Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Greenpeace Breaks Into French Nuclear Plant

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the they-thought-plant-meant-something-different dept.

Power 561

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."

cancel ×

561 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good thing nobody hates the French (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273354)

Said, with tongue firmly in cheek.

Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (4, Informative)

Ynot_82 (1023749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273696)

Funnily enough, the whole tongue-in-cheek thing was started by a frenchman
I forget the exact details, but he was sarcastically complimenting an englishman on his "invention", that the french had actually done years before
pressing your tongue lightly against your cheek prevented you from accidentally smiling after making a sarcastic comment

Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (1, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273754)

actually, it was started by a french whore, and the cheeks were not on someone's face

Re:Good thing nobody hates the French (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273914)

Yeah, that's what he said.

What if it turned out the other way? (4, Interesting)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273378)

And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273398)

If they'd gotten shot they probably wouldn't be talking at all.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273498)

Sounds like a win-win.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (3, Insightful)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 2 years ago | (#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!

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (3, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Insightful)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273692)

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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (4, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Interesting)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273846)

I'd like to see how that "measurability" was established, considering that scientists can't even figure out if minor increase in radioactivity is net negative or net positive, as there are different factors at play, which represent both directions.

Oh, you're probably referring to stuff like being exposed to elements for prolonged time, having to eat dirty food, and so on. Bad news: that was earthquake and tsunami. They also killed over thirty thousand people and left hundreds of thousands homeless.

There was this really funny research on survivors of people who were putting out Chernobyl fires. Of those who survived the ordeal and a couple of months after it (when most people who got lethal dose died), there was a greater portion of them alive now then there was of general population. This was (at least partially) attributed to significant increase in health checks of the rescue crews, which allowed medics to find many problems and fix them rather then have them evolve into something incurably lethal (as is the case with many cancers).

So should we now state that Fukushima accident will likely increase life expectancy of the workers who were fixing it like it was in Chernobyl. We'll know in a couple of decades.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (2)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273904)

Radioactivity is possibly healthy for you? Wow. Somehow, I'm reminded of the Chesterfield Cigareette adds from the '50's....

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (4, Interesting)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273920)

measurably shortened life span

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. You could counter argue that her husband, Pierre-Curie, died younger at 46. However his dead was the result of his skull crushed by the heavy wheel of an horse drawn cart, nothing to do with radiation at all...

And Fukushima is not in the same league as Chernobyl. Therefore on what do you based this affirmed mesurability ?

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273536)

And if they'd gotten shot doing this, would they be saying how mean the French are?

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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (3, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273698)

I think that's kind of the point: to get them to secure the place.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Insightful)

Spykk (823586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273896)

I think the point was to generate press coverage. Greenpeace's greatest cause is self-promotion.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273918)

I think that's kind of the point: to get them to secure the place.

Well, yeah. I imagine the head of security has been given quite the dressing down, if not the outright sack. Could have been worse, not just Al Qaeda, but any number of Algerians who disagree with France's intervention in their country's matters could have joined Greenpeace and rather than follow the team to the banner hanging, gone elsewhere to throw the figurative shoe into the works.

There's got to be something more than simply, "Bring me the head of Jean the Activist!"

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (1)

51M02 (165179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273778)

There was supposed to have some gendarmes [wikipedia.org] on site already since a law passed in 2009 (before the security was implemented by the French energy provider directly). Those units are supposed to be trained by the French Counter-Terrorists SWAT team (the GIGN [wikipedia.org] ).

Anyway they did nothing to stop Greenpeace. The French government said they recognized it was some activists and did nothing. Officially.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273966)

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?

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (2, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273784)

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?

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (5, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273826)

Gotta give Greenpeace credit for having balls.

Ever been to a Greenpeace function? Most of them don't. **

* * Well, at least on external inspection. My GF at the time would have frowned at more detailed research

Re:What if it turned out the other way? (4, Insightful)

DiniZuli (621956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273750)

It was in Europe - people don't have guns, and doesn't get shot during break-ins.

It's funny how stupid they are (3, Insightful)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#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)

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273468)

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.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (2, Insightful)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273632)

Greenpeace will never be satisfied until the all energy resources are eliminated.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273864)

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.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273996)

i think there's a bunch of regulatory traps that don't favour new designs... they need "proven safe", which means G1 or G2

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273478)

nuclear power caused .04 deaths in 2008, where coal caused 161 deaths. i say give me the atom, or give me death!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273654)

I'm happy to give you death.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (-1)

dankasak (2393356) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273560)

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.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

immaterial (1520413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273794)

Accidentally modded this troll when I meant insightful! Posting to undo..

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273980)

I wonder if coal plants put out more radioactivity in total when the whole life cycle of the plants are considered. Decommissioning nuclear power plants is both expensive and difficult, and according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning#Cost_of_decommissioning) there have been cases where decommissioning have involved leaks despite huge investments in securing the dismantlement.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273710)

Actually it is the LEAST polluting, as well as the LEAST expensive way of boiling water that we know of. You need to read up on radioactivity.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273906)

"Least polluting" is arguable. Hydro and reasonably used geothermal are very good runner-ups in the competition. They're also quite a bit riskier then nuclear though, but just as nuclear this is mostly accident-related risk. There is little to no of "it's on, so it's causing damage" factor, just like with nuclear.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273824)

Radioactive waste would not be a problem if the world grew a set and jettisoned the nuclear waste into a space. Most of the active reactors are 20+ years old and were originally constructed without the information and technology we have today. Nuclear power has proved feasible with the proper attention paid to the details. The US military nuclear powered subs prevent radioactive harm to personnel in tightly closed environments. If a sub took battle damage the possibility of radioactive contamination would not really matter since if the damage was bad enough to damage the reactor the sub would most likely be destroyed with all hands.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273568)

Where does it say they were protesting the fact that there was a nuclear plant? I thought it said they were showing how lax security was.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273598)

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!

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273706)

At least here they always protest against nuclear energy and try to pull stunts like this.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (5, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273806)

Sounds like they didn't protest against nuclear energy. They protested against lax security.

They protested the wrong place. If they wanted to find security, they should have tried to get 4oz of shampoo on a domestic US flight.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273832)

This is gray-hat, not white-hat. White-hat is done legally, whereas Greenpeace almost certainly broke laws against trespassing here, even if their intentions were good.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273634)

Of course, nuclear waste is the gift that keeps on giving. And giving. And giving...

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273638)

Well I does depend on how you measure pollutants. Nuclear energy produces tons and tons and tons of extremely long lived nuclear waste, it is a completely different kind of pollutant but it is a pollutant just the same.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

ahabswhale (1189519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273908)

It's only less polluting if you assume there's never going to be catastrophes and that the whole nuclear waste thing is no big deal. Those are very big assumptions. I think Chernobyl and the recent disaster in Japan has already proven the first one to be a very bad assumption and I'm guessing Greenpeace is trying to reinforce the point.

Re:It's funny how stupid they are (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273910)

did simcity offer renewable power plants?
the sit in europe is, that in the 70s govenments funded the nuke comapnies, for they didnt wanted to carry the risk of a meltdown or all other less harmful dangers. where to store the waste etc. hence, nuke electricity couldnt compete with renewables, if the companies had to carry all the costs of waste storage, safety, insurance a.s.o.. Now, the companies try to block the renewables, saying exactly what you state: nuke power is the most climate neutral. not considering renewables, ehm. It doesnt take into account, that nuke power raises the likeability to develop cancer in organisms, living in the area.
simcity is not accurate enough to simulate sick people. so please note, that simcity is a pretty good and funny game, but it poorly simulates the complexity of real life.

fixed with footnotes (-1)

identity0 (77976) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273944)

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***)

*not including ultimate disposal of waste material that will be deadly for thousands of years, inevitable accidents due to human error, terrorists attacking plants or acts of G-d that only occur every few centuries, because it's not like its inevitable that one will occur to a nuclear plant if we build enough of them around the world.

**for the sake of this argument, there are no power plant types apart from nuclear and coal.

***you are now reinstalling. Did you know there's a DS version out?

To say nothing of their own reputation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273390)

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

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273576)

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

People who would rather someone else get their hands dirty or risk their lives, while they go on enjoying a cup of tea and good book of poetry.

Interesting game, isn't it? Not entirely unlike the other side of the coin - Corporations and lawyers.

I'd like to enjoy my tea and poetry.... (5, Insightful)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (4, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#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....

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (3, Insightful)

Fzz (153115) | more than 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (0, Flamebait)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273724)

Their rich mommies and daddies. Greenpeace "activists" tend to be spoiled little rich kids who have no qualms about taking the benefits of an industrial society while still condemning how "evil" it is.... perhaps so they don't feel as bad about living off of mommy and daddy.

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273856)

Their rich mommies and daddies. Greenpeace "activists" tend to be spoiled little rich kids who have no qualms about taking the benefits of an industrial society while still condemning how "evil" it is.... perhaps so they don't feel as bad about living off of mommy and daddy.

In that case they should have called it "Occupy Power Plant".

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273746)

The fossil lobby, of course.

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273930)

This is actually one of the dirtier secrets behind Greenpeace and similar organizations. They have no qualms with accepting "anonymous" donations from interested parties, even when those interested parties are ones they go against.

Re:To say nothing of their own reputation (3, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273812)

They are quite sane, but they are also confrontational.

Given that NON-confrontational methods don't work, and that GP are serious, why not up the ante?

They demonstrated French nuke security sucks, so their objective was accomplished.

They could just as easily have carried:

Satchel charges including shaped demo charges and EFPs (can reach from a short distance to save time emplacing them) to breach containment and disable backup cooling systems or system power.
Portable exothermic breaching kit to slice through security doors/locks.
Small arms to dispose of any guards.

They didn't, but they proved it practical. There is no "security" without ARMED defense on the spot. That applies to everything from nuclear reactors to your house or apartment. Unless you can halt opposing human attack by shutting down their central nervous systems, they are free to do their will.

What's French for... (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273416)

..."Homer Simpson"? Because it sounds like their plants are run about as well as the one on The Simpsons.

Re:What's French for... (2)

Leuf (918654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273594)

Le Simpson d'Homer

Re:What's French for... (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273646)

..."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.

Actually, I think that this was BRILLIANT (3, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273428)

Nukes are not going away. Too many reasons to continue it. HOWEVER, between Japan and now this, I think that France requires some massive upgrades. However, job #1 MUST BE SECRUITY.

And these ppl should NOT be ripped for this. THey should be scolded publicly and then privately thanked.

Re:Actually, I think that this was BRILLIANT (1)

kanto (1851816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273702)

And these ppl should NOT be ripped for this. THey should be scolded publicly and then privately thanked.

I say set each of them up with an ankle monitor, security problem solved.

Re:Actually, I think that this was BRILLIANT (0)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273836)

I'd just go on TV and say the security problem has been solved at the plants. Invite Greenpeace to come back to the plants and do their stunt again to verify. Then shoot the lot of them. Win-win, all problems solved.

Too easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273472)

Your nuclear plants are belong to us.

good grief.. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273480)

And when one of these fuckers gets smoked by GIGN or whatever the French use for this sort of thing, I don't want to hear the damned whining of bleeding hearts on the interweb.

Nuclear Plant security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273508)

Too bad they didn't get their asses shot off by the guards.

Re:Nuclear Plant security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273708)

Hey moron, the whole point of this is there weren't guards stopping them from doing it.

Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (4, Insightful)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 2 years ago | (#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?

Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (1, Insightful)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273898)

Greenpeace call the French authorities and told them that they'd sent guys sneaking into the nuke plants.

The French authorities then told their snipers to stand down, and allowed the Greenpeace guys to finish their climb and deploy their banner before the French arrested them.

So, they were saved from being put in boxes for return to next-of-kin by a timely phone call by Greenpeace types who were NOT willing to risk their own asses to pull this stunt.

Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (1)

51M02 (165179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38274004)

Since a law passed in 2009, it's the responsability of special teams of the Gendarmerie [wikipedia.org] called peloton spécialisé de protection de la gendarmerie, trained by National Gendarmerie Intervention Group [wikipedia.org] to secure special site like nuclear plant.

The question is why did they not intervene? Officially they are saying it's because they recognized it was some GP activists and as such did nothing. Sounds like a huge BS to me. There is some history [wikipedia.org] between the French government and Greenpeace which demonstrate the French could be more than happy to shoot, and the role of such special team would have to intervene in some way.

Anyway Kudos to GP.

Re:Alternate Outcome: Greenpeace Activist Shot... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273762)

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?

Why spin it? They'd do well to play it straight - it was unauthorised intrusion into a security area of a nuclear faciltiy. Would have looked very bad for Greenpeace without tarnishing the plant operator or nuclear agency one iota. Sometimes people get completely screwed up and believe they have to spin and hype things, when very little will do quite well. Further, spin and hype tend to cost credibility - at least among jaded cynics like myself.

Uh, well, I guess they made their point (1, Insightful)

intx13 (808988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273550)

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.

Riiiiiiight........ (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273850)

Because the nuke industry would be more than happy to give Greenpeace researchers full access to their facilities. And the media would be tripping over themselves to publish their findings. And Greenpeace is dangerous. Can I live in your world?

Great comments! (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273584)

It's funny that nearly half the comments are asking what would be happening if they were shot, or that they actually deserved to be shot. That's the whole point. Security was so lax nothing like that happened. You should be thanking them for exposing this bullshit.

Re:Great comments! (4, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273940)

That's the whole point. Security was so lax nothing like that happened.

Umm, no. Greenpeace called the French authorities and told them that they'd sent men sneaking into nuclear power plants, and the French authorities then stood down their snipers and allowed the Greenpeace guys to finish climbing the building and deploy their banner before arresting them.

So, the phone call saved the lives of the Greenpeace protesters, which hardly shows that security of the plants was lax....

BFD, they jumped a fence (4, Insightful)

subreality (157447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273592)

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

-Sigh- (3, Insightful)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273600)

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?

Re:-Sigh- (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273742)

Probably because a coal plant isn't as much of a hazard if things go south inside it.

They didn't state nuclear power is horrible. They showed whoever is in charge of planning security at the plant needs to be bitch slapped.

Re:-Sigh- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273840)

If we've gotten the point that we need to keep 24/7 armed guards stationed at power plants; fuck 9/11, fuck Al-Qaeda, fuck Osama Bin Laden, Mother Nature made us its bitch with the 2011 earthquake/tsunami!

Re:-Sigh- (3, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273916)

They didn't state it on the banners, but they do state it here. [greenpeace.org]

Nuclear power is neither safe nor clean. There is no such thing as a "safe" dose of radiation and just because nuclear pollution is invisible doesn't mean it's "clean."

Take action right now and tell the President that taxpayers should not take on the risk of building new nuclear plants.

If a meltdown were to occur, the accident could kill and injure tens of thousands of people, leaving large regions uninhabitable. And, more than 50 years after splitting the first atom, science has yet to devise a method for adequately handling long lived radioactive wastes.

For years nuclear plants have been leaking radioactive waste from underground pipes and radioactive waste pools into the ground water at sites across the nation.

In addition to being extremely dangerous, the continued greenwashing of nuclear power from industry-backed lobbyists diverts investments away from clean, renewable sources of energy. In contrast to nuclear power, renewable energy is both clean and safe. Technically accessible renewable energy sources are capable of producing six times more energy than current global demand.

I don't understand... (3, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273602)

... 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.

A very clever plan. (4, Interesting)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273604)

That involved being on the other side of this airtight hatch.

How long would it take to actually penetrate the containment building?

From Wikipedia:

The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.

Re:A very clever plan. (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273772)

"Must be" != "is"

Laziness, bribery, budget cuts, and time are all contributing factors to the above.

Re:A very clever plan. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273986)

They tend to take inspections more seriously when it involves anything nuclear. They're definitely up-to-spec when built. Standards may laxen over time (see: TEPCO), maintenance becomes more shoddy, but a steel-reinforced, meter-thick concrete wall doesn't really need much maintenance. If it was built right in the first place, it pretty much takes active sabotage to weaken it.

Neither laziness nor budget cuts can cause that sort of damage, and the timescales are insufficient. So unless someone is going around bribing people to actively weaken massive structures, not much is going to make that "is" different from "must be".

Re:A very clever plan. (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273880)

"How long would it take to actually penetrate the containment building?"

Depends on what kit you bring.

Portable exothermic torches might cut through personnel doors, and if it were a well-funded operation then shaped charges etc could blow holes.

Easy enough for a kamikaze squad to wear the shaped charges and hug the target areas while other troops fight off security personnel to buy time.

Have they tried breaking into coal or hydro plants (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273644)

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?

So show me the clean energy research and develo... (3, Insightful)

Technomancer (51963) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Re:So show me the clean energy research and develo (2, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Didn't actually break in (4, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273682)

The only thing these activists managed to get through was the fence, they then hung their banners on the outside of the containment building. No risk to security.

Bullshit, just total bullshit. (4, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#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.

Very well handled! (0)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273716)

I am amazed at how well the authorities responded to this. They are taking this as evidence of a security breach rather than a chance to make political enemies. The president's advisor says "we'll have to learn some lessons" and the interior minister said "we have to understand what's behind this [security] malfunction" and is reviewing the security breach. That's amazingly coherent, logical, and useful!

Here in America, I imagine the intruders would be shot, labeled terrorists, and used as an excuse to invalid [insert random non-nuclear nation here].

Poles will happily light the lamp of th principled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38273730)

- France and German dismantles their nuclear power plants
- Suddenly France and Germany need to replace the power produced by their nuclear power plants from another source!
- Good thing there is a well-integrated European power net to draw on!
- Who feeds the power into that power net? Well:

http://www.thenews.pl/1/12/Artykul/59478,Russia-bids-to-build-nuclear-power-station-in-Poland
This is for internal use, but if you're happy to build two, what stops you from building a few more?

"Not In My Back Yard" literally, hence totally okay if the nuclear power plant is in my neighbour's back yard.

soviet russia (2)

dumuzi (1497471) | more than 2 years ago | (#38273934)

In Soviet Russia the nuclear reactor Hey Easy's you.

Too Bad They Didn't Shoot Them (1)

echusarcana (832151) | more than 2 years ago | (#38274006)

This does suggest that the plant's security was inadequate and you can do some serious damage to equipment outside of containment.
However, with jackass stunts like this, Greenpeace discredits the whole environmental movement as the ignorant nutbars they tend to be. If they cared about the planet, they should be promoting nuclear power, not fighting it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>