Its good that they are checking the kids, and that the detectors are picking up the normal potassium exposure. Like it or not, they have become a laboratory on radiation exposure. Also I agree that the environmental and anti business people will be trying to scare everyone.
...and you need to keep control of that vehicle for a few weeks to get it into a friendly port for unloading, during which time (1) folks with guns are doing their best to find you, and (2) you have no hostages to use as bargaining chips if they do so.
That's an awfully high-risk venture to get the kind of talent you'd need to hijack control in the first place [stealing private keys used to encrypt/authenticate the control chanel, etc] to sign off on.
I do information security for a living. I've seen hundreds of products where security is left out because (a) they need to get it to market faster, (b) it would add a dollar to the cost, (c) security is the users' responsibility, (d) I can design security better than anyone else on the planet, or (e) I don't care. Go through the archives of comp.risks if you want a few examples. Read Schneider's blog if you want more. Read slashdot.org if you want more.
Now here is a fun one: man in the middle attack. Take over the boat, but keep sending "normal" conditions back to the owners.
Support pylons of the Golden Gate Bridge, have several of them collide at the entrance to the Long Beach shipping terminal, blocking access for a few weeks, run over the deep water loading ports for crude oil. Run over a deep water drilling rig. I can think of any number of terrorist activities one could do. And remember, time and time again, no one really thinks of security until that "oh s___, we've been hacked" moment.
Except they could already do that with a manned vessel if it was at all feasible.
I'm not talking about boarding the vessel. I'm talking about hijacking the communications link and taking over the vessel. Then you could do it from anywhere in the world and have just about zero chance of getting caught.
Better solution: create a database of stolen IMEI numbers. In that way it can be reversed if/when the eventual screwup occurs.
By the way, we don't supply that data to anyone,' he told attendees.
Well, until they show up with an NSL, in which case we'll supply the data forthwith. But don't worry, we'll still have to maintain we really don't.
I wonder if Snowden is going to prove this guy a liar like everyone else.
What causes the meltdown is actually the waste products of the reaction. The waste products are radiologically and thermally hot. If not cooled they cause the fuel rods to melt. The molten mass will go downwards absorbing more material until the heat output is less than can be absorbed by the surrounding environment.
Fukushima's containment vessel could (and did) contain the molten core... but not the hydrogen explosions that also occurred inside the reactor chamber because of the total coolant loss.
My language should imply that nuclear reactors are safe against the foreseen failure modes. At Fukushima Daiichi, it was not expected that all of the coolant systems would fail at once and that repairs would be hampered by the tsunami damage.
The hydrogen explosion could not happen in the reactor chamber. What happens is that the reactor overheats, the zircornium reacts with the water. The oxygen atom is ripped away from the water to form zircronium oxide. The left over hydrogen cannot explode inside the reactor vessel because the oxygen is gone. So it leaks out and is eventually ignited.
Question for everyone: does anyone know if Fukushima has the US style concrete containment buildings? The explosions I saw on tv were clearly of an industrial type building, not the 6 foot reinforced concrete I'd expect of a containment building.
As for failures, one definite failure mode that was overlooked was for the grid power and the backup generators to be wiped out by the same event. That's called a common mode failure, and is one of the definite problems of nuclear power plants. Heck, of any system.