Alberta Goes Nuclear!

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What about the populations of Edmonton and Calgary?

I'm not saying it's tops on the list, to think it isn't plausible would be silly. There are much better targets, to be sure. But if it has anything to do with Energy, a nuclear reactor in the tar sands could be a pretty choice target.

But if they attacked the nuclear power planet, the effects wouldn't be immediate. I assuming that the reactor leaking would be similar to Chernobyl (without the government cover up), and not similar to a nuclear warhead explosion (which would be highly unlikely). Calgary and Edmonton would most likely be evacuated without any effects. Sure the long term effects would be another story. But I don't see that as a terrorist MO. They always seem to want immediate results, not long term results. It would similar to attacking a dam. The effects would be large. Loss of power for a large area, huge flooding that could damage cities or farm land, effecting food etc. But the loss of life would be minimal as compared to attacking a building.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Funny, I was going to post something about launching it into space, then changed my mind as I already thought I was ranting enough.

The issue with launching it into space (and presumably towards the sun) is our track record with launching spacecraft. Take the Space Shuttle; 1 out of every 150 has blown up in the atmosphere on lift off. And since that accident another shuttle was destroyed by something that started with liftoff; so you could say 1 in 75 has had a fatal lift off accident.

Plus there are arguements that we don't know for sure what effect nuclear waste would have on the sun. Assuming Al Gore et al are correct about Global Warming; if we've done this much damage to the planet, can you imagine what would happen if we screwed up the sun?

Not to mention the hideous cost of launching anything into space.
We're talking like $15,000 per kilogram.

They should dilute the nuclear waste and feed it to school children in the hopes some of them will obtain super powers.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Calgary and Edmonton would most likely be evacuated without any effects.

Why would either city need to be evacuated?

Kiev was 5 times closer to Chernobyl that Edmonton is to Peace River, and it wasn't evacuated in 1986.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Not to mention the hideous cost of launching anything into space.
We're talking like $15,000 per kilogram.

They should dilute the nuclear waste and feed it to school children in the hopes some of them will obtain super powers.

All things considered, if we ever get the space elevator up and running, sending the waste to space would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why would either city need to be evacuated?

Kiev was 5 times closer to Chernobyl that Edmonton is to Peace River, and it wasn't evacuated in 1986.

Well that was Russia for you in those days.

[Azure]

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...7a245e&k=67783

Looks like people in BC have a problem with Alberta going nuclear.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why would either city need to be evacuated?

Kiev was 5 times closer to Chernobyl that Edmonton is to Peace River, and it wasn't evacuated in 1986.

And the radation didn't effect Kiev?

Either way, that helps my point. I don't think terrorists are out to kill people by poison their water and ground with radiation. They tend to be more dramatic with their actions.

[photon]

They should have thought of that before they put their province so close to our border!

[photon]

Plus the Candu reactors are a pretty safe design from a failsafe point of view, like you said you can't attack it in a way to make it explode or something, I think the worst they could do would be to get the radioactive coolant to leak out or something.

[jonesy]

The trees are all felled
The coal has all been delved

Oil reserves have reached new lows
Natural gas no longer flows

Build a reactor, lets make haste!
We can worry later about the waste!

Hey! Turn up my AC!
Hey! Fuel up my Humvee!

[photon]

There once was a province, BC,
Their goal was to hug every tree.

Nuclear power came near,
it's waste was to fear!

They're dead now. Lack of power, you see.



EDIT: Slight change on the last line.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by photon

There once was a province, BC,
Their goal was to hug every tree.

Nuclear power came near,
it's waste was to fear!

They're dead now. Lack of power, you see.



EDIT: Slight change on the last line.

I'm a poet too
Haikus about energy
Are what I do best.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Burninator

But if they attacked the nuclear power planet, the effects wouldn't be immediate. I assuming that the reactor leaking would be similar to Chernobyl (without the government cover up), and not similar to a nuclear warhead explosion (which would be highly unlikely). Calgary and Edmonton would most likely be evacuated without any effects. Sure the long term effects would be another story. But I don't see that as a terrorist MO. They always seem to want immediate results, not long term results. It would similar to attacking a dam. The effects would be large. Loss of power for a large area, huge flooding that could damage cities or farm land, effecting food etc. But the loss of life would be minimal as compared to attacking a building.

You're assuming they are aiming for casualties. This is all hypothetical, but they don't always strike at casualties. 9/11 was easily targetted at the financial and military heart of the government.

What do you think would happen to the global energy market in 2020 if suddenly the tarsands were blanketed with radioactive fallout? That's the point I'm making.

Again though, it's all hypothetical situations, but they should atleast be noted.

[Flames89]

There are SOOOOOO many targets that are closer and easier to reach for Terrorists ...

Northern Alberta. Can't see it on their top 10 things-to-do list.

[photon]

<insert joke about Edmonton here>

[Jade]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Why would either city need to be evacuated?

Kiev was 5 times closer to Chernobyl that Edmonton is to Peace River, and it wasn't evacuated in 1986.

Depends on the direction of the wind mostly. As they say, the best place to put a nuclear reactor is right on the border with the wind blowing out of your country.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

Not to mention the hideous cost of launching anything into space.
We're talking like $15,000 per kilogram.

They should dilute the nuclear waste and feed it to school children in the hopes some of them will obtain super powers.

15k/ kg seems pretty cheap to me. The amount of money generated from a kg of uranium must be in the tens if not hundreds of millions.

In all honesty, Alberta would probably just end up burying it underground like every other country in the world does. I know this doesnt sound like the best solution to some, but keep in mind it only has to stay sealed for a maximum of 300 years. As of yet it has yet to cause any significant problems anywhere else in the world while the uncontrolled release of carbon most likely will.

Edit: BTW do Quebec and Ontario already have them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...eactors#Canada seems to list a series of reactors. It's also surprising the number of countries that do already have them.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Azure

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...7a245e&k=67783

Looks like people in BC have a problem with Alberta going nuclear.

And hydro power has no consequences whatsoever I guess? This type of hypocrisy is so typical.

[icarus]

Less than a year ago I had a drink with an inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based in Geneva, and he thoroughly convinced me that there is really nothing to fear with these modern reactors. It's like people who refuse to fly and who drive instead, oblivious to the fact that cars are far more unsafe.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by icarus

Less than a year ago I had a drink with an inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based in Geneva, and he thoroughly convinced me that there is really nothing to fear with these modern reactors. It's like people who refuse to fly and who drive instead, oblivious to the fact that cars are far more unsafe.

###

If you look at the amount of deaths and damage cause by nuclear power vs. other alternatives, nuclear power is by faaaarrrrrr (the extra letters emphasize my point) the saffest. Think about how many people die in mining accidents. Think about the environmental damage caused by the carbon output.