Greenpeace volunteers get into "top security" nuclear control centre

[the_great_dalmuti]

Last monday, Greenpeace volunteers easily made their way into a “top security” nuclear control center. Here’s a quote from the full story.

Just after six this morning 19 Greenpeace volunteers peacefully gained access to British Energy’s Sizewell plant by cutting a hole in the two-wire fences, which are all that separate the nuclear facility from a public beach. The fence is just a few metres from the door to the control building, which the volunteers managed to gain access to by using a ladder to reach a door on the side of the building 10 metres off the ground. Nine of these volunteers then used ladders to climb onto the reactor dome. No alarm was heard when the fences were breached and it took five minutes for three unarmed private security guards to appear on the scene.

Disturbingly, this is the second time Greenpeace volunteers have unopposed been able to break into the nuclear site. Last October 140 volunteers including several in life-size Homer Simpson costumes encountered little security as they breached the perimeter fence and occupied rooftops. It took 25 minutes for security guards to arrive at the scene.

Do you agree with Greenpeace’s actions? Does the awareness that they’re raising completely outweigh the minor tresspassing laws they broke?
Here’s a quote from one of 19 volunteers in question, which was given as he was sitting on the dome of the reactor:

“It is a terrifying thought that if we can do this then anyone can. We wouldn’t do anything to interfere with the plant but if terrorists targeted a nuclear power station it would be deadly.”

“Terrorists are unlikely to blow up a wind farm or make a dirty bomb from a solar panel.”

Do you agree with this? Do the cons of nuclear power outweight the pros? Is the lack of sustainable security, or the inherent danger of nuclear reactors and the waste they produce enough to justify a shift away from dependancy on nuclear power? Or at least justify more substantial funding and research into new energy sources?

[Crusoe]

I hope they get prosecuted for such a silly, irresponsible stunt. I also wonder whether technically it is quite as bad as it looks (inasmuch as reactors are usually pretty heavily protected; could a terrorist with explosives even dent the surface of the dome?).

[Shodan]

I look forward to the press release from Greenpeace next year:

“We sent sixteen volunteers to try to get into the local nuclear plant. The security guards shot four of them, two more were disembowelled by the attack dogs, and the rest are facing three to five years in maximum security for terrorism. Greenpeace congratulates the excellent work of the NRC in reducing the threat of terrorism.”

Regards,
Shodan

[Nuke]

Big deal, once it was obvious who they were and that they were not a threat to plant operations, they let the Greenies do what they wanted without shooting anyone. Rest assured, an armed attack would have had a VERY different outcome, lots of dead terrorists.

And yes, the pros of nuclear power SIGNIFICANTLY outweigh the cons. A diverse energy supply using ALL viable and competitive cost energy sources is very important to national security. Nuclear is quite competitive and viable.

[Sam_Stone]

Let’s correct the terminology: They didn’t get INTO a nuclear facility, they got ONTO a nuclear facility. They sat on the roof of the containment dome.

Granted, they shoudn’t have gotten past the fence. But let’s not blow this up out of proportion. There was nothing they could have actually don to hurt the installation, even if they wanted to. Those containment domes are pretty freakin’ strong. As in, strong enough to withstand the impact of an airliner, supposedly.

[Banquet_Bear]

…link to a non-Greenpeace news story on the event…

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/News/story.asp?datetime=13+Jan+2003+11%3A49&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED13+Jan+2003+12%3A10%3A08%3A823

[The_Ryan]

One thing that I don’t understand about opposition to nuclear power plants is that nuclear plants do not create nuclear material out of nothing. All that uranium that people are scared about came from somewhere, such as a hole in the ground. And odds are that that hole in the ground has a heck of a lot less security than the power plant.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Shodan
look forward to the press release from Greenpeace next year:

“We sent sixteen volunteers to try to get into the local nuclear plant. The security guards shot four of them, two more were disembowelled by the attack dogs, and the rest are facing three to five years in maximum security for terrorism. Greenpeace congratulates the excellent work of the NRC in reducing the threat of terrorism.”

This is a pretty sick fantasy for a basically harmless stunt performed by unarmed, non-violent peaceniks. Do you really think they should be murdered for it? Do you really think that would be funny? Also, where do you get “terrorist” from?

[matt]

Nuke said:
"Big deal, once it was obvious who they were and that they were not a threat to plant operations, they let the Greenies do what they wanted without shooting anyone. Rest assured, an armed attack would have had a VERY different outcome, lots of dead terrorists."

I don’t credit terrorists with a lot of imagination, but I’d like to think that people cutting holes in the fences of nuclear installations would be speedily intercepted even if they have got greasy dreadlocks, facial piercings and a big orange banner with “Terrorist Target” written on it. I’m being facetious, but terrorists can dress in Homer Simpson suits too.

Diogenes the Cynic said:
"This is a pretty sick fantasy for a basically harmless stunt performed by unarmed, non-violent peaceniks. Do you really think they should be murdered for it? Do you really think that would be funny? Also, where do you get “terrorist” from?"

Sick it may be. But I’d be happier if warning shots had been fired when they were between the fences, and yes, I think they should have been shot dead before being allowed to climb onto the dome. See below.

Sam Stone said:
"There was nothing they could have actually don to hurt the installation, even if they wanted to. Those containment domes are pretty freakin’ strong. As in, strong enough to withstand the impact of an airliner, supposedly."

Yes, the domes are designed to withstand the impact of airliners. They are not to my knowledge designed to withstand a lined hollow cavity charge, which are relatively easy to make. (The Germans used lined hollow-cavity demolition charges to pierce the turrets on the Belgian Eben Emael fort in 1940. They used very sub-optimal hemispherical cavities and bee-hive shaped charges. You or I could cobble together better penetrating charges with a wad of semtex and some steel sheet.)

When your big fat environmental activist is actually a tall skinny suicide bomber with a 50kg penetrating charge strapped to him, you don’t want to find that out after he’s punched a (small) hole in the dome. The chances of causing a minor leak of radioactive material are slim but real. The chances of causing a reactor breach or meltdown are somewhere between tiny and none. But the plant may well be shut down as a result.

I dislike Greenpeace, I consider it to be a dishonest organisation that knowingly cries “wolf!” so often that it may actually harm the environmental movement. I am also pro nuclear power. So it’s quite telling that I’m glad they did this.

[Nuke]

*Originally posted by matt *
**
I don’t credit terrorists with a lot of imagination, but I’d like to think that people cutting holes in the fences of nuclear installations would be speedily intercepted even if they have got greasy dreadlocks, facial piercings and a big orange banner with “Terrorist Target” written on it. I’m being facetious, but terrorists can dress in Homer Simpson suits too…

…I dislike Greenpeace, I consider it to be a dishonest organisation that knowingly cries “wolf!” so often that it may actually harm the environmental movement. I am also pro nuclear power. So it’s quite telling that I’m glad they did this. **

So nuclear facilities (and probably all other factories, buildings and schools) should be designed to withstand ANY type of attack??? A little unrealistic to say the least. The types of attacks that need to be defended against are those that pose a direct threat of danger to the public. A bunch of Greenies running around does not pose a direct threat to the public. Even a 50 kg shaped charge (I’d like to see one person get THAT on top of a containment building) does not pose a direct threat to the public (this will not cause a significant radiological release). We in the US are worried about bigger stuff than this and I’ll have to leave it at that.

[matt]

*Originally posted by Nuke *
So nuclear facilities (and probably all other factories, buildings and schools) should be designed to withstand ANY type of attack???

No. They should be able to stop a bunch of unarmed people with ladders and wirecutters from getting onto the containment dome.

A bunch of Greenies running around does not pose a direct threat to the public.

Agreed. My point being, you don’t know for sure that they are greenies until you’ve picked them up. And if you don’t know, you should keep them away rather than assume they’re not a threat.

**Even a 50 kg shaped charge (I’d like to see one person get THAT on top of a containment building) does not pose a direct threat to the public (this will not cause a significant radiological release). **

I don’t know enough about the damage a shaped charge would do to structures inside the containment to comment. I concede the odds of a significant threat to the public are probably low. But I don’t like the size of the pot.

[Nuke]

*Originally posted by matt *
**No. They should be able to stop a bunch of unarmed people with ladders and wirecutters from getting onto the containment dome. **

OK, how to you prevent 19 unarmed greenies from getting on site (this sounds like the beginning of a bad joke!)? Shoot them? Firing in the air to scare them off? Surround the plant with razor wire 20 feet deep? Hire enough guards to handle 19 greenies? What if 40 show up next time? Kind of a difficult, if not impossible task if you ask me.

The fact that they were only able to run around outside vital areas indicates that basic security at this plant is actually pretty good. People getting on top of containment really doesn’t concern me because it’s happened in the US before (not recently). Not too much you can do from there.

The fact that people were able to enter the site unchallenged: Embarrassing? Absolutely! :o
Does security at this plant need a complete review and overhaul? Absolutely!
Does this act indicate that the public is in imminent danger as implied in the Greenpeace article? Absolutely Not!

[GOM]

*Originally posted by Nuke *
**

The fact that people were able to enter the site unchallenged: Embarrassing? Absolutely! :o

Does security at this plant need a complete review and overhaul? Absolutely!

Does this act indicate that the public is in imminent danger as implied in the Greenpeace article? Absolutely Not! **

Thanks. I like your summary. However, I must admit this event made my a little nervous…

We might not be in imminent danger, as you point out, but I would not place the danger rating at zero either.

[Shalmanese]

I too would have liked to know exactly what Greenpeace would have expected them to do?

Shoot on sight? yeah, that would have worked a real treat.

[Shodan]

From Greenpeace’s point of view, yes, it would have worked if the guards shot the protestors.

Then they can cry “martyrs!” ad nauseum - and started talking about all the innocent, non-violent protestors who were slaughtered by nuclear power. A second Hiroshima, and all that.

Regards,
Shodan

[sailor]

Yesterday there was an oil spill in the bay of Gibraltar when a barge laden with oil sank there. It seems there is a tanker permanently anchored in the bay and it functions as a supply point for other vessels and the barge was loading when it sank. At any rate the same day a Greenpeace ship was there to protest the permanent presence of the tanker. In the morning they put down three inflatables which carried Greepeace volunteers and some reporters. Immediately five police boats of the Gibraltar police set out to stop them and they were quite rough in their actions. They managed to stop two of the boats but the thrid one made it to the tanker and some volunteers managed to climb the mast and unfurl a banner. The volunteers and reporters were all arrested and beaten up a bit and set free on bail about 12 hrs later. The Spanish government has issued a protest to the British government. Complicating the issue is the fact that, it seems, the incident ocurred in Spanish waters where the British have right of way but no jurisdiction. Which wouldn’t be surprising because not long ago, during some amphibious exercises, Her Majesty’s marines “invaded” a Spanish beach by mistake when they intended to land in Gibraltar. It seems they can’t afford to buy maps , or something.
. A , Greenpeace volunteers accompanied by some news reporters attemped to board a tanker anchored in the bay of Gibraltar.

[SuaSponte]

by Diogenes
quote:

Shodan
look forward to the press release from Greenpeace next year:

“We sent sixteen volunteers to try to get into the local nuclear plant. The security guards shot four of them, two more were disembowelled by the attack dogs, and the rest are facing three to five years in maximum security for terrorism. Greenpeace congratulates the excellent work of the NRC in reducing the threat of terrorism.”

This is a pretty sick fantasy for a basically harmless stunt performed by unarmed, non-violent peaceniks. Do you really think they should be murdered for it? Do you really think that would be funny? Also, where do you get “terrorist” from?

No, it’s the result that Greenpeace apparently thinks is what should have happened. Their apparent point is that “your security sucks; we could have been terrorists and all sorts of horrible things could have happened because you failed to stop us.”

Shodan’s response is perfectly apt: if the problem from Greenpeace’s POV is horrible security, then they should congratulate the plant for improving that security.

Sua

P.S. Before we go there, I’m a Greenpeace donor.