IAEA chief: Nuclear power plant was disrupted by cyber attack
Source: Reuters
A nuclear power plant became the target of a disruptive cyber attack two to three years ago, and there is a serious threat of militant attacks on such plants, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said on Monday.
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director Yukiya Amano also cited a case in which an individual tried to smuggle a small amount of highly enriched uranium about four years ago that could have been used to build a so-called "dirty bomb".
<snip>
He said he had not previously discussed the cyber attack in public.
<snip>
In April, German utility RWE increased its security after its Gundremmingen nuclear power plant was found to be infected with computer viruses.
<snip>
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-cyber-idUSKCN12A1OC
= new reply since forum marked as read
...available in the scientific literature, a literature with which the deplorables in the anti-nuke industry avoid familiarity, since it's pretty clear that they only not only fail to know any science whatsoever, but actually despise science in general, and math in particular.
A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)
The air pollution death rate is roughly 800 deaths per hour, every hour, 8766 hours per year, every year, ten years per decade.
And the response from the deplorables in the anti-nuke industry. Innuendo, and more innuendo.
There's something Trumpian about this. Last night the orange asshole carried on about emails, with Ms. Clinton pointing out firmly - and completely honestly - that no secure information was ever breached, and that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone was harmed by this faux Trumpian defined "disaster."
How is the innuendo here different? Well, for one thing, the deplorable carrying on by anti-nukes, stretching over decades of fear and ignorance resulted in far fewer lives having been saved from death by air pollution than the 1.8 million lives that were saved because of the use of nuclear energy, as noted again, in a highly cited and widely read publication in one of the world's premier scientific journals written by one of the world's most respected climate scientists:
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power
(Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, United States Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
(Trump, by contrast, hasn't killed anyone yet, not at least to our knowledge, and it seems that the American people will prevent him from doing so by kicking his useless ass in the coming election.)
But the real tragedy associated with the deplorable anti-nuke selective attention - by which they couldn't give a fuck about tens of millions of air pollution deaths even as they carry on about software that has harmed no one - is that they helped promote an approach to the environment that failed and failed miserably.
2016 is now being recorded as a year of unprecedented new accumulations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere. The deplorables in the anti-nuke industry convinced the world to invest quantities measuring in the trillions of dollars on so called "renewable energy," chiefly the solar and wind industry. Combined these two industries, despite this huge expenditure - which might have been more wisely spent on thousands of more useful things - don't produce 5 of the 570 exajoules of primary energy that humanity generates and consumes each year.
As a result, the fastest growing source of energy on this planet is a dangerous fossil fuel, natural gas, without which, by the way, the so called "renewable energy" scam would be even more useless.
In the last ten years while two trillion dollars was being squandered on this unsustainable garbage - which is not actually "renewable" since it relies on the mining of vast quantities of toxic and increasingly rare elements - the rate of increase of the increase in dangerous fossil fuels - the second derivative for those who, unlike anti-nukes, know math - has reached new levels never seen before. 2016 is likely to be the second year in a row that the increase is more than 3.00 ppm, despite never having reached such a rate in recorded history.
So called "renewable energy" didn't work; it isn't working; and it won't work.
Heckuva job deplorables. Heckuva job.
Have a nice week.
