Pakistan Builds Nuclear Reactors In Karachi, Sparking Fears of Disaster 122
schwit1 writes World leaders have fretted for years that terrorists may try to steal one of Pakistan's nuclear bombs and detonate it in a foreign country. But some Karachi residents say the real nuclear nightmare is unfolding here in Pakistan's largest and most volatile city. Of all places to locate a nuclear reactor, they argue, who could possibly make a case for this one — on an earthquake-prone seafront vulnerable to tsunamis and not far from where al-Qaeda militants nearly hijacked a Pakistan navy vessel last fall.
Feature, (Score:2)
...not a bug.
It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
This must be the most moronic article I've read in a long time.
3/4 of the way down the text it says the only relevant piece of information: "Minhaj said concerns about the effect of a tsunami are also overblown because the new reactors are being built on a rock ledge about 39 feet above sea level."
That's 12m above the sea. The tsunami generated by a mag 9.0 earthquake is expected to be between 0.9m and 7m high - so the plant will have 5m margin ABOVE THE WORST CASE.
Shut up everyone, you've been lied to.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah but let's be honest this is really an, "Only the white man can be trusted with high tech!" article.
Never mind who actually ends up building and then using the deadliest weapons. It's DIFFERENT then because we're only using them on the sort of savages who want to build and use the deadliest weapons...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care if they're white, black, brown, yellow, green or polka dot. What matters is that it is a borderline failed state that is about to be overrun by Salafist fanatics. Those guys, if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon, will use it. Especially if they're ISIS-brand of apocalypse now believers.
Re: (Score:2)
I would really appreciate to have a source for this statement.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And you are only concentrating on one point, you find inconclusive, and this is your basis to call everyone to shut up?
If you would have taken the time, and glimpse at a satellite image of that region, you might have recognized that the surrounding area has a nice beach style "ramp" on the west side.
a nuclear power plant needs cooling == fresh water
a tsunami will suck all water from the beach for approx 30s
a tsunami will struck down the surrounding grid (== fukushima)
a failing over flodded backup generator
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, apparently they are too cheap to build the wall a few metres higher. What other corners are being cut? Does not inspire confidence.
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
The nuclear power plants will be ACP1000s. There is half a century of experience between the ACP1000 and the BWR-3/4 used in Fukushima Daiichi. And wouldn't you know it, there have been improvements in the meantime!
http://www.nucnet.org/all-the-... [nucnet.org]
It's a combined passive and active design, it doesn't need power to cool the reactor or the containment, but it has powered cooling systems in addition to the passive ones. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
A backup generator that is above the Tsunami will not be flooded and will not fail because of flooding because it isn't being flooded. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
An emergency stop of a nuclear reacto needs cooling or it will melt the core, which is being provided for in a much more adequate fashion than in Fukushima. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
The ACP1000 is a pressurized reactor in a large dry containment, that can contain a molten core without overpressurizing the containment. It is not a small "pressure supression" containment that has been known since at least 1966 to be unable to contain a molten core - which is a statement made by none other than the vendor, General Electric. -> NOT FUKUSHIMA.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
The nuclear power plants will be ACP1000s. There is half a century of experience between the ACP1000 and the BWR-3/4 used in Fukushima Daiichi. And wouldn't you know it, there have been improvements in the meantime!
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Douglas Adams
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit, Douglas Adams said it, I guess it applies to everything. We're not going to make any improvements over past designs.
Re: (Score:2)
Westinghouse, not GE.
Re: (Score:2)
Westinghouse has build Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR), including the ones in Three Mile Island (at least for the most part, it's possible they build some experimental BWRs at the beginning). But the Boiling Water Reactors were designed and build by General Electric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Have they actually build one, flooded it and cut off all external power and cooling to see what happens? If not, why not? Destructive testing of failure modes is basic engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Please lay out the physical principles on an engineers level! Stating something isn't simply possible because it simply is a newer design isn't engineer worthy. (it's the why'se and becauses that count)
And actually, argumentation that fails to adress the Y's mostly stinks.
1.) a backup generator, when not running hot but been put in "warm" start condition, will NOT fail to start ? /internal/ grid fault when being connected to the internal gri
- it has a chance of not starting
- it has a chance of producing an
Re: (Score:2)
1) The point about the design is that power isn't necessary to cool the reactor, but there are at least 3 emergency generators. (Because of their similarities, the ACP1000 has recently been consolidated with the APC1000 design into the "Hualong One" and the exact details aren't yet available in non-chinese documents.)
I fail to see how the coastline of Fujian has any bearing whatsoever on a power plant in Pakistan.
2) It is, in essence, a standard pressurized water reactor with passive peripherials that don'
Re: (Score:3)
Next time you need antibiotics - you won't get them.
Next time you're in a car accident - you airbag won't inflate, your seatbelts won't be there, your windshild will be made from ordinary glass, your car's chassis will be stiff.
Next time want to eat, you won't get anything, because there's not enough natural fertilizer, there's no way to combat crop pests, there'll be only horses and oxen to pull the plow and you better get fit for threshing the grain.
I could go on.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time you need antibiotics - you won't get them. Next time you're in a car accident - you airbag won't inflate, your seatbelts won't be there, your windshild will be made from ordinary glass, your car's chassis will be stiff. Next time want to eat, you won't get anything, because there's not enough natural fertilizer, there's no way to combat crop pests, there'll be only horses and oxen to pull the plow and you better get fit for threshing the grain.
I could go on.
Just because Technologies A, B and C are entirely beneficial does not mean that unrelated Technology D is.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but this initial window is several days long. Typically 3 days, but the actual amount of time is a matter of the concrete design being build. This depends on the rules under which the design is finalized and the safety margins the rules call for.
After that it is only a matter of refilling the water tank of the heat-exchangers (which serves as heat-sink), which you can do with regular fire fighting pumps using water lines installed when the containment gets build. No helicopter stunts will be needed. Yo
Re: (Score:2)
However like Fukushima and Chernobyl it will be operated by humans.
Everything else you wrote is bable.bable.bable
His point is that newer designs come more from the angle of protecting the plant against human error or human negligence. Such as passive cooling that won't disappear when the power goes out.
However, having it located in Pakistan, a country that can't control its terrorists and a military that collaborates with them, is pretty scary.
Re: (Score:1)
Not always - only if the wave has a leading trough will it do that. Waves generated on the opposite side of the fault will be 180 degrees out of phase and have a leading crest, and will arrive at the shore without any visible warning.
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:4, Insightful)
https://www.google.co.uk/searc... [google.co.uk]
leads to:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]
132.5foot = 40.4meters, that's a bit more than 0.9m or 12m. Normal waves can reach 10m in many places.
Perhaps you should 'shut-up' and check your facts.
And for good measure:
Pakistan-earthquake-2013-creates-new-18m-high-island-Gwadar-coast-Arabian-Sea [dailymail.co.uk]
And
https://books.google.co.uk/boo... [google.co.uk]
""The trading towns of Pasni and Ormara, Pakistan, located 100 km away from the epicentre, were flooded by a ~15.0m high wall of water""
Still think it's a good place to put a nuclear reactor?
Re: (Score:3)
Be careful, a Japanese tsunami might flood New York!
Tsunamis can be very tall in very specific places, depending on the geometry. Which is something you could have figured out by yourself, because the article is extremely specific "Omoeaneyoshi district of Miyako City, in Iwate Prefecture".
The point where the nuclear power plant will be build is not a place like the Omoeaneyoshi district of Miyako City, in Iwate Prefecture - which is not at all surprising, because such places are rare. And by the way, Pasni
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know the other reactor built to withstand a Tsunami - Yeah, Fukushima, they said there would never be a Tsunami big enough to do it any harm. Was it true? No.
Karachi is exposed to tsunami's coming from the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean. To say the geography bears no resemblance when the places mentioned are geographically nearby on the same coast is quite frankly absurd - India was hit by 11meter tsunami from the same earthquake that wiped away Pakistani towns and the whole area is seismically active.
Map
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and the ocean floor topography next to Karachi looks much like that where the 15m Tsunami swept away 2 towns on the same coast.
They've already said Karachi could be hit by 7m tsunamis, I'm not convinced that this isn't potentially a low estimate considering the sizes of past tsunamis in the surrounding region (15m to 30 meters)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have evidence that they couldn't be a large Tsunami or is that an assumption?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've already covered this plenty and given lots of links showing that the area is heavily seismic and has a history of large tsunamis. So, yes, see previous posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, there was coastline in "the area" of the Tsunami in Japan that because of its topology did not see the amplitude that areas like the Fukushima coast did. Sorry if those details make your point more difficult, its simple fact.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IUTBATM... I used to be a tsunami modeler.
There isn't a 1:1 relationship between earthquake magnitude and runup. There are some rules of thumb, but it depends on the faults in the area, if there is risk of landslides, the geometry of the ocean floor, the topography around the power plant, if the risk comes more from local earthquakes or ones on the other side of the ocean basin....
Hopefully, whoever quoted the numbers for Pakistan has already done the study for the region; I haven't worked too much in that
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the height of a tsunami is dependant on the wavelength of the wave and the depth of the seafloor, that means the same wave can produce drastically different wave heights at different locations.
Re: (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So fingers crossed they have a good enough understanding of the region to be sure there will never be a tsunami >12m high during the lifetime of the plant.
Re: (Score:2)
Still think it's a good place to put a nuclear reactor?
Yes of course. What better place to put a new modern reactor than on an existing nuclear installation with all existing infrastructure in place in the aid of long term decommissioning of older unsafe 1970s era technology. All your supposed risks and problems can be mitigated by engineering. Taking into account of tsunamis is just another thing that needs to be done when already taking into account all other environmental factors such as weather, ground condition, long term erosion, atmospheric corrosion, et
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What actually happened. It was known it could have happened. Nobody gave a fuck. The National Academy of Sciences reported a couple of years ago and said that the problem was ignoring the unlikely scenarios even if it was known that they were possible.
A tsunami that high is not seen as a possible scenario, likely or unlikely.
And the "regional instability" thing is just the West not liking anyone else aspiring to approach it. You know what'll stop backward hicks like ISIS? Technical and social advance, not d
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
You know what'll stop backward hicks like ISIS? Technical and social advance
Keep dreaming. People who are eager to destroy 6000 year old artefacts aren't interested in your technical and social advance.
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly the point. They destroy tech and education and social artifacts because they know that the more desperate and hopeless and disconnected the people feel, the more of them will turn to extremism and the easier the rest will be to control.
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
The tide varies by over 2.5m
Normal waves can reach over 10m in height.
The reactor is built at only 12m above sea level !!!
The same coast of Pakistan has already had a 15m tsunami in the last century.
The India Ocean produced a 30meter Tsunami just a decade ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, it doesn't sound so impossible to me, I don't hear of anyone actually having modeled various earthquake tsunami scenarios for Karachi.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal waves can reach over 10m in height
That doesn't mean the water comes rushing in continuously at 10m. It means a bit of water splashes in. That's not a tsunami.
Re: (Score:2)
I put that there for perspective. I didn't claim those things you said.
Re: (Score:2)
Technical and social advance, not deliberately holding countries back because they're seen by the World Policemen as too primitive to handle whatever
The folks in ISIS are too primative to handle whatever. Their descendants may not be. But we're absolutely right to denigrate primitive cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
And the "regional instability" thing is just the West not liking anyone else aspiring to approach it. You know what'll stop backward hicks like ISIS? Technical and social advance, not deliberately holding countries back because they're seen by the World Policemen as too primitive to handle whatever.
The regional instability, in case of Pakistan, is a track record of three decades of the country going down the shithole. They are literally going backwards - they started as a secular country post-independence, and now they have laws whereby women who complain about being raped can be stoned for adultery. All while developing nuclear weapons - so much for technical advance.
Re:It be 12m above sea - max Tsunami: 7m (Score:5, Informative)
There was none. They used the 1960 tsunami in Japan for reference in Fukushima Daiichi (unlike e.g. Onagawa) - which reached a height of 4.5m. This tsunami was caused by the 1960 Chile earthquake on the other side of the planet, across the pacific.
Yes, baseline nuclear safety in Japan was that crappy - most operators went way beyond the baseline, but at least one didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
They used the 1960 tsunami in Japan for reference in Fukushima Daiichi (unlike e.g. Onagawa) - which reached a height of 4.5m. This tsunami was caused by the 1960 Chile earthquake on the other side of the planet, across the pacific
My only guess is some idiot thought that "Oh, if an earthquake hits Japan, the water and energy will be heading away from Japan, not towards it." So they thought they only had to prepare for tsunamis generated from across the ocean, as if earthquakes never happened underwater, and that water displacement wouldn't yield giant surface waves.
Give me more fear (Score:1, Interesting)
The al-Qaeda militants would probably scale a mountain to try and reach this reactor. It really doesn't matter if it's build near a military base or near a Saudi royals palace. It's a target.
What you do however is treat that nuclear plant like a major asset, and have military garrison around it. Deter al-Qaeda, deter Greenpeace, deter crazy assholes in general. Why not deter your own corrupt military officers from trying to sieze you by the balls in the process?
Re: (Score:1)
It's a power generation plant. I don't see how this is any worse than having a giant coal generator, except that the coal generator poisons the area around it slowly during normal operation rather than suddenly during catastrophic failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this is any worse than having a giant coal generator,
You answer your question.
except that the coal generator poisons the area around it slowly during normal operation rather than suddenly during catastrophic failure.
That's it exactly. No one cares about long-term, slow carcinogen exposure. No one cares about a death here and there, year after year. We do care about 9/11-style events or big mushroom clouds.
It doesn't matter whether the death toll is the same. Fukushima/Chernobyl were FLASHY. A coal plant? Boring. It makes air quality bad, and kills us in ways that aren't easy to quantify.
In Karachi? (Score:1)
It's being built 20 miles outside Karachi. Describing it as being 'in Karachi' is like describing something in Covington as being 'in New Orleans'.
And for those who don't live in the area, Covington is across Lake Ponchartrain from New Orleans.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course it's not downtown right next to Town Hall. But if a central goes atomic bomb 20km from where you live, you'll have more important problems than "is it technically in 'in Karachi.'" bikeshedding.
Re: (Score:1)
At the scale of big cities, 20 miles is not that far away.
London for example is 25 miles wide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are a complete fucking idiot. If your parents tell you they are going to London no doubt you would assume they're going to London Wall to look at a few bank skyscrapers. But everyone else knows what they really mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't that be 40 km? I thought you people were civilized.
Re:In Karachi? (Score:5, Informative)
new orleans
Population (2013)[1]
City and Parish 378,715 (US: 51st)
Metro 1,240,977 (US: 45th)
karachi
Population (2013)
Total 23,500,000[1]
Rank 1st (Pakistan), 2nd (World)
new orleans is a cute little rural suburb compared to karachi
having driven to new orleans a number of times, i've seen myself that 20 miles out from new orleans it is nothing but scrub and mangroves. i can understand within new orleans itself you feel like you are in a dense city, because there's nothing else around, and you're the center of that area of the country. but this is a provincial judgment
world cities are mind blowing compared to american cities
here in new york city, a huge fucking megacity by usa standards but a puny light weight by world standards, 20 miles out is still dense and urban
Population (2013)[5]
Total 8,405,837[1]
Rank 1st, U.S., 24th (World)
so: 20 miles from the city center of karachi is still pretty much in the middle of dense giant fucking karachi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:In Karachi? (Score:5, Interesting)
that is precisely what the powers-that-be want
paklistan is full of conspiratorial minded morons
every tragedy or event in pakistan, where pakistanis can face their shortcomings, come to grips with it, and move forward: nope. instead loopy hilarious conspiracies that shifts blame to the west, to the jews, to india, to iran, etc. keeps them mired in poverty, backwardness, blind denial, strife, and stupidity. every problem in pakistan is never the fault of pakistanis, it's all due to plots and secret cabals and manipulations from abroad. fucking ignorant bullsit
here in the west we can safely laugh at paranoid schizophrenic low iq conspiracy minded douchebags. such losers are everywhere in the world. but a free society with free speech and a free press, the full light of day reveals their delusional rantings, they are ridiculed, and they are safely exiled to the backseat of the short bus and only are compelling to weak minded ignorant halfwits
but in countries where lies, censorship, prideful ethnic and sectarian denial, etc. dominates, the mental diarrhea of conspiracies has a great power and takes hold in that darkness of no free thought, no free press, no free speech
so when i see you write "that is precisely what the powers-that-be want", all i think is yup: there's another fucking problem with pakistan: conspiracy theory nutcases everywhere
Re: (Score:2)
every tragedy or event in pakistan, where pakistanis can face their shortcomings, come to grips with it, and move forward: nope. instead loopy hilarious conspiracies that shifts blame to the west, to the jews, to india, to iran, etc. keeps them mired in poverty, backwardness, blind denial, strife, and stupidity. every problem in pakistan is never the fault of pakistanis, it's all due to plots and secret cabals and manipulations from abroad. fucking ignorant bullsit
You see this from a lot of Middle Eastern countries. And African countries. And sometimes from the West, but that's a lot harder to pull off.
It happens because the leadership actively encourages it, because it's one of the time-tested, traditional, honored ways to rally the citizenry of the country with you -- tell them they're under attack from outsiders.
Re: (Score:3)
The Karachi and NY metro areas are of similar size, but NY has a much lower density overall. Yes, Manhattan is super-dense, but most of the NY metro by geographic area is sprawling suburbs in Long Island and NJ. Karachi suburbs extend about 20km in every direction, NY suburbs extend about 60km in every direction, if you look at Google Maps. You can also see that for an 8km radius around this nuclear facility, there is almost no population.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.city-data.com/forum... [city-data.com]
20 miles is about yonkers to manhattan on this map
all directions, 20 mile radius, and well beyond, is dense and urban, except for the meadowlands:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.census.gov/populati... [census.gov]
The urban fringe generally consists of contiguous territory having a density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile.
sure, it's not 60 story skyscrapers every block, but by the definition of urban, it is urban, all around nyc, for well beyond 20 miles, except for swamps
as for the karachi nuke site, i see a very large urban center just to the north of the complex on google earth
Re:In Karachi? (Score:4, Informative)
so: 20 miles from the city center of karachi is still pretty much in the middle of dense giant fucking karachi
You use a lot of fancy numbers but really all you needed to do was look at a map. These reactors are being built in the middle of nowhere (or rather the edge of nowhere since it's on the waterfront). The reactors are not 20 miles from the city centre rather they are actually about 15 miles from the boundary.
Better still these nice modern reactors with all their modern safety standards and passive safety systems and an inherently safer design are being built in an existing complex next to a set of existing 1970s era reactors. The article even has a picture of the existing plant.
This is colossal FUD, and they should be welcoming the addition of GenIII reactors so they can eventually transition away from the older ones which actually may be a problem if something seriously goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
what about the large urban area just to the north of the nuke complex on google earth?
regardless: poverty + violent sectarianism + unstable politics != we're happy they have nukes
Re: (Score:2)
what about the large urban area just to the north of the nuke complex on google earth?
regardless: poverty + violent sectarianism + unstable politics != we're happy they have nukes
How is that relevant to my comments which could be summarised as:
a) It is no where near as bad as you make it out,
b) This is actually a better outcome as the goal of building new large safe reactors facilitates the long term decommissioning of older less safe designs WHICH ARE ALREADY IN PLACE.
I don't know why you keep talking like this it the first nuke complex there. It's not by a long shot. The thought process that goes into building something much safer next to something existing unsafe and then claimin
Re: (Score:2)
do i have your permission to not trust pakistan with nukes?
oh yeah, that's right: who the fuck are you?
i don't trust pakistan with nukes. before, or now
see how that works?
i humbly beg your forgiveness oh great arbitrary authority for crossing your dictat on the matter
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how it is at all relevant if you trust them given that they already have them. It's like standing on a chaotic pile of rubble and saying I don't trust this building to fall down.
Nothing changes as a result of what is happening here.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, nothing changes. i didn't trust them before. i don't trust them now
and i already said that in my last post
do you need any other clarifications?
Re: (Score:2)
what about the large urban area just to the north of the nuke complex on google earth?
Oh wow, I hate to double post but I just looked this up. You must be joking right? There's about 200 houses and I would postulate that a good portion of the people work at the reactor since that's how population centres like that are built up in the 3rd world.
If this is your idea of some insurmountable risk then I have a tinfoil hat to sell you.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yeah, not trusting pakistan with nuclear, hard against one of the most populated city in the world
truly i am deep into wackjob territory on that point
Re: (Score:2)
No you're in the whack job territory for your continued thought process that the new proposal is somehow worse than the status quo.
Re: (Score:2)
as if the new proposal is the only choice
Re: (Score:2)
20 miles out is still dense and urban
Depending on what direction you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, for that kind of decision political and economical factors are more important than technical ones.
pakistani military is known for professionalism (Score:5, Insightful)
but some of their loyalties are divided, and in secret
and with so much sectarian hatred, political instability, and poverty in that country, i fear that the most probable scenario for a purposeful nuclear attack in this world (so not accidental, probably plant sabotage) will be in pakistan
i don't think the west has anything to fear. i think india does somewhat. but i think pakistanis have the most to fear by far
there is a lot of bloodlust over there. and not the random yahoo kind, but the organized sectarian kind
i fear for you pakistan
Re: (Score:2)
but some of their loyalties are divided, and in secret
When Obama OKed Seal Team 6's takedown of Osama bin Laden, he didn't warn the Pakistani government or military that their airspace was being compromised by US helicopters. He knew they couldn't be trusted, and knew that there would be a diplomatic incident as a result. If you share information with the military or government, there's a decent chance it'll get leaked.
Re: (Score:3)
Pakistan is the source of all the trouble in the region anyway, not seeing any downside to your imagined "erasing"
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan is the source of all the trouble in the region anyway, not seeing any downside to your imagined "erasing"
I'm not sure that Pakistan is worse than our other regional 'ally,' Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi development of oil fields is one of the worst things to happen to the Middle East in the last century. It gave incredible amounts of wealth to the Wahhabis, a formerly obscure branch of Islam that is known for being puritanical and ultraconservative. Most Muslims, for instance, didn't mind respectful images of the Prophet Muhammad, or artwork, or whatnot. It's the Wahhabis that forbid all that, the Wahhabis that promo
Don't worry (Score:2, Insightful)
Karachi already has nuclear reactor (Score:3, Informative)
There has already been a nuclear reactor plant in Pakistan Karachi since the 1972, supplied by the Canadian Gov; it's called the KANUPP-I and it's still in operation, but only generating 85MW of power (max power = 140MW), while the new reactor will generate up to 1000MW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex#KANUPP-I
Re: terrorist? (Score:1, Informative)
Glad to see a mod on her toes in modding thearent trol!
After all, Bin Laden had a nice urban apartement in Pakistan, was all reformed and the Pakistan governement knew thus and wanted him to get a break.
but no. Those war mongering Americans had to go and shoot that poor man just because he allegedly was some sort of terrorist mastermind.
Re: (Score:1)
He had one cosy relationship with the Bushes too.
Are the Bushes terrorist aiders too, or is the mere acceptance of an extremely wealthy family and their members by political leaders merely one of the benefits of multi-billionaire status?
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm. Must be some whacko definition of "you're wrong, you should end your life you so thick" where you say I was right, the Bushes WERE big pals with the BinLaden family because they had billions of dollars, but that doesn't count BECAUSE IT WAS OIL MONEY.
Quite how oil money means it's not actually money remains a mystery to humanity, though it's obviously well understood in whatever species you occupy...
Bin Laden, Bushes, money (Score:2, Insightful)
Bin Laden was a CIA asset while fighting to eject the Soviets from Afghanistan.
Bin Laden, as one of 50+ children of the owner of a major Saudi construction firm that profited all through the oil expansion there, was strongly favored in inheriting a disproportionate amount from his father and ended up with over $300 million as a result. Much of this was expended building clinics and schools in the Afghan hinterland. The students of these madrassas were called Taliban, Pashto for "the students".
During the fig
Re: (Score:2)
Osama Bin Laden didn't blow up the WTC. IF you believe the official reports it was a bunch of Saudi's nationals ...
... organized by, trained by, and paid by Osama bin Laden.
But you're right that Saudi Arabia is not our friend.
Re: (Score:1)
Pakistan governement knew thus and wanted him to get a break
There is no real government in Pakistan . The army makes the important decisions . They can take over the parliament any time of the day . And the pakistani army is infested with islamic extremeist officers who have close links with all the other islamic jolly fellas
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see a mod on her toes in modding thearent trol!
I would have modded it -1, Spelling, almost incoherent.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't believe you. I don't belive anything Netanyahu hasn't told me is true.
Re: (Score:3)
Pakistan hates the terrorists living there as much as anyone else, they just can't get rid of them. To be fair, either could the US when it tried to get them out of Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:2)
Pakistan is not a person. Some of the people living there hate the terrorists. Quite a few are terrorists themselves, esp. in Waziristan. Their government also has quite a few extremists, especially in ISI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
Re: (Score:2)
It is safe. But just like a lot of other safe thing, you have to be somewhat inteligent in using it. It is still not a good idea to run with safety scissors just like its not a good idea to walk around the shady parts of nyc showing everyone you pass a wad of cash while asking them where you can find some crack cocaine.
"Nuclear power - not as dangerous as being a crack addict."
Cool bumper sticker.