82-Year-Old Nun Breaks Into Nuclear Facility, Contractors Blamed 223
Lasrick writes "Private security contractors strike again, this time at the Y-12 National Security Complex. A nun, a gardener, and a housepainter cut through three security fences to find themselves 20 feet away from highly dangerous nuclear material. And of course, only one guard has been fired (the one who arguably acted the bravest and did the right thing). A Department of Energy report (PDF) on the incident found 'troubling displays of ineptitude in responding to alarms, failures to maintain critical 2
security equipment, over reliance on compensatory measures, misunderstanding of security protocols, poor communications, and weaknesses in contract and resource management.' The contractors have been put on notice, (PDF), but they still have the contracts."
I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?
Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Funny)
TSA servers the purpose, it was designed to serve, very well. If the TSA were to be put in-charge of nuclear material and made clear of its purpose, I am sure it will do well.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
TSA servers the purpose, it was designed to serve, very well. If the TSA were to be put in-charge of nuclear material and made clear of its purpose, I am sure it will do well.
Say what? So you're telling me that they won't steal nuclear material and when caught try to blame it on the wife? [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
It would be easy to track. Even the TSA thugs know better than that. Besides the people selected for the job would obviously be better than the current TSA agents. You need real security, not security theater for nuclear materials.
Re: (Score:3)
You're absolutely right. It's a way to divert public funds into black holes through poor deals. Stuff like scanners comes to mind.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is the contractor the government hires to do the same work is still subject to the same isolation from market forces -- just because they aren't technically government employees doesn't necessarily make them more efficient. They've been hired to do the same job with the same budget and same expectations -- why would they do anything differently? Sure, the boss might want to skim a little more off the top, but there's no real motivation to change anything.
Re: (Score:3)
I always though the reason TSA was created was to provide security theater. I am pretty sure they doing it well. Polls suggest people in general are satisfied with the TSA (as long as they convince the majority, this, they have satisfied their goals)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?
Uh, yeah. Or at least that's what the report claims somewhere around page 6. Makes sense to me!
Thus, physical security systems and security personnel were managed by completely different organizations. The fractured management structure appeared to have led to conflicting priorities
Now a nationalized or centralized management or whatever you want to call it can be utterly incompetent for entirely different reasons, look at the TSA. But it wouldn't have conflicting priorities unless they were dumb enough to intentionally bake that into the cake.
Thats the problem with "just give it to the private sector". There's a zillion private sector companies and they often (or at least occasionally) don't work together very well.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats the problem with "just give it to the private sector". There's a zillion private sector companies and they often (or at least occasionally) don't work together very well.
I would also argue that various branches or sections of government don't work together very well either.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy.
Modern, western countries can do very well in comparison. there is a lot to be improved, of course, but worship of the private sector is not warranted in this respect.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy..
...says the man who has never had to work with the VA Medical System, the DMV, etc...
Half-jokes aside, there is one diff between a deranged corporation and a deranged government department: You can tell the deranged corporate department to piss off, or take them to court if their actions warrant it. Try doing that to a governmental entity and see how far that gets you.
Even if your hypothesis were 100% correct in every aspect, a half-deranged government bureau is a hell of a lot more dangerous to individual rights and freedoms than a completely apeshit company.
Something about having the force of law backing up the mental trouble that makes it at least two orders of magnitude more disturbing, truth be told.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know how things happen in the USA, but in my country top managers swing from public to private jobs as they see fit. It's not unusual that they seat at some public position, decide to privatise some public service and then sell it to a company they'll be managing after some time. And the said service always becomes worse and more expensive, even when it already sucked before. And the said managers can fuck up as much as they want that they'll never be made accountable for anything, whether they did it in a public office or private one. You just have to reach a particular level in the hierarchy and you're basically inimputable. As far as I know, it happens in the US, too.
half-deranged government bureau is a hell of a lot more dangerous to individual rights and freedoms than a completely apeshit company.
I guess that one you just completely made up.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it should say "bureaucrat" instead of "bureau", but the point still stands. As evidence, I present to you such wonders as Child Protective Services, Contempt of Court, and various other bureaus and concepts where force of law has been both used and abused to extend vendettas, incompetence, and worse - with little-to-no repercussion against the instigator of the fault.
And the said managers can fuck up as much as they want that they'll never be made accountable for anything, whether they did it in a public office or private one. You just have to reach a particular level in the hierarchy and you're basically inimputable
Not necessarily:
* If a fuck-up angered shareholders or really hurt the company's public image, the private manager can be fired as fas
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, but thats the US. You people can't seem to get government even halfway right, for some weird reason. I'm not even going to mention gun control.
What planet are you livling on? I don't think it is the same as m
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah, but thats the US. You people can't seem to get government even halfway right, for some weird reason. I'm not even going to mention gun control.
May not want to get too smug there, sport...
http://www.datalite.org/european-union-eu-bureaucracy-kills-uk-business.html [datalite.org]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2135851/91-days--petty-bureaucrats-control-freak-sponsors-squeezing-fun-Olympics.html [dailymail.co.uk]
http://www.votersrevolt.org.uk/?tab=V7 [votersrevolt.org.uk]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4284070/British-bureaucracy-is-growing-out-of-control.html [telegraph.co.uk]
You are more likely to win a suit against the government than against a corporation. Even in the US.
...meanwhile you stay hamstrung by whatever binding and/or regulation they say you've broken. After all, no corporation can freeze your bank accounts, remove your right to drive a car, take your children, shut off your home's power/water supply, force you to remain in certain areas (and be barred from others) or lock you in jail while you pursue said lawsuits.
Government can do all of that and then some, depending on the nature and severity of the incompetent/deranged action. Hell, the government can even assault your property with armed squads and shoot at your family. [wikipedia.org] Sure, Randy Weaver won the eventual lawsuit, but his wife and daughter are still rather dead...
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporate bureaucracy tends to be deranged in worse ways than state bureaucracy.
My experience, having worked in both, is that this is 100% correct.
State bureaucracy tends to be incompetent, and its principal failure mode is failing to do anything and coming up with excuses why it never does anything. Corporate bureaucracy, by contrast, tends to be nefarious, and its principal failure mode is committing pure distilled evil and covering up for said evil.
If I had to, I know which one I'd pick.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clarification in the Article (Score:5, Informative)
Are you implying that if the security were nationalized (ala TSA) that such ineptitude would not exist?
Why the explicit blame on "private security contractors"? Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?
Probably has to do with this quote and link from the article:
The obvious problems that result from so much contractor freedom are made clear by the recent inspector general report, which determined that this lack of federal oversight at least partially contributed to the success of the break-in [energy.gov] PDF: "When questioned as to why action was not taken to address growing maintenance backlogs, Federal officials told us that with the advent of NNSA's contractor governance system (Contractor Assurance System), they could no longer intervene." In light of these findings, the inspector general had serious questions about the Energy Department's overall approach and determined that "current initiatives to reduce Federal oversight of the nuclear weapons complex, especially as they relate to security functions, need to be carefully considered."
There are many forms of nationalized security: some very bad (TSA) and some very good (National Guard). Private industry will save you money and, when pitted against each other in true capitalism form, they will cut corners to win contracts. Somethings should have security independent of how the economy is doing or how low some no talent ass clown is willing to bid on a contract.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
When I read TFA, I interpreted "contractor" to mean the contractor operating the Y-12 facility, not the rentacops. Y-12 is run by B&W Y12, a partnership of the Babcock & Wilcox Company and Bechtel Corporation. They probably don't employ guards directly, but employ some private security outfit to provide them. I thought the criticism was leveled at B&W for the management failure, rather than at the rentacops.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
Correct. B&W and Bechtel manage the site. The security contract was given to a different company. B&W Y12 was ultimately responsible for the contractor, and as a result the President and Deputy General Manager of B&W Y12 have both "retired" [babcock.com]. They aren't the only ones. B&W manages a number of nuclear/radioactive sites for the government and owns facilities that build and fuel reactors for the Navy. This incident hasn't gone over well inside the company, especially considering the security inside B&W's facilities is extremely robust compared to the Y12 contractor.
B&W Y12 has now terminated the contract with WSI (the security contractor) and has started the process of taking over the security.
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not fire any private company who is not doing their job and find one that can/will?
The problem you get is that there is a seriously limited selection of 'private' companies that are qualified for guarding a nuclear plant. There's a semi-limited number of people capable of it as well, given that they have to be willing to work for decent(but not high) pay, while being able to get a security clearance(and handle automatic weapons) and meet the physical requirements(shooting accuracy, fitness, etc...). You're pretty much restricted to ex-military.
Having some knowledge of government type contracting, it's been my experience that you can have the contractor change, but the people in the contract seats stay the same - with the loss of the contract, the original contractor no longer needs the people, thus lays them off(excess). The NEW contractor needs people to fulfill the contract, and wait - there's people XYZ with years of experience in the role, in the local area, has the necessary clearance($$$), etc... Hired!
The contracted employees themselves have to brush off their resume and re-interview for their job, but it's normally a formality. They might get ~2-3 weeks of 'vacation' where they get unemployment, and a day or two of orientation on how their new employer(the actual contractor).
After all that, I have to say that I'd rather keep the function in house. Reasons:
1. It's not a wide field, more of a specialist position with only a couple hundred plants in the states.
2. It's a continuous stable requirement. Contracts are for temporary things(like renovating a building, upgrading a network, etc...)
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention, the actual rank and file guards are probably the ones least responsible for allowing this security breach to progress as far as it did. They are trained to respond to the alarms and/or suspicious activity observed on monitors. They would not be responsible for ensuring the cameras and alarm systems are in proper working order. They probably are supposed to report systems which are not working at all or are malfunctioning.
When equipment has been offline for months or years despite numerous reports, you can expect them to become demoralized--that their reports are falling on deaf ears. Moreover, as TFS notes, the lone officer who put his life at risk to apprehended the intruders, was summarily terminated. You can bet that any guard who dared going over their immediate supervisor's head to see that the alarm and CCTV systems were fixed would also be sacked.
Blaming the guards in this case is exactly like blaming the miners for a mine collapse or explosion. In both cases it is the company owners, and their federal regulator lapdogs who are clearly responsible. These guards may very well all be laid off/terminated by G4S and then immediately rehired by Pinkerton Govt. Services or another similar firm qualified to secure nuclear facilities. You can also bet on a lucrative contract being given to fortify intrusion prevention and detection systems and that everything will be working in top order for the next couple of years--It's what happens after that, that matters.
As cameras begin to fail, as alarm points begin to malfunction and cause endless false alarms; will these issues continue to be promptly corrected, or will they end up on the back burner as such maintenance requests get mired in a byzantine bureaucratic system and disagreements surface as to whether the security contractors must pick up the tab, or if it's to be reimbursed by the fed. Meanwhile the guards will continue to see that being the squeaky wheel gets you fired--being a whistleblower gets you arrested, and it will again be safer and less stressful to spend your entire shift in the breakroom than carry out the perimeter patrols every 15 minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not a matter of a nuclear power plant, it is a matter of an industrial plant that makes, refurbishes and dismantles H-bombs, including not just US but former Soviet weapons systems. The only power reactor even nearby is a historic swimming pool design from the 1950s. Nobody at Y-12 is monitoring rods, with or without nuns. However, you might check out Dr. William Pollard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard [wikipedia.org]
Who was an Episcopal priest and PHD Physicist and who did have connections to the Y
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, it isn't private security that's inept. It's outsourced security that's inept. Or at least it is when keeping cost down is the primary consideration — which is usually the reason for outsourcing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nuns, more steath than a navy SEAL (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as a former U.S. Marine *and* as a current contractor working in and around nuclear power facilities, I sincerely hope you're just joking. The idea that you consider Marines "trigger happy" is highly offensive. We're trained very rigorously to *not* be trigger happy in the first place. We're not some bloodthirsty gang out to slaughter women and babies for the fun of it. If you've never served then I suppose it seems funny as hell to pretend that we are, but any professional Marine, soldier, sailor, or airman will tell you we do our damndest not to hurt innocents, even the point of getting maimed for life or killed in the process. Please try to show a little respect for that. And no, we're not victims looking for pity. Every one of us volunteered knowing what we were getting into.
Regarding the security at a nuclear facility, I've seen Y-12. The guards are armed but the rules are pretty strict about shooting at stuff. You can be quick to shoot and more likely than not you'll make the evening news killing some teens playing a prank. Cue the pacifists, the anti-nuke protesters, the anti-military groups, and every other bleeding heart group out there for a PR debacle in progress. Or you don't shoot on sight and you end up with nuns, gardeners, and what-have-you painting bible verses on your walls. Personally, I'd rather have a red face for the activists showing off than have to live with killing civilians by mistake.
Yes, the cameras being down is pretty pathetic. However, cutting through a few fences and banging on walls is a *LONG* way from stealing something like highly-enriched uranium. Last week I was walking 20 feet away from a nuclear reactor containment building, but there's no way in hell I could've gotten into it and I'm *authorized* to be on the site in the first place. Any bomb that's man-portable would have a hard time breaching any of these structures containing nuclear material. And if the goal was to steal a usable amount of nuclear material, any terrorist would have a helluva time getting away with stuff because it's heavy, dangerous, and stored in some pretty amazing containers.
If you want to throw stones, find out who is responsible for the security equipment budget at these sites and why those cameras were down for six months. Of course, what you might find is the cameras were down because getting a *permit* to get work done at a nuclear site is beyond ridiculous. I'm being quoted a 6-12 month permitting period just to get a breaker panel put in for network expansion. That's 6-12 months of waiting on paperwork so a job that will take 1-2 days can get done. Yes, it's that bad, so maybe the cameras being down wasn't really the fault of the security group.
What's the punchline? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the start of a joke, "A nun, a gardener, and a house painter go into a nuclear facility..."
Re:What's the punchline? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the start of a joke, "A nun, a gardener, and a house painter go into a nuclear facility..."
And had almost reached the reactor when they were accosted by a guard.
"What are you doing here?!" he growled.
"I'm painting saftety notices on the wall!" said the painter, brandishing a brush.
"I'm blessing the ground to protect against meltdowns!" Said the nun, waving her bible.
The gardener panicked and said "Err, someone told me there was a nuclear plant around here..."
Re: (Score:2)
That is definitely worth a mod point or two.
Re:What's the punchline? (Score:5, Funny)
"Security."
Nun shall pass! (Score:3, Funny)
Nun shall pass!
Simpsons episode (Score:2)
OK, seriously ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
Admittedly, he didn't shoot anyone, which he was apparently entitled to do, but at the same time, he actually stopped any further mischief and was the only person (aside from the protesters) who didn't embarrass the whole nation.
It's a pity Joseph Heller isn't around to write his life story or something.
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the honest and competent man is the safest one to fire -- the incompetent and dishonest ones usually got the job in the first place by knowing someone powerful or having dirt on someone.
Re: (Score:3)
This is exactly how this works; Jobs are passed down thru generations of ineptness.
I live near there; Everyone I know that works there got their job thru their relatives.
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the linked-to DOE report, the guy who was fired wasn't quite as brave as the Bulletin article implies -- the DOE says he drove up to the site, stayed in his car and spoke on his cell phone with a supervisor, then got out of the car and just chatted with the protesters, failing to detain them or protect his weapon. When the supervisor arrived, the guard was instructed to provide cover for the supervisor while the supervisor made the actual arrests, but the guard did not do so, allegedly turning his back on the process at one point.
DOE report here [energy.gov] (warning, PDF).
It's obviously a contested point, but the pictures painted by the Bulletin article and the DOE report of the guard's conduct are rather different.
Also, yes, I read both articles, new here, etc.etc.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
The fact that you anticipated the accusation that you are new here, by admitting that you are new here, suggests that you are not new here.
Re: (Score:2)
One look at his userID shows you are right :)
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
While perhaps not brave, staying in the vehicle to inform supervision is smart. What if he got ambushed while outside the vehicle BEFORE raising the alarm? It's a bit like first aid - first you call for help(get the ambulances rolling), then you administer first aid/stop the intruders.
I know that I wouldn't want to arrest 3 people, even if they're old, when they're armed with potential HtH weapons(hammers and such), with me being the only person. The vast majority of nuclear intruders aren't violent, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The worst part is they fired him for allegedly tuning his back on the trio who say he never did such a thing. To bad the camera's were not working to prove it.
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is hardly the first time that a low-level employee has unfairly taken the rap for the mistakes / sleaze of upper management.
Consider, for instance, Richard Jewell [wikipedia.org], who discovered a pipe bomb at the Atlanta Olympics, saved the lives of a couple hundred people, and then had his name dragged through the mud by journalists who'd decided that he'd planted the bomb himself (he hadn't).
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
Young grasshopper, when you have learned why managers punish people for bringing mistakes to the attention of their supervisors, it will be time for you to join the workforce. I've been fired several times for bringing security faults through appropriate channels -- in truth, management doesn't want to know about security problems and punish those who point them out, because once pointed out, plausible deniability goes out the window. You're making it their problem, and if there's no budget for said problem your paycheck becomes the budget for solving it. It makes them look bad and holds back their promotion opportunities -- and so while you may do the right thing, it's almost always a bad career move.
Politics. It'll fuck you every time.
Re:OK, seriously ... (Score:4, Informative)
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
Young grasshopper, when you have learned why managers punish people for bringing mistakes to the attention of their supervisors, it will be time for you to join the workforce. I've been fired several times for bringing security faults through appropriate channels -- in truth, management doesn't want to know about security problems and punish those who point them out, because once pointed out, plausible deniability goes out the window. You're making it their problem, and if there's no budget for said problem your paycheck becomes the budget for solving it. It makes them look bad and holds back their promotion opportunities -- and so while you may do the right thing, it's almost always a bad career move.
Politics. It'll fuck you every time.
True - I one time took over minding the evening batchwork at a client site. Problems most nights, which I slowly ironed out. Management asked why all these problems since [kittenman] took over the batch. Turns out the previous guy had been fixing them on the fly and not reporting the issues.
My contract wasn't renewed.
You Answered Your Own Question! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job, when everyone above and around him appeared to fail pretty seriously at theirs?
If he's the only person doing his job then that means his superiors that fired him also were not doing their job correctly -- their correct job being to fire the people who had failed through inaction. So, in order to maintain his status of being the only person who did his job, he would have to be fired otherwise his superiors might be misconstrued as doing their job correctly. This is all very simple Dilbert 101.
You answered that yourself... (Score:2)
Precisely because:
The company was asked why it shouldn't be fired. They suck and had no plan, but by firing someone they could appear to be "taking action". Buy why the guy who did something? I'm not really sure how that logic works. Probably claimed he should have found the intruders sooner - obviously it was his area to patrol since he found th
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the name of Oppenheimer did they fire the one guy who actually did his job
His job was to follow procedures. The procedures were pretty good, assuming camera coverage of the area. Needless to say the cameras are often / usually broken.
He invented his own solution to the lack of camera coverage by basically turning himself into a forward observer.
Boss not amused because that very publicly points out the procedures are inadequate and the equipment not up to requirements, and doing that is also not a procedure.
So that's two strikes right there.
You can imagine a guy who was set up t
Re: (Score:2)
Because they could not kick the blame any lower, of course. CEO suit kicks it to second in command who kicks it to section head who kicks it to department head who kicks it to location manager who kicks it to team leader who kicks it to guard. Guard is one of those who do the actual work all the suits reap their salaries from so he has nobody to ki
Re: (Score:2)
If he fired at the intruders they had a reason to fire him. Look first, then shoot if necessary.
He DIDN'T shoot them. (Score:2)
That's why he was fired; he left the protesters alive, to give their story of how freaking easy it was.
If he'd shot them all, it would have been spun very differently, I'm sure; people would still be looking for the missing protesters, and a "terrorist group" would have been the aggressor, all killed in the attempt.
The Nun in question fell down during a TV interview at the Blount Co. Courthouse, and broke both wrists. :)
I grew up in OR, moved years ago, upwind. :)
In our drunkest hours, we never would have t
Re: (Score:3)
Because the nuclear industry is a particularly pathetic and miserable heap of shit.
How much were they paying him for watching over the security of a nuclear plant? Most likely a pittance.
The only real change (Score:2)
is that the guard who encountered the intruders was fired.
There will be a small flap, and exchange of letters, self-righteous speeches, and it will be back to bidness as usual, which is to say what comes out of this will be slip-shod, ineffective, pretty on paper, and a few highers will make more money.
Re: (Score:2)
"U" key not fully pressed and finger slipped from "S" to "D" key, according to my analysis of the QWERTY keyboard layout.
Re: (Score:3)
Either that, or he's from Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a gangster. Or from the south in generall...
Re: (Score:2)
I have to wonder what happened that made you butcher the word "business" into what I just quoted.
Considering that we're talking about contractors, I'd go with Freudian Slip.
The old nuns are the worst (Score:2)
Seriously, I've heard that many of them have started making a little extra doing espionage for foreign governments - to feed their habits.
why aren't the "terrorists" taking advantage?? (Score:2, Insightful)
um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spread the terror. In fact this example shows that nuclear facilities are populated with morons. That is terrifying ... or not, if you are cynic like me. Did you meet a competent person this week? month? year? I didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.
Maybe because they are stupid enough not to have thought of this. Maybe because they are smart enough to realise that walking into a nuclear facility is not enough to do some real damage. If you walk in there, you need a good plan, like the one they had in New York. And probably "they" aren't either smart or stupid, but we have stupid terrorists, the ones that are probably caught before doing real damage, and the smart ones... who knows...
Re: (Score:2)
um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.
From reading the report, which is pretty interesting, the best slashdot car analogy I can come up with is that if this was a car crash it would be about as severe as a headon collision with a mosquito, or maybe some bird droppings. Even better, say you wanted to steal a car out of the showroom. Well, these guys got as far as jumping the perimeter fence. There's a little more to accomplish before the joyride can begin.
Defense in depth, quite a bit of depth for something this important.... and they got thr
Re: (Score:2)
Well, these guys got as far as jumping the perimeter fence. There's a little more to accomplish before the joyride can begin.
Not to mention that 99% of 'these guys' fail to get past said perimeter fence. The pros KNOW they can beat the perimeter fence. It's the last 20 feet, and getting away, that concerns them.
Re: (Score:2)
Defense in depth, quite a bit of depth for something this important.... and they got thru ... drum roll.... one fence....
Well, according to TFA, they not only made it through not one but three fences, they never would have been noticed had they not banged on the side of the main facility with a hammer ( after taking time to hang a couple banners, splash some fake blood and Bible verses about).
The real question I have is, why would anyone, yourself included, be an apologist for what is quite obviously (even to the casual observer) a gross breach of what should be one of the most secure facilities in the world?
Not just b
Re: (Score:2)
Because you only get one attempt at something like this, and if you are a real terrorist you go to jail when caught so can't try again somewhere else. Therefore opportunistic attacks or ones based on only a moderate chance of success are not very attractive for terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.
Because there aren't thy many people willing to attack nuclear reactors for a cause, no matter what the media tells you
Re: (Score:3)
Well the terrorists only act in ways that advance our military and business interests. If they attacked a nuclear facility, people might begin to realize that no matter the difference in current efficiency; solar and wind don't blow up when contractors cut corners.
Al Qaeda his very helpful to the CIA and FBI in making sure they can invade countries, or limit the Constitution.
Hopefully you can now add up all the mysteries of why our bogus security costs so much but accomplishes so little beyond spying on cit
Re: (Score:2)
um... if security is so lax, why aren't all those terrorists out there taking advantage of these security lapses? something doesn't add up here.
Too busy with their election campaigns, obviously.
ah contemporary private enterprise (Score:3)
and the profit motive at work.. it really brings a tear to the eye when I consider how well unregulated private industry can solve these problems that governments just waste money on!
What about other countries? (Score:2, Interesting)
If security is this lax in the US, what's it like in other countries long forgotten stockpiles?
Re: (Score:2)
Securely decentralized in order to deter major thefts, I suspect.
Why aren't they dead? (Score:2)
If the guard force had responded properly, there would be dead bodies. The people approaching the facility had cut through three fences and had backpacks which could have contained explosives. Shooting them was authorized. But the IG report doesn't admit that.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because you are allowed do something, that doesn't mean you should do that something.
It was a bunch of out of work senior citizens, their ring leader is a fucking nun, there is no reason to shoot these people even though the guard may be allowed to.
Re: (Score:2)
If the guard force had responded properly, there would be dead bodies. The people approaching the facility had cut through three fences and had backpacks which could have contained explosives. Shooting them was authorized.
But the IG report doesn't admit that.
Yeah, let's shoot them! That would have been the proper solution. [/sarcasm] If the guard is authorized to shoot them, it doesn't mean he has to. The guard did the proper thing here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then there's a whole other sort of fall-out from shooting a nun.
True dat.
Even La Cosa Nostra knows better than to fuck with the Brides of Christ.
But did she do it out of habit? (Score:2)
God knows....
Not Surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
20 feet of concrete away (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't sound as sensational after reading TFA.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, first the author has no way of knowing if it was 20 feet or 200 yards or if there was actually anything on the other side of the wall. And even then it was inside a very, very solid building and very, very solid containers.
I recall reading a similar article about some activists who claimed they had broken into a facility and stolen a "warhead". Turned out they had dumpster dived and taken some scrap metal that was part of a heat shield. This article has all the same hype.
unemployed veterans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Was her name Chekov? (Score:3)
Perhaps she was searching for nuclear wessels?
What tipped the guard off (Score:2)
...was that the nun was 8 months pregnant under that habit.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in the area (Score:2)
Texas nuke ratted out the hacker compliance guy (Score:5, Interesting)
Friend of a friend was a hacker who got that dream job: Security compliance at the Texas nuclear plants.
After he:
1) Fooled them into letting him in by carrying a box and asking them to hold the door.
2) Punched into a secure room by going through two sheets of sheetrock.
3) Punched into a "steel clad" area by showing the "steel" was easily cut with a hacksaw.
4) climbed out of the "man trap" within 30 seconds of being "trapped"
5) fooled employees into giving various passwords and access to secure areas..
and a half dozen other weaknesses...
They posted his PICTURE and told employees to be sure to keep an eye out for the security compliance guy.
They didn't really want to fix the problems.
Nuke plants are apparently mostly security through obscurity and bluffing.
Not the first time (Score:2)
This isn't the first time in recent years this has happened... in 2009, protestors broke into SWFPAC [kitsapsun.com] at Naval Base Kitsap... which is where the USN keeps both D5 missiles and their warheads.
Re:They were searching for ... (Score:5, Funny)
I blame Apple maps.
I know, dead horse is dead.
Re: (Score:3)
Not quite, it's more
A nun, a gardener and a house painter walk into a nuclear reactor.
I don't remember the joke, but the end goes something like: "and the nun said: 'it was huge and glowing!'"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't remember the joke, but the end goes something like: "and the nun said: 'it was huge and glowing!'"
No. "I gargled with that water..."
Re:Is this a joke? (Score:5, Funny)
For a nun, that's a bad habit.
That's why the housepainter gave her a new coat.
The gardener was just there as a hedge.
(Comedy night at the Security Theater)
Re: (Score:2)
They keep throwing around this phrase "within 20 feet", but what does it actually mean? Were they a short walk away from touching the nuclear material, or were they separated from it by 20 feet of steel walls and blast doors? You can fit a lot of security into twenty feet.
The logical answer is yes, there is a significant mechanical barrier that needs to be penetrated before you can get your paws on the uranium. However, given the DOE's approach to security, it's possible that the stuff is held an a metal sided shack in 55 gallon drums. Of course, it's going to be difficult for the nun, et. al. to do anything with it. It's not like they're going to pick up the stuff and run very far so I'm not so worried.
It really is all theater, but I haven't figured out if this is a come
Re:Within 20 feet (Score:5, Informative)
The minimum method used is for handling machining wastes. There, supposedly, enriched materials capable of even moderate reaction are normally stored in containers no larger than 1 gallon paint cans, which are filled to very low capacities measured by weight (typically meaning they are each less than 5% full by volume), and then placed on a marked grid on a reinforced concrete floor, in such a way that there is a reliable safe minimum distance between them. People will supposedly be fired for letting cans get too close, as measured at ranges that are still way above actual risk. Materials that can oxidize spontaniously may be stored under oil or in inert atmospheres or both, as seems most prudent. Various barriers then further subdivide the marked grid, etc. All that's from public documentaries and similar sources.
For actual nuclear reactions, we're generally talking about densities where you couldn't even pour all the material in all the cans in a single building together to get a reaction that could even just possibly generate enough neutron flux to generate enough heat that the materials could even just possibly melt and become concentrated enough to produce a level of neutron emission that would actually be dangerous to the immediate area adjacent to the building, or tighter standards.
Chemical reactions, alas, are another story. Opening a single can of some of these substances, particularly if you could get it into an area with moist air or bring it into contact with something such as burning gasoline at the time, might be very lethal to the person opening it - there'd be a flash (chemical rapid oxidation, not nuclear) and the person would likely breathe in a lethal dose of a radioactive heavy metal oxide vapor - even there, persons who approached a few moments after the can was opened, say to render assistance to the idiot, would be in only moderate danger of a radiation dose health risk and if they suited up properly before cleaning up would be at very low risk. Again, that's theory - the basic procedues were worked out soon after the Daghlian and Slotin criticality accidents at Los Alamos in the 40's, they were refined after two non-lethal and mostly not even very injurious accidents in the 1958-59 period at Y-12, and they've been followed enough that there haven't been any more like those.
In 2003, Y-12 had an accident involving depleted Uranium buring chemically in a hotbox experiment after Calcium reacted with water triggering enough heat to touch off the DU. That resulted in three employees getting heavy metal exposures considered unsafe, but not likely to cause serious long term health consequences. (That's a mixed reliability claim - there's some argument about just how much of a health hazard breathing or ingesting Depleted uranium is, and it's quite possible the safety guidelines for it will be toughened up further) This was the only nuclear related accident at Y-12 reported under the current management. Note that it's not technically a radiation accident, as DU just basically is emitting less than naturally occuring Uranium, and bringing more of it together, heating it, and so on doesn't cause it to emit more. If it makes a difference, it happened as part of an experimental lab setup, not the process plant.
For Plutonium wastes, the amounts are supposed to be kept low enough that the potential heat can't trigger any sort of phase change, not just melting to an actually more ductile or semi-liquid state. It's the stuff actually 'stored' inside an H-bomb being refurbished that has real potential (although supposedly, the rest of the bomb and the Plutonium pit don't EVER enter the continental US still assembled - so if that's true, we are talking about parts of bombs, not complete bombs). So the question is just what was in the buildings the nun and her chums approached? Was it trimmed off milling wast
Re: (Score:2)
... unless we build new reactors for every single suburb, in ten years we will be living in an apocolyptic world with no electricity.
Fun Fact: that was essentially Edison's plan for powering cities (just swap "reactors" with "coal-fired plants") before Tesla fucked it all up with his AC power transmission.
The More You Know
Re: (Score:2)