Samiam wrote:Tuomey wrote:what'll happen if someone decides to blow up a nuclear power plant?
Surprisingly little. You do get the fissionable material for nuclear weapons from nuclear power production but its not in any kind of refined form inside the reactor to cause a nuclear explosion. You get a nuclear meltdown and another Chernobyl is what would most likely happen.
Tuomey's right on the money here. Your average nuclear weapons requires a core consistency of over 90% refined uranium. This is the reason why we're all so concerned about the Iraninan centrifuges, because they've got the capability to get close to this. Nuclear powerplants tend to be much less, hovering around numbers of less than 15% refined uranium or plutonium, and while this amount does increase over time (which is how you produce weapons-grade nuclear material in the first place (see Hanford)), even Soviet-era plants don't mushroom cloud.
Where the real pants-soiling factor lies is in the radioactive material blast. Chernobyl is the prime example, as the radioactive material from the internal core combined with the steam-cloud from the loss of coolant and went skywards damn fast. Chernobyl churned out plenty of material, remembering that one of the first indications we had of the accident were sensors in Scandinavia. Add to that the half-life of the material and you've got one helluva clean-up cost. This is why fuel-rods are so protected, as the main threat via terrorism from nuclear material is teh dirty-bomb scenario, with the spread of active alpha and beta radiation-emmitting particles that do all of their damage from the inside.
If you get the chance, pick up a copy of James W. Huston's book 'Fall-Out'. This deals with the idea of a military bombing strike taking place against a nuclear storage facility in California. It's also a damn good read.