
This is Europe, not US. Sniping people isn't considered a good first response to an unidentified threat.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:4, Interesting)
They are quite sane, but they are also confrontational.
Given that NON-confrontational methods don't work, and that GP are serious, why not up the ante?
They demonstrated French nuke security sucks, so their objective was accomplished.
They could just as easily have carried:
Satchel charges including shaped demo charges and EFPs (can reach from a short distance to save time emplacing them) to breach containment and disable backup cooling systems or system power.
Portable exothermic breaching kit to slice through security doors/locks.
Small arms to dispose of any guards.
They didn't, but they proved it practical. There is no "security" without ARMED defense on the spot. That applies to everything from nuclear reactors to your house or apartment. Unless you can halt opposing human attack by shutting down their central nervous systems, they are free to do their will.
Re: (Score:3)
One thing is not necessarily the other. Personnel access and other ways into the dome may be more easily accessed.
Consider the classic Hardened Aircraft Shelter example. They are designed to withstand nuclear blast verpressure, but point loading such as an aerial bomb can penetrate them.
Aircraft are soft and squishy, which is why they disintegrate when they crash. The engine cores and landing gear struts are stout, but smallish.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and that's the same kind of weapon it would take to blow a hole in a containment vessel: a one tonne bunker buster bomb, dropped from 20,000 feet with a hardened steel or depleted uranium tip. A reactor containment vessel is thick high strength steel, surrounded by meters of reinforced concrete. If you think "satchel charges" are going to do it, you've been playing too many video games.
Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (Score:4, Insightful)
The more interesting question... is "where does the money go?"
Their activists are volunteers for the most part. Their campaigns pretty much result in a publicity stunt just like this where a couple of idiots break into something, climb something or chain themselves to something -- for free. And of course the publicity is really about money, free publicity with no PR people and advertisers needed. (no coincidence they do this around Christmastime when people tend to give money). Alternatively they send out a scaremongering press release that is mostly built around lies and pseudoscience (see Brent Spar, as one example of many).
Get name in paper, make it look like they are doing something (when in reality they aren't doing one single damn thing for the Earth, nor the environment), and Profit!!!!
Yes, there's some publishing costs, and the ship, and a few other things -- but they are raking in millions every year. So again -- "where does the money go?"
Greenpeace is a very, very, very profitable business.
Re:What's French for... (Score:4, Insightful)
..."Homer Simpson"? Because it sounds like their plants are run about as well as the one on The Simpsons.
Not Homer, for this one, but Monty Burns - his lack of vision and expenditure on proper staffing levels, properly trained staff and adequate security are secondary to his accumulation of wealth
"What?!? Smithers did a gaggle of unwashed hippies just enter our plant and hang a banner without my approval? Not ehhxcellent.
But I'm not sure that really fits the French in this case. More like blind optimism they have everything under control and nothing could ever go wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
..."Homer Simpson"? Because it sounds like their plants are run about as well as the one on The Simpsons.
Not Homer, for this one, but Monty Burns - his lack of vision and expenditure on proper staffing levels, properly trained staff and adequate security are secondary to his accumulation of wealth
"What?!? Smithers did a gaggle of unwashed hippies just enter our plant and hang a banner without my approval? Not ehhxcellent.
But I'm not sure that really fits the French in this case. More like blind optimism they have everything under control and nothing could ever go wrong.
What are you going to do, release the hounds? Or release the bees? Or release the hound with bees in their mouths, so that when they bark they shoot bees at you?
Re:Great comments! (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, no. Greenpeace called the French authorities and told them that they'd sent men sneaking into nuclear power plants, and the French authorities then stood down their snipers and allowed the Greenpeace guys to finish climbing the building and deploy their banner before arresting them.
So, the phone call saved the lives of the Greenpeace protesters, which hardly shows that security of the plants was lax....
Re: (Score:3)
This is the third time now someone has posted that Greenpeace called ahead and that was why they were not killed, but it does not mention this in the article and no one has posted a link to where you get your info, you mind posting a link to where you are getting your part of this story? Or you just repeating what someone else posted 50 posts ago and figure they would not make shit up?
Re: (Score:3)
That's an interesting response. Pretty much the exact opposite of my own. Frankly I am impressed that Greenpeace actually managed to do something vaguely positive. First time for everything I guess.
And no, I am not anti-nuclear, quite the opposite. But obviously security at this installation needs some attention, and it sounds like they brought attention to that fact without doing any damage. Compared to their usual activities, this was a real good deed.