Nuclear site web pictures a terror threat

OutLore said:
Typical response... nevermind that Google Earth (and any other satellite mapping program) has these images on tap...
Click to expand...

As a side note, have you ever tried looking at them?

I'm pretty sure you will find that they are not all on tap.

EDIT!! It seems most of them are, my mistake. They have hidden some of the reactors from view though - Torness being one. I also could not get anything other than direct top down views - none of the 3D images of those sites would load for me
 
Just had a look on google earth at sellafield then a plant in scotland
 
candlestick said:
I know a couple of people who work at Sellafield as policemen, and they certainly act now, think later when faced with potential terrorist threats and they will most certainly be armed!! :nuts:
Click to expand...

No change there then. :) Wayne
 
TP_SDIM0058.JPG


Whoops! have I broken the Law?:cuckoo: I can see the d****d thing from a bedroom window and now they may be about to build another one close by. If I can see it, why not photograph it?
 
Everyone checking out Google Earth for locations tut tut....I can see a raise in the Terror Alert on the 10 o'clock news :lol: :D
 
DonnaM said:
Whoops! have I broken the Law?:cuckoo: I can see the d****d thing from a bedroom window and now they may be about to build another one close by. If I can see it, why not photograph it?
Click to expand...

There's a difference between being able to physically see it and creating a digital record of it. The digital age has posed a big headache for the security services as someone could take a picture and email it to anywhere in the world within minutes to god knows who, who might want to use it for more sinister purposes, so looking at it is one thing but taking a visual record is another thing altogether...

That said, there is a great deal of paranoia and scaremongering about this subject which isnt always justified. I've yet to be challenged by anyone yet whilst out with my camera!

Nice pic though btw!!
 
As far as I am aware, you can take photo's of any site that has not been declared "prohibited" by the Secretary of State, and even if you do, it's fine as long as they are not "useful" for use in attack, terrorism, etc.

Have power stations been declared prohibited sites?
 
Darn!

2975730220_f18877c1ff.jpg


Watching out of the window for black helicopters as I type....
 
Being of mixed descent with coloured skin and having short hair and a beard, part of me wants to go out to my nearest plant and start taking pictures just to see the reaction! However the other part of me thinks maybe they'll shoot first and ask questions later, so I stay at home. :D
 
cowasaki said:
If, in those circs, they ask you to delete them and leave and you do there would be no problem. If you refuse then that is when you are likely to be arrested etc etc.... So yes they cannot demand you delete a picture whilst out in public effectively you will do !
Click to expand...

An officer does not have the right to demand that you delete an image. Insisting upon it is illegal.

If the image is of a sensitive nature and they are planning to charge you with something then the image is evidence. If there is no charge then there is no need to delete the image.


Steve.
 
The Sun really is trash.
We used to have a great fun on one of the Manchester United forums I frequent inventing rumours and waiting for lazy journos (mainly from The Sun) to take the bait and print them the next day...They seem to have got wise now!

Tomorrows story: 'Taking photographs in public places could result in civil nuclear war.'
 
Not much of problem even if the plods do make you delete images, or even format your card. There are loads of images recovery software programs available to get them back anyway.
 
I swear some of the responses in this thread are exactly what the sun thrives off of. By providing a mildly accurate reporting of affairs they can scare monger to the point where everyone thinks the government are out to get them and that terrorists are gonna kill us all using the interent...

The fact of the matter is that anyone caught taking photos of/near a nuclear site will most likely be asked what there doing and be ID checked. Then sent off on there way to have a nice afternoon. The CNC will very rarely send out armed response units, especially to a rogue photographer.

Oh and as a side point the google earth/terrorist thing is utter rubbish aswell. Yes you can see the lay out of these sites from google earth, but they seem to forget the fact nuclear sites are highly guarded because of the nature of the materials they handle. It's not a case of hopping a 6 foot fence and going for a look around. These places are highly secure.
 
neil_g said:
does not state whether they have the right to remove your images/memory cards..

grey area ahoy :thinking:
Click to expand...


as far as aware only a magistrate or judge can order deletion of card images.

unless i am way off mark.
 
Steve Smith said:
An officer does not have the right to demand that you delete an image. Insisting upon it is illegal.

If the image is of a sensitive nature and they are planning to charge you with something then the image is evidence. If there is no charge then there is no need to delete the image.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The point is that if he gives you the choice which would you make? And in reality if you were taking pictures of a nuclear installation and the officer was even remotely concerned about it you would just be arrested.

Oh and an officer demanding you delete an image is not illegal. He may not have grounds to do it but it would not be illegal and might be grounds for civil litigation and or a complaint but not illegal.
 
D.R.H. said:
You don't need to be taking pictures of anything 'sensitive' for some cops to get twitchy.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=ImC2orpcA4I&NR=1


If cops on the street don't know the law, what hope there? :gag:
Click to expand...

The problem is that there is so much law!

and yes most officers 'on the street' do not actually know the fine details of everything. What tends to get reported are the times when it all goes wrong not the times when it does not. I would suggest that most officers stationed around nuclear plants are well aware of what they can or cannot do and what members of the public can and cannot do.
 
Busby said:
The Sun really is trash.
We used to have a great fun on one of the Manchester United forums I frequent inventing rumours and waiting for lazy journos (mainly from The Sun) to take the bait and print them the next day...They seem to have got wise now!

Tomorrows story: 'Taking photographs in public places could result in civil nuclear war.'
Click to expand...

So Ronaldo is moving during the Summer then :lol:
 
My soon-to-be father in law (2 weeks :eek:) works at a Nuclear power station and has done for many years. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago about taking photos of the power station and the surrounding countryside and he said I'd have no problems from security. He was going to take me there but I didn't have the time in the end. The next time I'm down there I'll see what happens!
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm sure you're right.

And a white guy with a huge SLR on a tripod WILL be considered a terrorist threat, no doubt....
Click to expand...

there are many ways to get info on the site...but the method describe above is probably easiest and cheapest and least likely to compromise your operation if you want it to be under the radar ;)

secondly the IRA were irish so they are all white, why can't a white guy standing there taking load of pictures be considered a terror threat? tbh i don't see the fascination of a nuclear plant, and off chance if it does get blown up, you are bloody close to it, and if it doesn't you are still bloody too close to it.

all those steam coming out of the chimney...they are irradiated ;)

these terror things are much crap, but once i was in a very crowded train and a mid-eastern man walked in, seen loads of them what the hell i thought, (he had a rather rough looking sack and clutched it it very tight) then promptly he pulled out these photocopied booklets with arabics written all over it, and doesn't take long for me to realise it was the Koran, and then as he read it he felt the words (which suggested to me he was very devoted muslim), i followed the english translation as he went on, it was chapters about non-believers and salvations for believers and how the non-believers should be dealt with or treated, i got very nervous and safely saying i was a bit scared and watched the man's every move. However it turned out to be nothing but on the hind side, i feel my scrutiny was really OTP and i am sure the man didn't feel good about it.
 
Doing physics A-level, I also picked up a few snippets of info...you must remember that reactors are encased in meters of concrete, which apparently would be able to withstand an aircraft crashing into it!

And let's not forget, the Pentagons lawn managed to survive an aircraft crashing on it, without a blade out of place...;) :lol:
 
i do not trust those gamma rays, if i remember it correctly they still leak through, nothing can stop them 100% dead, at least nothing on this planet or solar system cos nothing is dense enough.

by that the reactors generate a huge amount of radiation...if it's all good they wouldn't have bothered to rotate the staff and monitoring their onsite time tallies and get them wear the radiator indicators etc etc
 
ricky1980 said:
all those steam coming out of the chimney...they are irradiated ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, no it isn't. It wouldn't be allowed to be sent up the stacks if it was radioactive. The activity levels stated in the IRR are highly monitored and also really rather low. So the steam coming out of the cooling stacks of a power plant is of no risk to human life.

Also by the way (iirc), gamma rays are stopped by a few inches of lead , its neutrons that require metres of concrete and even then some leakage will still occur but by which point the neutrons have lost enough energy to not cause a significant risk.

Coincidentally aswell the monitoring is for legal reasons (as part of IRR) and the actual legal occupational dose for a 12month period is less than you would receive from frequently flying to Australia and back.
 
To be honest, anyone with half a brain that wanted to photograph a nuclear facility would surely ask permission first and explain the reasons behind the photograph. Well, I would anway.
 
Neil H said:
Nope, no it isn't. It wouldn't be allowed to be sent up the stacks if it was radioactive. The activity levels stated in the IRR are highly monitored and also really rather low. So the steam coming out of the cooling stacks of a power plant is of no risk to human life.

Also by the way (iirc), gamma rays are stopped by a few inches of lead , its neutrons that require metres of concrete and even then some leakage will still occur but by which point the neutrons have lost enough energy to not cause a significant risk.

Coincidentally aswell the monitoring is for legal reasons (as part of IRR) and the actual legal occupational dose for a 12month period is less than you would receive from frequently flying to Australia and back.
Click to expand...

Of course our plants are safe, thats why Bradwell has been fined £250.000 for 14 years of leaking radioactive waste, then there was the fines for Thorp and Dounreay, which cost them £2.000.000, not to forget the fires at the then Windscale (They changed the name to Sellafield) that let radioactive waste over a fair bit of the UK and Europe. Yeah safe as houses. Wayne
 
It never ceases to amaze me what people will assert as fact when they really have no idea.

Or is the human capacity for self-deception far better than I know?
 
molinari said:
My soon-to-be father in law (2 weeks :eek:) works at a Nuclear power station and has done for many years. I spoke to him a couple of weeks ago about taking photos of the power station and the surrounding countryside and he said I'd have no problems from security. He was going to take me there but I didn't have the time in the end. The next time I'm down there I'll see what happens!
Click to expand...

Let us know. Don't forget to wear that turban.;)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Of course our plants are safe, thats why Bradwell has been fined £250.000 for 14 years of leaking radioactive waste, then there was the fines for Thorp and Dounreay, which cost them £2.000.000, not to forget the fires at the then Windscale (They changed the name to Sellafield) that let radioactive waste over a fair bit of the UK and Europe. Yeah safe as houses. Wayne
Click to expand...

Now where talking radioactive waste which is a completely different kettle of fish. Your original post referenced the steam sent out of the cooling towers. The water that becomes this steam is used as a cooling medium and to drive the turbines which generate the electricity. Any activity in the water is so miniscule it isn't worth worrying about.

And yes nuclear plants are pretty safe in the grand scheme of things. Considering the number of operational nuclear plants around the globe the number of major incidents is fairly low.
 
Neil H said:
Now where talking radioactive waste which is a completely different kettle of fish. Your original post referenced the steam sent out of the cooling towers. The water that becomes this steam is used as a cooling medium and to drive the turbines which generate the electricity. Any activity in the water is so miniscule it isn't worth worrying about.

And yes nuclear plants are pretty safe in the grand scheme of things. Considering the number of operational nuclear plants around the globe the number of major incidents is fairly low.
Click to expand...

Errr I never mentioned steam that was somebody else.
As for them being safe, well theres Chernobyl, 3 mile island, then theres the 2 in France that leaked, and those are just from memory, theres hundreds more search google. Wayne
 
purpleclouds said:
Doing physics A-level, I also picked up a few snippets of info...you must remember that reactors are encased in meters of concrete, which apparently would be able to withstand an aircraft crashing into it!

And let's not forget, the Pentagons lawn managed to survive an aircraft crashing on it, without a blade out of place...;) :lol:
Click to expand...

Here you go....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz5vhNvskk

F-4 Phantom doing 500mph into a section of concrete wall similar to the one used for the reactor.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Errr I never mentioned steam that was somebody else.
As for them being safe, well theres Chernobyl, 3 mile island, then theres the 2 in France that leaked, and those are just from memory, theres hundreds more search google. Wayne
Click to expand...

Ah sorry mate, my bad.

And in all fairness nuclear facilitys are becoming safer with increasingly less major incidents occuring as the technology and management improves.
 
48thEagle said:
Then you can consider me ignorant, there is no way on earth anyone is going to 'seize' my memory card, if it is felt that it is serious enough to seize the card, then that, as far as I am concerned is enough to consider what I have as evidence but only on the understanding that I am breaking the law in the first place.

Almost all of my photography consists of me taking photos of military establishments and equipment (military aviation photography is my hobby) and as yet, no member of the police, whether Civilian or MOD, has deemed what I do to be breaking the law.
Click to expand...


Not read the whole thread, in fact got as far as this however if you hang out on hills the people that need to know who you are, know ;)
 
Don't forget if you have a Sandisk in the camera and you are asked to delete any pictures you can do with pleasure. When you get back home use the recovery disk and your pictures are there.

Realspeed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top