"Roger T." wrote:

On the contrary, the containment building at a nuclear power station is
supposed to be able to take a loaded 747 crashing on to it without harm.

Rather like the Twin Towers? Able to take the force of a jet aircraft
impact?

Rather like the Titanic, unsinkable?


It is complete twaddle. I have worked at - or visited - many of the
UK's nuclear power stations in the course of my career.

The "containment" buildings are a misnomer. In most UK nuclear power
stations, the containment building is merely airtight. The structure
usually consists of profiled metal sheet cladding on a steel frame,
similar to what would be found in a DIY shed or supermarket. There is
no additional strength over and above what is required to carry the
cladding, wind and snow loads.

The idea that it could withstand an impact from any aircraft - let
alone 300+ tons of 747 - is laughable. The security services are well
aware of this, and our nuclear power stations are known to be very
vulnerable to airborne attack.

Two particular points of weakness are the exposed pile caps (the pile
cap is the top of the reactor) and control rooms. Hostile attack was
never considered in their design.

Sizewell B may be an exception. The containment building there is far
stronger than in all other UK nuclear stations, being of a completely
different design. But the vulnerable Sizewell A lies just alongside,
with two reactors to choose from. :-(