Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Security News Politics

Greenpeace Breaks Into French Nuclear Plant 561

Posted by Soulskill
from the they-thought-plant-meant-something-different dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Greenpeace Breaks Into French Nuclear Plant

Comments Filter:
  • by InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) on Monday December 05, 2011 @06:59PM (#38273386)
    Nuclear power is one of the less polluting ways to get energy out there. Yet they protest against it. Guess they would be more happy with coal plants. (I have no real life idea about the situation, but this is what I learned from SimCity)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2011 @06:59PM (#38273390)

    Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:02PM (#38273468) Journal
    Well, that is accurate. The fact is, that France sends a lot of power all over Europe because the other nations want to switch off Coal due to Kyoto.
  • by impaledsunset (1337701) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:04PM (#38273502)

    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!

  • by Isaac-1 (233099) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:07PM (#38273530)

    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?

  • by intx13 (808988) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:08PM (#38273550) Homepage

    Greenpeace said the break-in aimed to show that an ongoing review of safety measures ... was focused too narrowly on possible natural disasters, and not human factors.

    Reasonable and responsible activists would have hired safety and security experts to write a report, lobbied a politician to present it, and run a media campaign to raise awareness. But hey, they made their point: there are dangerous radical groups in France that will break into nuclear power plants. They even pointed out one in particular, called Greenpeace.

  • by subreality (157447) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:10PM (#38273592)

    Let me know when they actually get inside the building. Then I might care a bit.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:11PM (#38273598) Homepage

    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!

  • -Sigh- (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lanteran (1883836) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:11PM (#38273600) Homepage Journal

    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?

  • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:12PM (#38273602) Homepage

    ... 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.

  • by forkfail (228161) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:12PM (#38273612)

    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.

  • by cavreader (1903280) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:13PM (#38273632)
    Greenpeace will never be satisfied until the all energy resources are eliminated.
  • by couchslug (175151) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:14PM (#38273642)

    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.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:14PM (#38273644) Homepage Journal

    Have they tried breaking into coal or hydro plants? Because they can cause huge damage by breaking into those ones as well.

    Oh well, hope they shut down all the nuclear plants around the world and go back to oil, coal, gas and hydro, see how well that works out for the environment.

    BTW., do you realize that the natural outcome of this 'greenpeace' movement agenda would be further destruction of economy and society? Aren't they acting like people we love to call 'terrorists' here?

  • by ackthpt (218170) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:14PM (#38273646) Homepage Journal

    ..."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.

  • by hawguy (1600213) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:15PM (#38273668)

    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.

  • by Kyusaku Natsume (1098) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:15PM (#38273672)

    What amazes me is that it wasn't the outcome. Here in Mexico in far less sensitive power installations but still related to national security the detachment in charge will fill the body of pranksters with lead, and that was before the security situation became as bad it is now. So if the French are not able to secure nuclear sites, then at least they should drop the security theater in airports, since is clear that they don't care about security.

  • by Technomancer (51963) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:15PM (#38273674)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:16PM (#38273678)

    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.

  • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:17PM (#38273692) Journal

    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.

  • by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:17PM (#38273698)
    I think that's kind of the point: to get them to secure the place.
  • by RobinEggs (1453925) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:18PM (#38273700)
    I can't even imagine a more disingenuous stunt.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:19PM (#38273732)
    If we're going to start counting 'measurably shortened lifespan' (if you have links to sources that prove this is the case then please, by all means), then the numbers for coal and oil would also climb, probably by a lot more. Working around burning coal or mining it (black lung will put you down a few years early) and near oil refineries is not kind to the human body. Solar and Wind will (of course) be better in this regards, but this doesn't solve the underlying issue of scale.
  • by DiniZuli (621956) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:21PM (#38273750) Homepage
    It was in Europe - people don't have guns, and doesn't get shot during break-ins.
  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:23PM (#38273784) Homepage

    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?

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:24PM (#38273798)

    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.

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:27PM (#38273828)

    sounds like they proved that a very real security hole exists

    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....

  • by ColdWetDog (752185) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:30PM (#38273864) Homepage

    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.

  • by pclminion (145572) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:30PM (#38273866)

    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.

  • by Spykk (823586) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:32PM (#38273896)
    I think the point was to generate press coverage. Greenpeace's greatest cause is self-promotion.
  • by forkfail (228161) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:35PM (#38273936)

    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.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:37PM (#38273966) Journal

    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?

  • by Fzz (153115) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:38PM (#38273968)

    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.

    So now when the real terrorists break in, they just have to phone to warn the police that Greenpeace is breaking in?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:42PM (#38274022)

    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.

  • by Radical Moderate (563286) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:42PM (#38274026)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:43PM (#38274030)

    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.

  • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:47PM (#38274070)

    So now when the real terrorists break in, they just have to phone to warn the police that Greenpeace is breaking in?

    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 need a couple dozen tons of explosives to do anything meaningful to the plant from there. And getting INSIDE the building (which they were unable to do) wouldn't improve the situation much - reduce the amount of explosives required to a couple tons.

    Note that even Greenpeace has given up saying the reactors might blow up - article I read this AM on this had them talking about the threat of chemical explosions in the reactor building, not the dangers of the reactors doing something untoward.

    It should also be noted that the French actually process their nuclear wastes, rather than storing them on-site (as I understand it, it's all stored in a basement in Paris - a small one). As a result, the main cause of the problems at Fukushima don't really apply to French nuke plants.

  • by camperdave (969942) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:54PM (#38274138) Journal
    Nobody is saying that. What people are saying is that since its advent, fewer people have died from nuclear power than coal, even if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  • by Luckyo (1726890) on Monday December 05, 2011 @07:59PM (#38274206)

    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.

  • by Jeremi (14640) on Monday December 05, 2011 @08:02PM (#38274238) Homepage

    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.

  • by owlnation (858981) on Monday December 05, 2011 @08:43PM (#38274694)

    Greenpeace has confirmed time and time again that their activists are insane. Who keeps giving these people money anyway?

    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.

  • by ackthpt (218170) on Monday December 05, 2011 @08:54PM (#38274780) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Hellsbells (231588) on Monday December 05, 2011 @10:16PM (#38275460)

    I don't agree with everything that Greenpeace does, but in this case they've risk their lives to do a clear social good and exposed enormous security holes at nuclear sites. (They've risked their lives as other activists like Julian Assange do. They are not insane).

    Would you rather that these kinds of problems are covered up until some kind of incident occurs? The French government should have been testing the security at their nuclear sites (or even providing some decent onsite security), but don't want to for political and cost related reasons.

  • Slashdot... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by toutankh (1544253) on Monday December 05, 2011 @11:45PM (#38276070)

    ..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.

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @12:02AM (#38276198) Homepage

    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).

  • by Chas (5144) on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @03:50AM (#38277222) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @04:44AM (#38277462) Homepage

    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:-Sigh- (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tranquillity (137776) on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @04:53AM (#38277484)

    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?

  • by BlackPignouf (1017012) on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @06:18AM (#38277788)

    Well, some 25-40% of English words are of French origin, so this thread could easily become the longest ever on /.

It is the quality rather than the quantity that matters. - Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B.C. - A.D. 65)

Working...