The bottom line here: plant security functioned exactly as it should have. As NucNet reported: "The explosive did not enter the facility and there was no risk of an explosion because there was no detonation device." According to Vattenfall, the operator of the plant, the amount of explosives that were found were too small to cause any meaningful damage. Nevertheless, alert levels at Sweden's two other nuclear plants, Forsmark and Oskarshamn, have been raised, and Swedish police are currently investigating the whereabouts of the fork lift before it arrived at the plant.
America's nuclear plants have always been secure, and are among the best protected pieces of industrial infrastructure in this country -- and that's all the more the case since 9-11. For more information on exactly what the industry has done since 9-11 to enhance security at America's nuclear power plants, click here to watch a video we shot last year with Exelon Nuclear President and Chief Nuclear Officer Mike Pacilio.
Photo of Ringhals by Vattenfall.
Comments
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Sigh ... What is it about Greenpeace supporters that they have the need to demonstrate continuously that they are some of the most ignorant people in the world?
I was merely quoting the terminology previously used in blog posts here (incorrectly, apparently) by Mr. Greenidge and others, where they said criticizing the nuclear power industry is "slander" and justifies lawsuits against nuclear critics. See, for example:
"One way to curb this hit-and-run bogus misinformation crap is to permit industries or individuals to issue slander and defamation lawsuits when no solid research or proof is offered ..." http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2012/01/new-report-falsely-claims-nuclear.html
"These leaks are (as I already pointed out) miniscule compared to the dumping from fossil fuel burning which we know actually kills and I know of no overt attempt by Exelon to cover anything up. To say otherwise without documented proof some might consider as slander."
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2006/02/nei-energy-markets-report.html
OK, Mr. Justices Mays and Mr. Greenidge, how is accusing Greenpeace in involvement in a bomb incident, with no evidence to support the statement, not LIBEL?
Since this anonymous person, who didn't know the difference between libel and slander, wants to cover the finer points, please allow me to point out the following:
1) Nobody here has accused Greenpeace of anything, except for the implied reference to the group's "hang-glider stunt" for which Greenpeace has already taken credit publicly.
2) For a statement to be considered libel, it must be both false and defamatory -- that is, it must tend to harm the reputation of another. Even if Greenpeace had been directly accused, how could such a statement be defamatory? Any accusation from what has been written here would be that the group pulls stunts to scare people, which is something that Greenpeace not only admits, but takes pride in. If anything, such a statement would bolster the reputation that Greenpeace has worked hard to develop and maintain.
3) People who go around tossing important-sounding Latin terms like "ad hominem" should really learn what the terms mean before they prove themselves fools by using them incorrectly. In this case, the fool should learn the difference between an argumentum ad hominem, an insult, and a casual observation. They're not the same thing.
Yes, "accusing" GP of the glider incident is not slander or libel, because they have said they did it. Suggesting that GP was involved in a bomb plot, however, is potentially libelous.
An appeal to ad hominem is insulting the source or opponent, rather than refuting their argument. That's what he's been up to, so I stand by accuracy of the terminology.
Mr. Mays is correct (generally) about the criteria for libel and slander. He should be sure to point those criteria out to Mr. Greenidge the next time the latter suggests that nuclear power critics should be sued for (his term) slander.