Danger at Table Rock Dam

[PowersiteProwler]

That's exactly right Thom. You said it. It's even more devistating in person, all from only a 50 acre lake! The article states this 50 acre lake was drained in 12 minutes.

As Calico Wayne pointed out, Taneycomo is 2080 acres. Think about the devistation there. Shadow Rock and River Run, which are both around a mile below powersite dam would be severely damaged.

Keeping in mind, while Taum Sauk was only a 50 acre lake, people 15 miles down stream were forced to seek higher ground due to the flooding. Imagine how far down BS people would be affected, I would say it would be a little further down the lake then the rock hole......

[wildminnow]

Seems maybe the "cat" has got waynes tongue

[Wayne SW/MO]

Okay let me address some of these assumptions.

When the water came down Tam Sauk, that drop was a little more then the 3' to 45' or so of a Taney breech. You assume that the dam would be completely gone instantly, Shadow Rock and River Run would be full, and BS would be at normal pool. The water wouldn't stop at Barker, but it would be slowed, which would raise the water. BS, like it or not, after all the initial flow, would rise less than a foot.

River Run under water, yes, but not from one rain. This all came about over terrorist breeching dams, and the dams here just aren't that attractive, especially Taney.

I would like to get a peek at what the river would look like without Powersite, even though thats not possible, I think I would like it. I have some memory of the White before TR, and a lot of memories or the Osage, South Grand, and the Pomme De Terre before Truman, and I liked them better.

[MrsDucky]

So, this whole discussion came about because some one was actually concerned about the safety of the dam and a child? There are people who care in this world! That's good news. The bad news is that there are fewer of those kind of people every day. SW MO could be a target for terrorists, both because of the lax security compared to the huge metropolitan areas like NY, and because of the Fed Med in Springfield. There have been some scary prisoners in there, and if they could distract the guards there by blowing up a little old dam just south, they might. Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of man?

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think that after some rethinking of the threat, y'all are right and should defiantly avoid this area, especially the TR tailwater and the Pothole.

We appreciate your cooperation in reducing the magnitude of any threat.

Thank You

[Thom]

Actually I just brought up the subject because I was wondering why there was so much concern on one side of the dam and on the other side anything goes.

It snowballed from there. I don't think terrorists would be interested but a disgrundled guy like the one at Virginia Tech....Yes. And I will guarnatee you that the technologly is out there for a self serving genius everybody is picking on me type that is a little deranged to implement.

A guy actually said he could dive down and put his hand on the wall of the dam. DUH!

[crappiefisherman]

Im thinking the earthen part of the dam would be the spot for the large cashe of explosives.Im not so sure table rock dam is high on the list.sure would be easier for a truck bomb at the grand palace.couple thousand people there and all you got to do is walk away from the uhaul.WHY WOULD ANYONE THINK OF THIS STUFF UNLESS THE TERRORIST WERENT WINNING.

[PowersiteProwler]

I think that after some rethinking of the threat, y'all are right and should defiantly avoid this area, especially the TR tailwater and the Pothole.

We appreciate your cooperation in reducing the magnitude of any threat.

Thank You

Once again Wayne, avoiding those areas is not the point that anyone has made on here?

I think the inital point was these dams are easy targets for someone who wants to cause major destruction and devisatation. It is a pretty cheap investment to have a little security at these locations versus the devastation and loss of life (which I can't even begin to place a value on life) that would occur. I'm not suggesting take away any one's right to "fish at the pothole," rather look for those people that pose threats.

My point to you is that, "IF" I'll reiterate for you again "IF" powersite failed, yes you would have a signifigant damage. Whether it be do to a structual defect(built in 1913) or an act of intent by man, there would be signifigant damage. No, I'm not going to stop fishing at the pothole either.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think the inital point was these dams are easy targets for someone who wants to cause major destruction and devisatation. It is a pretty cheap investment to have a little security at these locations versus the devastation and loss of life (which I can't even begin to place a value on life) that would occur.

Well think about that, a little security would have to be 24/7, and that little security would have to include all the benefits. Where do you draw the line, what about all the areas in and around Branson that contain large crowds and would be much more desirable.

The funny thing is that Powersite is probably the least desirable target, and it has security.

[RSBreth]

I usually avoid stuff like this because A: I don't care much what other people think, and B: I don't think I'm that persuasive to change minds if I disagree, but (and you knew there would be a "but") to worry about this is silly. I can see the would be terrorist now: "I will strike at what America loves best, I will show them no one is safe, I will disrupt the daily life of every American, so I will flood the Yakov Smirnoff Theater!"

Seriously, it takes good sized bombs <2,000lbs.+ to take out dams of that size, and a truck bomb wouldn't do it, either. You guys neaver learned about the allies bursting the dams in Holland in WWII, did you?