05.12.2002 15:40
By Carol Capo,
DailyPress.com,
1 Desember 2002
In this new world, are nuclear plants safe? Like the monster under the bed, the threat that spooks Americans has taken on terrifying new shapes in the last year. We`re familiar with the outlines of dangers that once seemed remote. We have learned too well that a commercial jet can be an assault weapon, that anthrax can travel though the mail, that the government is stockpiling smallpox vaccine.
If you live within range of the Surry nuclear plant - and chances are good that you do if you`re reading this - there`s something else to consider. Terrorists with a taste for the dramatic understand that nuclear plants can be stunningly effective targets in their quest to broadcast fear and death among Americans.
The terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 went to the trouble to write to The New York Times about their intention of deploying 150 suicide bombers against nuclear targets. Diagrams of American power plants were found among al-Qaida materials in Afghanistan, and al-Qaida training manuals list them among the best targets for spreading terror in America.
Is nuclear plant design like the Maginot line - superior fortifications against the enemy of the last war, inadequate in a new era? Our nuclear plants are built to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes and commando-style attacks. But the monster under the bed has morphed into new forms and could strike from new directions. The truth is, experts don`t know how a reactor would fare under assault by a jumbo jet. The containment building may be fortress-strong, but what of the area where tens of thousands of pounds of nuclear waste are stored?
There`s really no way to know how well protected we are. For obvious reasons, Dominion Power can`t release specifics about its security measures. Even if it could, are we competent to judge whether they`re adequate?
And what would be adequate? The question that looms large in the middle of the night is obvious: Are there barriers, weapons, surveillance systems - some massive bulwark of homeland security - that could assure the security we crave?
Dominion Power assures us, "People should feel safe" about security at Surry: It was stringent before Sept. 11 and it`s stronger now.
But any time you live near thousands of pounds of nuclear material, it`s natural to want more than the reassurances of the plant owner. It`s natural to contemplate questions like whether the Virginia Marine Resources Commission - an agency dedicated primarily to fisheries regulation - is the best choice to guard the plant`s vital water intake.
Trust us, say nuclear plant operators. Verify, say our skeptical instincts.
But who will verify? The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that`s who. An agency that, critics say, hit the snooze button on nuclear plant safety following Sept. 11.
How much comfort you derive from their assurances that they`re on top of this depends on whether "I`m from the government, and I`m here to keep you safe" quiets the monsters under your bed.
This is, after all, the same government whose intelligence apparatus failed to discern and respond to a threat that was taking shape right under American noses.
It`s the same government that failed to track the movements of known al-Qaida associates who showed a great interest in learning to fly commercial jets.
It`s the same government that`s supposed to safeguard our air and water quality, but is working hard to let big energy companies sidestep air quality standards.
Closer to home, it`s the same government so disinterested in protecting us from the obvious environmental danger of the James River ghost fleet.
So while the monster under the bed contemplates new forms to take, the federal government`s puny little night light isn`t doing much to make me sleep better.
Because the government is telling me one thing I probably should believe: That another attack is a certainty.
And nuclear plants might be a target. This fall, as he announced credible new threats around the anniversary of Sept. 11, Attorney General John Ashcroft singled out energy and transportation as attractive targets, because they are so symbolic of and vital to the American way of life. As I read this, I looked out over the James River Bridge, Surry off in the distance. Trains rattled past on a major rail line, headed to a massive port operation.
Is there an analogy with airport security? We used to be assured that airport security was good enough in the hands of the private sector. Now we know better. On this front, government manpower has tightened our defenses.
Given the potential of nuclear plants to unleash destruction on an awesome scale, should we escalate nuclear security to a national level? Some critics think so and have called for posting troops and anti-aircraft weapons at nuclear plants.
Is this one of those cases where we need to learn our lesson before the enemy slips through?
Nuclear terrorism focus shifting to research facilities
добавить ресурс
.gif){kind=small}
Переработка мусора:
ТБО и другие проблемы современности:
© Дизайн Студии РОМАрт, 2004.