Gaffa tape plastic bags broomstick holding nuke plant together

[PA5COR]

http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/photograph-picture-given-to-team-10-shows-plastic-bags-tape-broomsticks-used-to-fix-leak-at-san-onofre-043013

SAN DIEGO - An inside source gave Team 10 a picture snapped inside the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) showing plastic bags, masking tape and broom sticks used to stem a massive leaky pipe.
San Onofre owner Southern California Edison (SCE), confirms the picture was taken inside Unit Three, but did not say when. The anonymous source said the picture was taken in December 2012.
Unit Three is the same unit that leaked radiation in January 2012. SONGS has been shutdown since then as a precaution.

"If that's nuclear technology at work and that's how we're going to control leaks I think the public should know," the inside source said

Records obtained by Team 10 show SONGS staff were concerned about "hundreds of corrosion notifications" and "degraded equipment" throughout the plant. Staff sent a letter to management saying SONGS "clearly has a serious corrosion problem" in pipes throughout the plant.
"This is nuclear, this should be tip top," one source said. "Everything in that plant should be tip top, not bottom of the barrel."


With piccie as bonus.

Meanwhile the situation in Fukushma is only going downhill.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16117-fukushima-a-dire-sos-message

And now, officials are concerned that, because of all of the leaks, power outages, and glitches that have occurred, the Dai-chi nuclear power plant could begin to break apart and cause an even worse nuclear disaster, when a decades-long clean-up process finally begins.
And to make matters worse, there are 23 General Electric Mark 1 nuclear reactors across our country, the same kind of nuclear power plants that failed so miserably at Fukushima.
These Mark 1 reactors are located all across America, from Vermont to Minnesota, New York to Nebraska.
If just one of these reactors were to fail on the level that the Fukishima Dai-ichi Mark 1 reactor did, we could be looking at an unprecedented disaster.


Nuclear power lobbyists claim that the production of energy via nuclear power doesn't emit any CO2, and as a result, is one of cleanest forms of energy out there.
But this is non-sense
In order to accurately calculate just how much CO2 is produced from a power plant, you have to look at the entire life-cycle of the plant as well as the production of the raw energy that it produces


Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, nuclear energy consultants with Ceedata Consultancy in the Netherlands, carried out life-cycle analyses (http://www.stormsmith.nl/insight-items.html) of nuclear power plants, and found, on average, they produce anywhere from 90 to 140 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity.
In comparison, solar power, wind power and hydroelectricity produce anywhere from 10 to 40 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity, while gas burning power plants produce 330 to 330 grams of CO2.
All the myths about nuclear power have been debunked.
It's time to shut down reactors and put an end to nuclear power worldwide.

[KC2UGV]

Perfect example of a reason nuclear power generation shouldn't be trusted to the hands of the private sector, and all of them should be federally ran facilities.

[PA5COR]

Just like Hanford i presume?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/hanford-nuclear-reservation_n_2744974.html
LOL
Leave it to the Government thay are there to help you gets a whole new meaning...

[ki4itv]

Humans just aren't good at long term commitments; We prove it time and time again... which is the main reason I'm starting to question the overall safety of boiling water this way.

[KC2UGV]

Just like Hanford i presume?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/hanford-nuclear-reservation_n_2744974.html
LOL
Leave it to the Government thay are there to help you gets a whole new meaning...

Yes. Just like Hanford. A facility built post WWII, when nuclear experimentation was brandy new, and we had no idea what it does, being dealth with, and not covered up over 80 years later.

There's no risk at this time, and we are still working to fix it.

Yes. Just like Hanford.

[PA5COR]

When you build containers in Government orders for 20 year lifetime you could expect them to fail after that time period isn't it?
Bit careless of the Government here certainly now the ground water is polluted with the highest radioactive material running off to the Columbia river that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-20/leaking-nuclear-sludge-could-threaten-columbia-river

[wa6mhz]

San Onofre is just up the 5 from me. Everyone knows it is REALLY the Dolly Parton National Monument!

http://www.thesurfingblog.com/wp-content/uploads//2009/08/san-onofre-power-plant.jpg

[KC2UGV]

When you build containers in Government orders for 20 year lifetime you could expect them to fail after that time period isn't it?
Bit careless of the Government here certainly now the ground water is polluted with the highest radioactive material running off to the Columbia river that supplies drinking water to millions of people.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-20/leaking-nuclear-sludge-could-threaten-columbia-river

Actually, Cor, your article there says nothing has affected the Columbia river as of yet, and the problem is being monitored, and remediated.

Again, yes. Just like that. Problem found. Problem made public. Problem fixed.

And, yes: You need to get off your high horse about radioactive contamination until you quit tobacco, the number 1 cause of soil contamination by radiation.

Of course, what you're kvetching about here has nothing to do with nuclear energy, and everything to do with nuclear weapons. A completely different animal.

[PA5COR]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15064-radioactive-sludge-leaking-at-hanford-threatens-to-contaminate-regions-water-supply

The site had several nuke reactors producing energu and in the proces atomic bomb matrial, as usual you are wrong again.
Clean up will cost billions for an energy production method sold as too cheap to meter things are looking a bit different now eh?
DOE told it would take 10.000 years to reach groundwater level as assurance, Reality check: it took less as 40 years.
So, it is already in the groundwwater running off to the river 7 miles away producing drinking water for lots of people...
The DOE estimates that as many as 750,000 curies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie) of radioactive iodine, xenon, cesium, strontium, plutonium and uranium may have been put into the Columbia River each year in the 1950s.”
And it has been leaking into that river since 1950......
A week earlier the paper reported said, “Many of the releases involved dumping of cooling water into the Columbia River.” Tim Connor of Hanford Watch in Spokane told the paper that daily releases of 430 curies noted in one 1946 report were, “the equivalent of a Three Mile Island accident every hour.”


DOE officials admitted in 1991 that managers dumped 440 billion gallons of radioactive liquids directly into the soil — using ditches, cribs, trenches and injection wells — and that hazardous waste had “fouled the Columbia River.” A 1965 report from Hanford among 19,000 pages of documents declassified in 1986 says “a total of 6 million curies” of radioactive material were dumped directly into the Columbia. In 2000, the DOE estimated that the tanks held 190 million curies of radioactivity.


Leaving aside the billions of gallons of nuclear poisons poured directly into it, the New York Times reported in Oct. 1997 that, “If leaks from the tanks reach the Columbia River through ground water, radioactive material would eventually be incorporated into the food chain and could expose people to radiation for centuries.”

I never seen a windturbine do that nor solar cells nor other green energy methods.
Leave it to the government to waste your environment.


Wildfires burned 300 acres of the reservation in summer 2000, when Energy Secretary Bill Richardson rushed to say July 1, “There does not appear to be any contamination whatsoever.” Wrong again. By Aug. 3, plutonium was found to have been lofted to 10 far-flung areas, including five Eastern Washington city neighborhoods.

The DOE has long worried that its waste tanks, at Hanford and at Savannah River, South Carolina, could explode due to the buildup of hydrogen gas or organic vapors. Indeed, a 1965 explosion at Hanford ruptured one tank that subsequently leaked 800,000 gallons of cooling water into the soil. Again on May 14, 1997, a tank holding plutonium processing chemicals blew up, sending its heavy steel lid and a plume of toxic gas through the roof.


In 1986, researcher Michael Blain at Boise State University showed that women in Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho had elevated rates of thyroid and breast cancer and said there was a high probability that “the excess cancers are attributable to the release of radioactive iodine.”
Cancers, miscarriages and other health problems suffered by people in the area have been blamed on the deliberate spewing of 5,500 curies of iodine-131 to the atmosphere in a Dec. 3, 1949, experiment called “green run,” and on the offhand dispersal of 340,000 curies in 1945 alone.
In 1974, Dr. Samuel Milham in Washington’s state health department published his finding that men who had worked at Hanford had a 25 percent higher proportion of cancer deaths than for similarly aged men in other work.
And in 1977, the journal Health Physics published Alice Stewart, Thomas Mancuso and George Kneal’s finding of a 6 or 7 percent increased cancer effect in Hanford workers. About this increase Dr. Stewart said, “It wasn’t much of an effect but the shock was that there was any effect at all since the cancers were occurring at radiation exposure levels well below the official limit of five rads per year. It meant that the current standards for nuclear safety might be as much as 20 times too high.”
In 1990, a DOE analysis of radiation exposures downwind from Hanford found that infants and children were heavily contaminated because of drinking contaminated milk. The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project found that 13,500 people may have received doses over 33 rads of iodine-131 and that infants and children closest to Hanford could have consumed between 650 and 3,000 rads. Even a single rad can cause thyroid cancer and other illnesses.
Not to put too fine a point on it: Hanford’s latest six leaks are the tip of its iceberg of radiation which is spreading to the Columbia River and beyond a plague of cancer and disease that will never come to an end.

So, who is kvetching now?

[KC2UGV]

You do know, that radiation levels in the surrounding area, Columbia River included have not gone up since monitoring started right?

And, you do know, your tobacco puts more radiation in the soil each year than 10 Hanford's combined could possibly do, right?

PS Hanford was not an energy producing reactor. It was a weapons enrichment reactor, which happened to produce energy as a side effect.

[PA5COR]

Look again at the article and see that the river did have quite elevated levels of several radio active elements, as well the surrounding area..
Weaseling out aren't we? 9 reactors produced energy and as byproduct produced bomb material.
The energy was delivered into the grid, so deffo energy producing reactors.

[N2NH]

But they're still safe. :yes:

The 'point' that new reactors are safer has been made all along. Safe energy was a slogan in the early 60s when Storm King was built right over a fault line that somehow environmentalists new about in 1968, but was "undiscovered" until 2010. Who could've foreseen?

Then we saw how those 1st generation reactors were unsafe and we were told the new reactors would be safer. Then there was 3 Mile Island and again we were told new reactors would be safer...

The thing is, everything works better when new. A new car does. A new plane does. A new plant does. Over time, if you do not maintain the nuke facility, it will break down just like a car or a plane. This country is good at starting things but not so good at doing anything over time. Our infrastructure is in the shape it is because of this. Highways that are crumbling, bridges that fall down, airport runways with potholes. We should know that, we've always been like this. A next generator reactor isn't safer. It's newer. Over time, based on our past performance, it too will be exactly the same as those which preceded it.

And until we change that's not going to change.

[kb2vxa]

Oh gee whoopie wow, more no nuke NIMBY bullshit I've been hearing since Oyster Creek went on line.

<yawn>

Wake me when it's over
Wake me please
Wake me when it's over
All the things you knew for sure
Were not what they seemed
All the things you knew for sure
Were not what they seemed
Wake me when it's over
Wake me please
Wake me when it's over
When all the noise has gone
Anything you want
I will give away just to watch you go

[n2ize]

Just like Hanford i presume?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/hanford-nuclear-reservation_n_2744974.html
LOL
Leave it to the Government thay are there to help you gets a whole new meaning...

Hanford is an old Gen I type reactor designed in the 1940's. It was primarily designed to support the production of nuclear materials for weaponry and experimentation. Nuclear reactors have come a long long way since the Hanford days. Modern reactors are much safer, produce less waste, and are designed to prevent proliferation, meltdown,etc.

[WØTKX]

Hyperion's Reactor in a Box (http://gigaom.com/2008/08/01/hyperions-nuclear-in-a-box-ready-by-2013/)


Hyperion Power Generation (http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com./), a startup building (http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/16/hyperion-nuclear-in-a-box/) compact nuclear power reactor units that are “about the size of a typical backyard hot tub”, says commercial deployments (http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/template.MAXIMIZE/news/industry/?javax.portlet.tpst=08c2aa13f2fe3d4dc1b6751ae1de75 dd_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_08c2aa13f2fe3d4dc1b6751ae1de75dd _viewID=news_view&javax.portlet.prp_08c2aa13f2fe3d4dc1b6751ae1de75dd _newsLang=en&javax.portlet.prp_08c2aa13f2fe3d4dc1b6751ae1de75dd _ndmHsc=v2*A1214910000000*B1217538410000*DgroupByD ate*G3*J2*M31249*N1000012&javax.portlet.prp_08c2aa13f2fe3d4dc1b6751ae1de75dd _newsId=20080730006522&beanID=383539599&viewID=news_view&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken) could start as early as 2013. The release quotes the company’s CEO John “Grizz” Deal, who says the Santa Fe, New Mexico-based startup has advanced development of its device enough to be able to reach that goal (of course the nuclear exec has such a great nickname).

The company says it initially plans to make 4,000 units — each being able to generate 70 megawatts of heat energy, or 27 megawatts of electricity from a steam turbine. That’s the equivalent power for 20,000 homes. There’s also the possibility of linking devices that could produce more power.

[PA5COR]

There are still 26 reactors like Fukushima in the USA with known serious faults.
About as safe as the Fukushima reactors, older, leaking tritium, rusted cooling pipes etc.

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-and-its-impact-upon-westinghouse-toshiba-designed-ap1000-atomic-power-plant

[n2ize]

But they're still safe. :yes:

The 'point' that new reactors are safer has been made all along. Safe energy was a slogan in the early 60s when Storm King was built right over a fault line that somehow environmentalists new about in 1968, but was "undiscovered" until 2010. Who could've foreseen?

Then we saw how those 1st generation reactors were unsafe and we were told the new reactors would be safer. Then there was 3 Mile Island and again we were told new reactors would be safer...

3 mi island was a Gen II design which was basically an unsafe Gen I design with some safety enhancement. Still 3 mi island was a great example of how well safety precautions worked. A severe catastrophe was averted and radiation exposure was limited to a chest X-ray among those closest to the incident.

[n2ize]

There are still 26 reactors like Fukushima in the USA with known serious faults.
About as safe as the Fukushima reactors, older, leaking tritium, rusted cooling pipes etc.

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-and-its-impact-upon-westinghouse-toshiba-designed-ap1000-atomic-power-plant

Which is why that we should be building modern generation reactors and gradually decommissioning older Gen I and Gen II designs. Of course the ultimate goal would be fusion reactors.

[PA5COR]

Did you follow the link and listened to the end, it was about the newest generation reactor which has already build in problems, what now about "safer"designs?
Ïf i put up a link i expect people to inform themselves before starting to vent their opinion.

TMI caused much more as just one Xray radiation, you still are seriously misinformed.
Keep on eating the government propaganda that will protect the nuke industry at all costs.

Science has never found such a “safe” threshold, and never will.
In the 1950s Dr. Alice Stewart showed a definitive link between medical x-rays administered to pregnant women and the curse of childhood leukemia among their offspring.
After a fierce 30-year debate, the medical profession agreed. Today, administering an x-ray to a pregnant woman is universally understood to be a serious health hazard.
Those who pioneered the health physics profession---towering greats like Dr. Karl Z. Morgan and Dr. John Gofman---set a definitive, impenetrable standard. A safe dose of radiation does not exist. All doses, “insignificant” or otherwise, can harm the human organism.

Cancer, leukemia, birth defects, stillbirths, sterility, malformations, open lesions, hair loss, a metallic taste and much more were among the symptoms.

The death and mutation rate among farm and wild animals was also thoroughly documented by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and a team of investigators from the Baltimore News-American.

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/three-myths-three-mile-island-accident

[n2ize]

http://truth-out.org/news/item/15064-radioactive-sludge-leaking-at-hanford-threatens-to-contaminate-regions-water-supply

The site had several nuke reactors producing energu and in the proces atomic bomb matrial, as usual you are wrong again.
Clean up will cost billions for an energy production method sold as too cheap to meter things are looking a bit different now eh?


Hanford was primarily built to serve weapons production and research starting in the 1940's. Outside of research it and it's 9 reactors had nothing to do with power generation. They were strictly about plutonium production for weapons. The vast majority of the plutonium used in the nations cold war nuclear arsenal came from Hanford as well as the early plutonium used for the original Trinity test and for the "Fat Man" type plutonium bomb that was dropped over Nagasaki. Hanford was started before the end of WW2 and was greatly expanded during the cold war. It was an early Gen I facility designed at a time when safety and waste disposal considerations were not a priority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

The only power production came from a private generating site that is hosted on the Hanford site.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Generating_Station


Early Gen I reactors are a far cry from modern Gen III / IV reactors which are designed from the ground up with safety, reduced waste, non-proliferation, efficiency, and reduced waste first and foremost.

[KC2UGV]

Did you follow the link and listened to the end, it was about the newest generation reactor which has already build in problems, what now about "safer"designs?
Ïf i put up a link i expect people to inform themselves before starting to vent their opinion.

TMI caused much more as just one Xray radiation, you still are seriously misinformed.
Keep on eating the govenment propaganda that will protect the nuke industry at all costs.

I stopped when I saw it was another anti-nuke site...

[n2ize]

Did you follow the link and listened to the end, it was about the newest generation reactor which has already build in problems, what now about "safer"designs?
Ïf i put up a link i expect people to inform themselves before starting to vent their opinion.

TMI caused much more as just one Xray radiation, you still are seriously misinformed.
Keep on eating the govenment propaganda that will protect the nuke industry at all costs.

The average radiation dose received by plant workers and the closest residents to TMI was about 1 millirem. A normal set of chest x-rays exposes the patient to several times this amount of radiation. The average radiation dose from TMI was a tiny fraction, appx 1/100 th of the normal background radiation for that particular area. Furthermore, 30 years of health data collected since the TMI incident shows no statistical deviation from the norm with respect to cancers and other radiation induced illnesses.

This information comes from reputable sources and not from biased anti-nuke agenda driven sources like Greenpeace.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/tmi.html

[WX7P]

Well, Sarah's not glowing in the dark yet.

The amount of safety features and training they use here in Illinois is impressive. Even the long term employees are constantly being trained and the plant equipment is constantly inspected. It is inaccurate to say the USG doesn't regulate the industry. The US nuclear industry is NOT Mr. Burns and The Simpsons.

As for Fukushima, what did the JA's expect? They put their diesel backup generators in the basement and were inoperable due to flooding. A pretty stupid design flaw which you won't see in the US. We won't EVEN start talking about the design flaws in Soviet era former USSR plants, including Chernobyl.

There's a lot of unneeded hysteria about the so-called dangers of nookier power. As long as the plants are well regulated, inspected and forced to upgrade when necessary, alles ok.

Besides that, if the price of natural gas continues to be at an all time low, the point is moot. Nuclear power won't be competitive in the free market.

[PA5COR]

If you followed the linky to the report you would have found from the plants own data that the re;ease was 100 to 1000 time higer as the epaa wants you to believe.
What is more reliable as the plants own reports and measurements as the disaster happened?

[PA5COR]

Must be the case why last year several nuke plants in the USA almost drowned and had to be shut down with their feet in the river.
THere are a few plants that have the same set up as Fuku and are prone to the same tsunami dangers as Fuku.

We have enough reports about the lacking of maintenance, mistakes, deaths in the USA plants.
Up to total failing diesel generators for back up power.
Many plants build on active earthquake zones.

Since whe is the EPA reliable? with both feet bound to the government and industry bend on promoting nuke energy at all costs just as reliable as your "greenies" sites, they don't have an agenda paid for by the goverment and industry.
Untill they could not deny it anymore the govenment has done som inhumane experiments on children woman and incarcerated people as well, don't start me on your reliable govenment...

[n2ize]

As for Fukushima, what did the JA's expect? They put their diesel backup generators in the basement and were inoperable due to flooding. A pretty stupid design flaw which you won't see in the US. We won't EVEN start talking about the design flaws in Soviet era former USSR plants, including Chernobyl.

Not to mention that the Soviet Reactor was basically a Gen I type reactor and the accident was the result of a dangerous test performed by a person with little experience or expertise. It was basically a test that no sane competent nuclear engineer or plant technician would ever run. The accident was not so much a lesson in nuclear safety. Rather it was a lesson in soviet incompetence and disregard for the lives of their own people.


Seven years later in 1986, things got much worse. Chernobyl was suffering from inadequate funding. Much basic maintenance had never been performed. It had only a skeleton crew, nearly all of whom were untrained workers from the local coal mine. The only manager with nuclear plant experience had been a worker installing small reactors on board Soviet submarines. Some genius decided to run a risky test of a type that no experienced nuclear engineer would ever gamble on. The test was to shut down the water pumps, which must run constantly in that type of reactor; and then find out whether the turbines, spinning on their momentum alone, had enough energy to restart and run the pumps during the forty-second delay before the backup diesel generators would kick in. The test was so risky that one faction within the plant deliberately disconnected some backup systems, trying to make the test too dangerous to attempt. The test was run anyway. It didn't work, the pumps couldn't keep up, the graphite core caught fire, the coal miners couldn't find any shovels so they didn't know what to do, and the reactor exploded. If you think I'm exaggerating this, there are extensive resources both online and in print, if you really want the hairy truth. In this short space I'm probably not even giving you ten percent of what a travesty this was — I'm tempted to call it a joke but it's so not funny. For example, they scheduled this right in the middle of a shift change, and the new workers coming in didn't even know what was going on.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4092



There's a lot of unneeded hysteria about the so-called dangers of nookier power. As long as the plants are well regulated, inspected and forced to upgrade when necessary, alles ok.


Quite true. And, on average, more people will die per year of cancer in the USA alone attributed to the burning of fossil fuels than have died as a result of all nuclear accidents combined



Besides that, if the price of natural gas continues to be at an all time low, the point is moot. Nuclear power won't be competitive in the free market.

And the drawback to that is... climate change will continue. Money comes before the environment.

[PA5COR]

Nuke plants produce Co2 just as well in their lifetime, nothing new there.
So, if people die in car accidents we do nothing with prevention for people dying in bycicle accidents, pedestrians and motorcycle accidents, notr plane accidents etc?
Weird kind of reasoniing you have there station...
Hanford ring a bell? or the dozens other nuke accidents/disasters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

I see, very "safe"that nuclear thingy...

[KC2UGV]

If you followed the linky to the report you would have found from the plants own data that the re;ease was 100 to 1000 time higer as the epaa wants you to believe.
What is more reliable as the plants own reports and measurements as the disaster happened?

Can you link directly to the plant's own data then, please?

[PA5COR]

He gave you the data as he took it from the source aand told you in the video where that source was and how to get it, watch the video till the end.


Can you link directly to the plant's own data then, please?

[n2ize]

Nuke plants produce Co2 just as well in their lifetime, nothing new there.

So does cooking your food, heating your home, driving your car, using electrical devices that rely on fossil fuels to produce the energy, riding a bike, renewable energy, etc. Sure nuclear plants produce CO2. They have to be built which requires mining and processing of materials, the use of construction equipment, the transporation of plant workers, etc. many of which burn fossil fuels and require the use of fuel. Same is true for solar power, wind mills, etc.




So, if people die in car accidents we do nothing with prevention for people dying in bycicle accidents, pedestrians and motorcycle accidents, notr plane accidents etc?
Weird kind of reasoniing you have there station...

By relying more on modern nuclear energy and renewable energy we rely less on fossil fuel combustion and gradually reduce the number of cancers and illnesses resulting from soot, particulates and chemicals produced by fossil fuel combustion.



Hanford ring a bell?


We discussed Hanford above. It was designed in 1942 and it was primarily about making plutonium for weaponry, not power production. The reactors were old Gen I types that were inherently unsafe and little regard was given to safe waste disposal. Remember we are talking 1940's and 50's when any long term problems seemed so far off and incidental. Hanford is a bad example of what modern reactors are all about.




or the dozens other nuke accidents/disasters?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

I see, very "safe"that nuclear thingy...

Note in your article that they are referring to all types of accidents including weapons production, military usage, radiotherapy, and careless handling of radioactive materials.

Also, from your wiki article.



tuart Arm states, "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."[7]

Not a bad record, eh ??

Also note the majority of commercial accidents were minor accidents resulting in no injuries or deaths and indicate that proper safety measures and safety systems work very well to do their intended job to avert serious accidents.

[n2ize]

Since whe is the EPA reliable? with both feet bound to the government and industry bend on promoting nuke energy at all costs just as reliable as your "greenies" sites, they don't have an agenda paid for by the goverment and industry.
Untill they could not deny it anymore the govenment has done som inhumane experiments on children woman and incarcerated people as well, don't start me on your reliable govenment...

Since when is Greenpeace and the anti-nuke agenda reliable ? They are infamous for distorting reality, distorting data, presenting only one side of an issue, and alarming and frightening the public. In return they receive funding both from the public, private companies, and other sources.

[PA5COR]

So, we established that both sources are tainted, and we have to fall back to intelligent reasoning.
Any firm or government will cut costs and get things done as cheaply possible cutting corners on the way.
Not the best way handling nuke plants where accidents mostly mean large swats of land uninhabitable for 100,s of years to come and raising the background radiation for all people on earthanother notch.

We as humans already succeeded to raise the historic bacgground level by oover 100% and large parts of land in the EU, Japan and USA with much higher radiation.
It came in our drinking water food directly into your body.
Every doctor worth the bread he earns will tell you that a hot particle into your body directly radating surrounding cells will be a big source of cancer.

A Xray is temporarely and just give a time limited exposure bad enough, but a hot particle in your lungs or body will radiate 24/7 directly at cell level.
Fuku hot particles are still crculating the globe and found over the whole northern hemisphere and in food like fish, milk, meat all over that hemisphere.


The air in a 100 sq metre Australian home
3000 Bq


The air in many 100 sq metre European homes
Up to 30 000 Bq


That difference is easy to understand since the EU was awash in Chernobyl fall out ...
Even so, the radiation protection community conservatively assumes that any amount of radiation may pose some risk for causing cancer and hereditary effect, and that the risk is higher for higher radiation exposures. A linear, no-threshold (LNT) dose response relationship is used to describe the relationship between radiation dose and the occurrence of cancer. This dose-response hypothesis suggests that any increase in dose, no matter how small, results in an incremental increase in risk. The LNT hypothesis is accepted by the NRC as a conservative model for determining radiation dose standards, recognizing that the model may over estimate radiation risk.
Source NRC.gov
Genetic effects and the development of cancer are the primary health concerns attributed to radiation exposure. The likelihood of cancer occurring after radiation exposure is about five times greater than a genetic effect (e.g., increased still births, congenital abnormalities, infant mortality, childhood mortality, and decreased birth weight).

The collective radiation background dose for natural sources in Europe is about 500,000 man Sieverts per year. The total dose from Chernobyl is estimated at 80,000 man sieverts, or roughly 1/6 as much.
Add our atomic bomb tests and Fukushima and other disasters and accidents and we doubled the historic background radiation level, in some spots in Europe lots more.

There Are NO Background Levels of Radioactive Caesium or Iodine

That is what humans cooked up and brought into the environment.
The mean contamination of caesium-137 in Germany following the Chernobyl disaster was 2000 to 4000 Bq/m2. This corresponds to a contamination of 1 mg/km2 of caesium-137, totaling about 500 grams deposited over all of Germany.Caesium-137 is unique in that it is totally anthropogenic. Unlike most other radioisotopes, caesium-137 is not produced from its non-radioactive isotope, but from uranium. It did not occur in nature before nuclear weapons testing began
Add Fukushima.

As the EPA notes (http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/docs/source-management/csfinallongtakeshi.pdf):

Cesium-133 is the only naturally occurring isotope and is non-radioactive; all
other isotopes, including cesium-137, are produced by human activity.
So there was no “background radiation” for caesium-137 before above-ground nuclear testing and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl.
Fukushima released many times the amount of that as Chernobyl, and is doing that till today still leaking as a sieve and will do that for centuries to come.
Likewise, iodine-131 is not a naturally occurring isotope.

And New Scientist reports (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html) that huge quantities of iodine-131 are being released in Japan:

Austrian researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors – designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests – to show that iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster.
Note that DAILY Fuku expells every day 73% of what Chernobyl did in total...

Internal emitters are much more dangerous than external emitters. Specifically, one is only exposed to radiation as long as he or she is near the external emitter.
For example, when you get an x-ray, an external emitter is turned on for an instant, and then switched back off.
But internal emitters steadily and continuously emit radiation for as long as the particle remains radioactive, or until the person dies – whichever occurs first. As such, they are much more dangerous



As Hirose Takashi notes (http://www.counterpunch.org/takashi03222011.html):

All of the information media are at fault here I think. They are saying stupid things like, why, we are exposed to radiation all the time in our daily life, we get radiation from outer space. But that’s one millisievert per year. A year has 365 days, a day has 24 hours; multiply 365 by 24, you get 8760. Multiply the 400 millisieverts by that, you get 3,500,000 the normal dose. You call that safe? And what media have reported this? None. They compare it to a CT scan, which is over in an instant; that has nothing to do with it. The reason radioactivity can be measured is that radioactive material is escaping. What is dangerous is when that material enters your body and irradiates it from inside. These industry-mouthpiece scholars come on TV and what to they say? They say as you move away the radiation is reduced in inverse ratio to the square of the distance. I want to say the reverse. Internal irradiation happens when radioactive material is ingested into the body. What happens? Say there is a nuclear particle one meter away from you. You breathe it in, it sticks inside your body; the distance between you and it is now at the micron level. One meter is 1000 millimeters, one micron is one thousandth of a millimeter. That’s a thousand times a thousand: a thousand squared. That’s the real meaning of “inverse ratio of the square of the distance.” Radiation exposure is increased by a factor of a trillion. Inhaling even the tiniest particle, that’s the danger.

This is not to say that we’re all going to get cancer. Most of use probably won’t. This is solely an attempt to counter the misleading propaganda from apologists for old, unsafe nuclear reactors. For background information on “safe” radiation levels, see this (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/no-amount-of-radiation-released-from.html)
That is just what we saw in this thread.

Japanese experts say that Fukushima is currently releasing up to 93 billion becquerels of radioactive cesium (http://www.enenews.com/japan-researchers-93-billion-becquerels-day-be-leaking-pacific-fukushima-plant-cesium-levels-havent-dropped-last-year) into the ocean each day. And the cesium levels hitting the west coast of North America will keep increasing for several years (http://enenews.com/report-nuclear-pollution-from-fukushima-to-hit-u-s-in-2015-impact-strength-of-cesium-137-on-west-coast-is-as-high-as-4-percent-due-to-strong-currents). Fukushima is still spewing radiation into the environment, and the amount of radioactive fuel at Fukushima dwarfs Chernobyl (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/amount-of-radioactive-fuel-at-fukushima.html).)
As such, the concept of “background radiation” is largely a misnomer. Most of the radiation we encounter today – especially the most dangerous types – did not even exist in nature before we started tinkering with nuclear weapons and reactors. In a sense, we are all guinea pigs....

http://www.euradcom.org (http://www.euradcom.org/)/, published a ground-breaking study on the effects of low-level radiation from radioactive fallout, such as caused by nuclear bomb tests, ammunitions containing depleted uranium, and nuclear power plant accidents such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, Read the synopsis and then click-through for their comprehensive free PDF: http://www.euradcom.org/2010/2010recommendations.htm

See the European Committee on Radiation Risk (http://www.euradcom.org/), which mentions a study [highly contested by much of the nuclear establishment, as acceptance would mean that all risk assessments would have to be "adjusted to reality" (imagine that!) and most likely render the nuclear industry obsolete due the long-term risks by far out-weighting the short-term benefits.
Tondel’s findings revealed a statistically significant 11% increase in cancer per 100kBq/m2 Cs-137 contamination from Chernobyl

- A study (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.27425/pdf) by the Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale (French Institute of Health and Medical Research, orINSERM (http://www.inserm.fr/)), published in the International Journal of Cancer,”Childhood leukemia around French nuclear power plants – the Geocap study, 2002-2007″, found: leukemia rate twice as high among children under the age of 15 living within a 3.1-mile radius of France’s 19 NNPs. See http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.27425/pdf
- A similar German study by the BFS, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, http://www.bfs.de (http://www.bfs.de/)), concluded basically the same, namely „that the risk for children under five years of age to contract leukaemia increases the closer they live to a nuclear power plant” [SEE: the German Study (http://www.bfs.de/en/bfs/presse/pr07/pr0714.html) (English Press Release) from December 2007, http://www.bfs.de/en/bfs/presse/pr07/pr0714.html]

NY Times (April 20, 2006) reported that Ukraine immigrants caused leap in New York Thyroid cancer cases. (And it’s not that New York is full of Ukrainians…) So for those who will doubt anything that doesn’t get the stamp of approval from the industry-embedded “regulatory” agencies (IAEA, NRC, JAIF, etc.), try expaining all this with the dominant ICRP model

In 2012 and beyond, the U.S. FDA is letting in very radioactive foods into the U.S. marketplace like it did in 1986-1988 when it SECRETLY tested the radioactive content of foods from Greece, Italy, Turkey and other nations hit hard by Chernobyl but never told Americans the astonishing contamination levels. The FDA was letting Americans eat foods that was hundreds of times more radioactive than normal and never told a soul. A FOIA request by a citizen that finally made the government-withheld radiation tabulations public revealed that Americans were eating imported foods contaminated by Chernobyl's cesium-134 and cesium-137 up to 10,000 picocuries or 370 becquerels per kilogram! The FDA only intervened (allegedly 'protecting Americans') on a dozen occasions during the 1986-1988 time period: 'According to U.S. federal regulations [at that time], imported foods containing more than 10,000 pCi of Cs-134 + Cs-137 must be seized and destroyed...The official documents obtained through the RADNET [FOIA] request (Section 9) shows that between 1986 and 1988 there were 12 such occasions.'
The FDA tested 1,749 samples during that time period and over 100 of the samples tested above 1,000 pCi/kg

[KC2UGV]

He gave you the data as he took it from the source aand told you in the video where that source was and how to get it, watch the video till the end.

So, you can link to the original plant data right here, correct?

[w0aew]

This is all about as interesting as watching my liver die.

No, really. If I turn off the lights and look in a mirror....

[PA5COR]

Acting as you do i say follow the video in which he gives the source and place where you can find it, i'm not doing the work for you.

QUOTE=KC2UGV;533599]So, you can link to the original plant data right here, correct?[/QUOTE]

[KC2UGV]

Acting as you do i say follow the video in which he gives the source and place where you can find it, i'm not doing the work for you.

I'm not doing the homework for you. You can cite it here.

[WØTKX]

Radiation saved my life. Just sayin'.

[WX7P]

Radiation saved my life. Just sayin'.

9561

[WØTKX]

Yea, yea, yea. But it wasn't a lobotomy.

[kb2vxa]

As if we don't have enough religious warfare to contend with, we have been indoctrinating our children to march lock step in Green since 1990 when Ted Apple Turnover shoved his DICk Entertainment up our collective bum hole. You don't need Greenwar and global warming deniers armed with e-mail admitting to fudged data, you don't need another religion green or brown, what we REALLY need is lobotomy. It's as easy as pithing a frog and gives the same results, think about it... while you still can think.

[N8YX]

As if we don't have enough religious warfare to contend with, we have been indoctrinating our children to march lock step in Green since 1990 when Ted Apple Turnover shoved his DICk Entertainment up our collective bum hole.

Conservation makes sense from fiscal and resource availability standpoints. When extremism enters the equation, however, the old saw

Follow the money

becomes quite pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Who were Uncle Ted's paymasters?

[N2NH]

As if we don't have enough religious warfare to contend with, we have been indoctrinating our children to march lock step in Green since 1990 when Ted Apple Turnover shoved his DICk Entertainment up our collective bum hole. You don't need Greenwar and global warming deniers armed with e-mail admitting to fudged data, you don't need another religion green or brown, what we REALLY need is lobotomy. It's as easy as pithing a frog and gives the same results, think about it... while you still can think.

Reminds me of a take-off on Capt. Planet...

Capt Green and the Eco Teens.


http://youtu.be/lQK3R47sN_M

[KC2UGV]

This is all about as interesting as watching my liver die.

No, really. If I turn off the lights and look in a mirror....

It's makes for an interesting distraction...

[n2ize]

As if we don't have enough religious warfare to contend with, we have been indoctrinating our children to march lock step in Green since 1990 when Ted Apple Turnover shoved his DICk Entertainment up our collective bum hole. You don't need Greenwar and global warming deniers armed with e-mail admitting to fudged data, you don't need another religion green or brown, what we REALLY need is lobotomy. It's as easy as pithing a frog and gives the same results, think about it... while you still can think.

All that green crap is a load of bullcrud.I remember it starting with that "earth day" crap. The earth has been around for millions of years and will be around for millions of years to come.

[NQ6U]

The earth has been around for millions of years and will be around for millions of years to come.

Billions of years, in fact. The same may not be said about our species, however.

[kb2vxa]

The never answered question, why not green?

[K7SGJ]

The never answered question, why not green?

How's this for green?


https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrnhPGwEY-Y7Z7mEDRQLZMuh0AGLI1svqraewYm-cvnUL91Bk0ew

[kb2vxa]

Save the trees, BAN KLOMPEN!

[PA5COR]

Clogs or klompen are renewable products ;)
See? we were already green 2000 years back lol
Here in the province Friesland in the Roman times they were already used.
In Holland, wooden shoes are worn by farmers, fishermen, factory workers, artisans and others to protect their feet. Nails, fishing hooks and sharp implements that might pierce a regular boot will not go through a wooden shoe. On boats and docks and in muddy fields, wooden shoes also keep feet dry.



Each June, The American Baseball Foundation of the Hague sponsors an American-style baseball game where both teams play in clogs.

[kb2vxa]

At least wooden shoes are better than a wooden heart. Gotta say one thing, Elvis' German is better than Lennon's French with a heavy Liverpool accent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b20pBIzDKUg