Friday 13th: Hijacked airliner ploughs into UK Nuclear Power Plant

nuke_airliner.jpg Well, not really – but this disturbing little ‘home movie’ shows how any morning could be a ‘Friday 13th’ – with a plane crash at a nuclear power station.
“The short film, directed by Andy Morahan, shows a family enjoying a day on a beach, filmed for posterity by the father. An ever-louder roar breaks the tranquillity, and the hand-held camera pans to the sky to track a jet heading directly towards a nuclear facility just a few hundred metres away.”
Friday the 13th – Watch your worst nightmare unfold! »
What it’s all about:
“Building more nuclear power stations will dramatically increase the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack, which could claim millions of lives, Greenpeace warned today”.
“A shocking dossier of expert evidence released by the environmental group shows how a terrorist strike, targetting dangerous radioactive waste held at the Sellafield nuclear facility in Cumbria, could kill over two million people.”
“UK nuclear sites are not built to withstand a deliberate crash by a jumbo jet full of highly explosive aviation fuel, and an attack on Sellafield could dwarf the consequences of the Chernobyl accident in 1986.”
Read the full story: New nuke stations ‘catastrophic gift to terrorists’

how much traffic is going to my site

The Register: Friday the 13th: what’s the worst that could happen?
UK: Sellafield an easy target for hijacked jets
Dr Frank Barnaby, a former Aldermaston nuclear physicist who now works for the Oxford Research Group, said Greenpeace, who released the computer-generated film on the internet, was “facing up to reality”. He said: “The public have the right to know the danger. The Government says the terrorism threat is real. Building more nuclear power stations, especially after 11 September, is a risk we don’t have to take.For the Government to encourage it is crazy.”
Greenpeace video of ‘terror attack’ is condemned
Figures from Greenpeace show that for every 100 units of energy trapped in fossil fuel, 61.5 are lost through inefficient generation and heat wastage, 3.5 are lost in transmission and 13 are wasted through inefficient end usage.
“What we do not need is billions of pounds being poured into new nuclear plants that mean continuing with an outdated centralised electricity generation and distribution system,” Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale said.

UK green lobby girds for nuclear battle over energy »

Chief Bottle Washer at Blather
Writer, photographer, environmental campaigner and "known troublemaker" Dave Walsh is the founder of, described both as "possibly the most arrogant and depraved website to be found either side of the majestic Shannon River", and "the nicest website circulating in Ireland". Half Irishman, half-bicycle. He lives in southern Irish city of Barcelona.


  1. I would strongly urge anyone interested in understanding a nuclear power plant accident to see my techno-thriller novel, “Rad Decision”, available at no cost to readers at As a longtime nuclear energy worker I have provided an inside look at the US version of the industry (good and bad), including how an accident would be handled. James Aach
    “I’d like to see Rad Decision widely read.” – Stewart Brand, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog

  2. Dontcha know, all the nuke plants have nature reserves and beauty spots beside them, so they must be safe, right?
    Anyway, this is a UK beach we’re talking about. If the rads don’t get you then its death by e-coli, from all those lovely turds.

  3. greenpeace has an interesting view regarding terorists and nuclear powerplants. are they saying that building nuclear powerplants creates terrorists?

  4. I don’t think they’re saying anything of the sort, Alistair – where in the dossier does it suggest that?

  5. the comment was;
    “Building more nuclear power stations will dramatically increase the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack”
    it was the correlation made by greenforce,er peace. i merely pointed it out.

  6. In fairness, I think Greenpeace is saying that more nuclear power plants means more terrorist targets, not more terrorists.

  7. no, it says “terrorist attack”. implicit within that is the involvement of terrorists. i merely made the association give the phrasing of the comment by greenthingy…..there was no shading or deconstruction of nuance. they are saying that, in thier view, building more nuclear power plants will mean more terrorist attacks. “more terrorists” is the natural product of these sort of attacks, because the one`s who did the prior ones, if successful, are deadish.

  8. Umm, Alistair. Read the bit you quoted, please:
    “Building more nuclear power stations will dramatically increase the risk of a catastrophic terrorist attack”
    That was the RISK of a CATASTROPHIC terrorist attack, not the raw numeric occurences of terrorist attacks.
    I think there’s a compelling case that given a choice between a large office building and a nuclear power plant, the choice for anyone looking to create a catastrophe is clear. And therefore, the more targets which create catastrophe, the more risk.

  9. yes, absolutely. the only occurence of new terrorist attack i was refering to was the ones that would involve the building of new nuclear facilities. the terrorist attacks that are against other targets would be implicitly outside of the context of this conversation, and therefore no comment would have been necessary.
    i will stick to my original point of observation. greenwhatsit implied, whether consciously or otherwise, that building more nuclear generating stations would create more attacks from terrorists, and by inference create more terrorists. greenforce wouldn`t do such a thing themselves, mind you. they prefer to kill fishermen by ramming thier vessel with a pt boat. completely different from blowing up buildings.

  10. Alistair – I can see you have some personal grievance with Greenpeace (or as you amusingly refer to it, Greenforce or and Greenwhatsit), as you seem convinced that the organisation wants to ‘kill fishermen’ by ramming their vessel with a ‘pt’ boat.
    Can you send us some evidence for this remarkably outlandish claim? And what’s a ‘pt’ boat?

    it was my recollection that greenpeace had in thier possession a converted “pt” boat, that is power torpedo boat, as they are about as fast a marine vehicle as available n can be bought at navy surplus prices.
    i found the above article which describes a “collision” between fishing boats and one of greenpeaces boats. it is unclear as to who was responsible. the incedent i`m refering to involves a “pt” boat and a smaller trawler that was capsised and sunk. i can`t, as yet, find the relevent article. it was some 30 years ago.
    my point, in summery is, what was greenpeace doing maneovering a large vessel that close to ships if it was concerned that a collision could result? the trawlers have legal right-of-way in these fishing operations for precisely this reason. they are commiting a criminal act by being there. the fact that a collision occured as a result compounds the crime.
    my issue with greenpeace is that they are recklessly endangering lives to promote thier cause. we all have causes. who`s to say that the rights of dolphins are greater than that of norwiegean fishermen? and what is greenpeaces true agenda anyway? they seem interested in the dolphins but not the slimy, smelly sea bass. just flipper. hmmm.

  12. Alistair – I’ve read a good bit of Greenpeace history, and I’ve never come across any story of a Greenpeace ship sinking a trawler or killing fishermen. You’re entitled to make the claim, but I would implore you to try and back it up with some facts, please!
    Are you sure you’re not thinking of the rather more extreme Sea Shepard? They once sunk a whaler….

  13. Those ships in the news were whalers – and the ship in questions was a factory ship, so its manoeuvring was not restricted. It’s not a fishing boat – it’s part of a fleet of hunting ships that are hunting whales in a designated whale sanctuary, under the guise of ‘scientific research’.

  14. yep, i may have confused the two. the owner of the sea sheperd was a member of greenpeace at one time, if my memory serves. it doesn`t exclude greenpeace from culpability in the suspect activities of interfering in fishing. regarding the searching for facts counter to greenpeace`s own position, it is difficult to wade through page after page of google and yahoo hits to greenpeace`s own sites to find countercommentaries…..environmentlism is an opinion at the end of the day, and a center of profit and power for greenpeace.

  15. Alistair – as someone who has sailed on Greenpeace ships, I can tell you, there’s a hell of a big difference between the deliberate ramming tactics of Sea Shepard and the non-violent tactics of Greenpeace.
    Just because the two organisations have a member in common doesn’t mean that they share a policy – should current Greenpeace volunteers bear the responsibility of the activies of people who were ‘once’ in the organisation? There’s plenty of people who work with Greenpeace who’ve had other roles too – ex-police, army, media, even ex-fishermen!
    Anyway – if it’s too difficult to search for proof to back up your claims about Greenpeace’s ‘suspect activities’, then I can’t help you much!
    Yes, of course environmentalism is an opinion – but not all environmentalists share the same opinions.
    As for power and wealth – Greenpeace makes no secret of its income. The organisation doesn’t take money from governments or companies – just individuals. The amounts may seem large, but they don’t go too far when you’re trying to run a small fleet of vessels and counter the questionable activities of governments and companies worldwide.
    To be honest, I feel you’re looking for a conspiracy where there isn’t one.

  16. conspiracy? no. the actions of greenpeace are typical of socialist entities. the role of individuals in the movement isn`t in question. the reason why people involve themselves in greenpeace vary.
    it is an interesting comment on an organisation that is ostensibly “for” so many reasonable and good things yet it will engage in military scale operations designed to interfere and damage property and lives. boat rammings are only a part of the issue. and to distance one`s self from those more redical than one`s self is disingenuous. i see this in demonstrations politically, where emotions are high from the get go and clashes ensue and people get hurt. it`s a cosistant and predictable formula. i will go as far as to say that there is a sense of thrill in those who partake in these demonstrations and the excitement outways some of the more complex and higher minded values people hold.

  17. Greenpeace a socialist entity? Firstly, I’m not sure what’s *wrong* with being a socalist entity. And then I’m not even sure that GP *is* one.
    I still you’re still going about ‘rammings’ – Greenpeace don’t ram people. As I mentioned earlier, that’s Sea Shepard that does that.
    And as for ‘military scale operations designed to interfere and damage property and lives’ – can you provide some – even a smidgen of evidence of Greenpeace being involved in ‘military scale operations’?
    The ‘peace’ in the name should give you *some* clue.
    Please go check your facts…

    and from this point onward we can split hairs about who rammed who, but i think you can see that when people play silly buggers with big boats, this sort of thing happens. and the term “military” is a term i use to describe putting a ship of that magnitude to sea and finding a fishing fleet with gps etc.not to mention the piloting tactics of the captain. this demands logistics of a military scale.
    regarding socialism, my view is that the real agenda of enviro organisations is to disrupt commerce and create political unrest. that is all they have caused. this is not to say that there aren`t people with true ecological and cruelty concerns working within these organisations. that`s never been my point. and for greenpeace to distance it`s self from the sea sheperd is like george bush distancing himself from pat robertson.

  19. Alister,
    Now I don’t always agree with GP and their tactics – but you must be quite bendy to achieve such a stretch like the conclusions you have drawn about them! Will you next be telling us that GP is a secret member of the “Axis of Evil”?

Comments are closed.