10/12 early: AWACS coverage

Undertoad · 10-11-2001, 10:56 PM

This wire service graphic will probably be in a lot of newspapers today. The technology is amazing...

And I can't believe they're showing the enemy exactly the zone that won't be covered. East of Seattle, North of Denver, and West of Mpls will be the danger zone, not covered by any aircraft or radar. Cellar readers in Montana and North Dakota should be carefully watching the skies tomorrow.

(I'm kidding! I kid the Cellar readers!)

If terrorism should strike a nuclear power plant, the plant most likely to affect the Cellar is Limerick. Salem, Hope Creek or Peach Bottom would also cause some trouble. TMI 1 if prevailing winds are bad.

elSicomoro · 10-11-2001, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
And I can't believe they're showing the enemy exactly the zone that won't be covered. East of Seattle, North of Denver, and West of Mpls will be the danger zone, not covered by any aircraft or radar. Cellar readers in Montana and North Dakota should be carefully watching the skies tomorrow.

But isn't that where all the missile silos are supposedly located anyway?

It used to scare the hell out of me living 90 miles from a nuclear power plant. But given that I (and other Philly-area Cellar Dwellars) live relatively close to 3-mile Island, I guess I'm not too terribly bothered by it anymore.

Quote:

(I'm kidding! I kid the Cellar readers!)

This map is nice...for me to POOP on!

doc · 10-12-2001, 01:26 AM

How does this map show the uncovered areas? It says their are 5 of these E-3s being used and each has radar coverage of 375 klicks. It would be hard for anyone without real good radar to know where any of these are at any given time.

doc · 10-12-2001, 01:27 AM

Man, I need to change that sig. It's sort of not really appropriate anymore

Katkeeper · 10-12-2001, 05:45 AM

Since I live about 10 miles west of TMI and was in the area for the "incident" there (as was Undertoad), I have thought about whether this is a bad area to be. TMI would abe a poor choice for terrorists because one of the reactors has been closed down since 1979.

I think they are very symbol oriented - like choosing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as targets - and probably get ecxcited by the thought of destroying such symbols of western decadence and power.

Undertoad · 10-12-2001, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
This map is nice...for me to POOP on!

But seriously folks... this thread has gone on longer than it takes for me to bang a Yorkie. I haven't had this much fun since the vet chopped off my nads!

(People are sure to be confused now)

Undertoad · 10-12-2001, 09:03 AM

How does this map show the uncovered areas?


It doesn't really, but I figure if they are concentrating on the metro areas and nuke plants, that's the section where they won't be watching. An AWACS plane could be in radar distance of Seattle and still not cover all of Montana.

10-12-2001, 05:21 PM

That was a good joke Tony...

FOR ME TO POOP ON!

Hehe, the Hasselhoff one cracks me up every time too...

juju · 10-13-2001, 12:23 AM

There is a nuclear power plant right near where I live. It's in Russellville, Arkansas, about 2 1/2 hours from here.
 
From the looks of things, the only way to avoid them is to move west.
 
 
-- juju

Katkeeper · 10-13-2001, 08:06 AM

If the terrorists were to hit a nuclear plant and cause a release of radioactive material, they would have to deal with the wrath of all of the rest of the world. Perhaps they know that.

lisa · 10-13-2001, 08:12 AM

Actually, if you look closely, it seems like the only way to avoid being anywhere near nukes is to avoid being near people. Denver seems to be the only population center without one withing 100 miles or so.

The distribution of nuclear power stations seems to coincide fairly well with the distribution of populous areas -- which makes a lot of sense.

Of course, it seems like the best course of action, if you want to avoid being hit by a terrorist attack, is to live in the middle of nowhere -- but most people don't want that kind of life. That's why we all live on top of each other.

Undertoad · 10-13-2001, 10:40 AM

Juju, 2 1/2 hours is a long way off. You should be fine unless the winds are pointing directly at you after an accident. I was 19 miles away from Three Mile Island when it burped, now I'm 9 miles away from Limerick. Those are the types of distances that you would have to worry about.

Where I am now, they have a system of warning sirens in case of accident. They test them at 5% "strength" at 2pm the first Monday of every month. And at 5% "strength", you are nearly deafened if you are 100 feet from the siren.

Even in case of meltdown, you have about 5 hours to get away from the most serious danger zones. In that space of time, I would be able to walk far enough away, even if I had no vehicle.

Katkeeper · 10-13-2001, 01:02 PM

Walk far enough away in 5 hours? A good reason to stay in shape.

I can see myself now putting 2 cats in my backpack and walking for 5 hours. I'm not sure what else I would take.

At the time of TMI, I had boxes with slides of my work that I had decided to take. Oh, and I would have taken Undertoad.

Slight · 10-13-2001, 03:22 PM

I visited a mothballed Nuclear powerplant for chemistry class in 11th grade and they said the the reactor cores had like 3 feet thick steel around them (it sure looked like it did). The "tour" guide said that the core could take a direct hit from a 747 or an internal nuclear explosion (not both) without being compromised. Wether or not thats true or whether or not old "nuke" plants are built this way who knows?

Incidentally we got to see the room that Homer works in aka. the control room. They said it would have been covered 24/7 and I think there is a back up room and a back up crew. It is kinda of stupid to publish a map with targets on it. It's sorta like the map with lights on it in Homer's office (Lenny:"Uh-oh, There goes Albany!")

I think the site in southern WA is the Hanford nuclear plant superfunds cleanup site, and I don't think there is a fuctional plant there anymore. Hanford used to be a weapons grade plutionium manufacturing plant. Put on the now contaminated Columbia river for cooling water.

MaggieL · 10-13-2001, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slight
I visited a mothballed Nuclear powerplant for chemistry class in 11th grade and they said the the reactor cores had like 3 feet thick steel around them (it sure looked like it did). The "tour" guide said that the core could take a direct hit from a 747 or an internal nuclear explosion (not both) without being compromised. Wether or not thats true or whether or not old "nuke" plants are built this way who knows?

Was that before or after Three Mile Island? :-)

I doubt it would be necessary to breech the reactor vessel to cause a boatload of trouble...just the containment building, especially if you managed to damage much of the coolant loops (especially the primary) in the process.

I imagine the thought of what even a moderately-sized aircraft loaded with explosives could do to a typical operating nuke is the cause for concern.

10-11-2001, 10:56 PM	#1
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	10/12 early: AWACS coverage This wire service graphic will probably be in a lot of newspapers today. The technology is amazing... And I can't believe they're showing the enemy exactly the zone that won't be covered. East of Seattle, North of Denver, and West of Mpls will be the danger zone, not covered by any aircraft or radar. Cellar readers in Montana and North Dakota should be carefully watching the skies tomorrow. (I'm kidding! I kid the Cellar readers!) If terrorism should strike a nuclear power plant, the plant most likely to affect the Cellar is Limerick. Salem, Hope Creek or Peach Bottom would also cause some trouble. TMI 1 if prevailing winds are bad.

10-12-2001, 01:26 AM	#3
doc Caste-Away Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 48	How does this map show the uncovered areas? It says their are 5 of these E-3s being used and each has radar coverage of 375 klicks. It would be hard for anyone without real good radar to know where any of these are at any given time. __________________ --- \|> /\ \/ @

10-12-2001, 01:27 AM	#4
doc Caste-Away Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 48	Man, I need to change that sig. It's sort of not really appropriate anymore __________________ --- \|> /\ \/ @

10-12-2001, 09:03 AM	#7
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	<i>How does this map show the uncovered areas? </i> It doesn't really, but I figure if they are concentrating on the metro areas and nuke plants, that's the section where they won't be watching. An AWACS plane could be in radar distance of Seattle and still not cover all of Montana.

10-13-2001, 12:23 AM	#9
juju no one of consequence Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Arkansas Posts: 2,839	There is a nuclear power plant right near where I live. It's in Russellville, Arkansas, about 2 1/2 hours from here. <br> From the looks of things, the only way to avoid them is to move west. <br> <br> -- juju

10-12-2001, 05:45 AM	#5
Katkeeper Hoodoo Guru Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Mechanicsburg PA Posts: 296	Since I live about 10 miles west of TMI and was in the area for the "incident" there (as was Undertoad), I have thought about whether this is a bad area to be. TMI would abe a poor choice for terrorists because one of the reactors has been closed down since 1979. I think they are very symbol oriented - like choosing the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as targets - and probably get ecxcited by the thought of destroying such symbols of western decadence and power.

10-12-2001, 05:21 PM	#8
dave Guest Posts: n/a	That was a good joke Tony... FOR ME TO POOP ON! Hehe, the Hasselhoff one cracks me up every time too...

10-13-2001, 08:06 AM	#10
Katkeeper Hoodoo Guru Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Mechanicsburg PA Posts: 296	If the terrorists were to hit a nuclear plant and cause a release of radioactive material, they would have to deal with the wrath of all of the rest of the world. Perhaps they know that.

10-13-2001, 08:12 AM	#11
lisa Etherial Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: CA Posts: 153	Actually, if you look closely, it seems like the only way to avoid being anywhere near nukes is to avoid being near people. Denver seems to be the only population center without one withing 100 miles or so. The distribution of nuclear power stations seems to coincide fairly well with the distribution of populous areas -- which makes a lot of sense. Of course, it seems like the best course of action, if you want to avoid being hit by a terrorist attack, is to live in the middle of nowhere -- but most people don't want that kind of life. That's why we all live on top of each other.

10-13-2001, 10:40 AM	#12
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Juju, 2 1/2 hours is a long way off. You should be fine unless the winds are pointing directly at you after an accident. I was 19 miles away from Three Mile Island when it burped, now I'm 9 miles away from Limerick. Those are the types of distances that you would have to worry about. Where I am now, they have a system of warning sirens in case of accident. They test them at 5% "strength" at 2pm the first Monday of every month. And at 5% "strength", you are nearly deafened if you are 100 feet from the siren. Even in case of meltdown, you have about 5 hours to get away from the most serious danger zones. In that space of time, I would be able to walk far enough away, even if I had no vehicle.

10-13-2001, 01:02 PM	#13
Katkeeper Hoodoo Guru Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Mechanicsburg PA Posts: 296	Walk far enough away in 5 hours? A good reason to stay in shape. I can see myself now putting 2 cats in my backpack and walking for 5 hours. I'm not sure what else I would take. At the time of TMI, I had boxes with slides of my work that I had decided to take. Oh, and I would have taken Undertoad.

10-13-2001, 03:22 PM	#14
Slight Semi-Evil Genius Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Boulder CO Posts: 195	I visited a mothballed Nuclear powerplant for chemistry class in 11th grade and they said the the reactor cores had like 3 feet thick steel around them (it sure looked like it did). The "tour" guide said that the core could take a direct hit from a 747 or an internal nuclear explosion (not both) without being compromised. Wether or not thats true or whether or not old "nuke" plants are built this way who knows? Incidentally we got to see the room that Homer works in aka. the control room. They said it would have been covered 24/7 and I think there is a back up room and a back up crew. It is kinda of stupid to publish a map with targets on it. It's sorta like the map with lights on it in Homer's office (Lenny:"Uh-oh, There goes Albany!") I think the site in southern WA is the Hanford nuclear plant superfunds cleanup site, and I don't think there is a fuctional plant there anymore. Hanford used to be a weapons grade plutionium manufacturing plant. Put on the now contaminated Columbia river for cooling water.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)