Environmental Devistation Coverup

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
The truth will be unearthed, one way or another. This thread led to questions that will eventually lead to answers.




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   
People ,,,
They were shooting over people trying to leave ~~~
Now it was not black or white here it was anyone that wanted to get out of city. Now you think about that.
Buses wouldn't come nore would food or water ... It had nothing to do with black or white here. Just what was it all over really. And what if Chris was right anyone and everyone was domed from get go. And no one is saying anything ... Just a thought OK just think about it. Maybe Chris is on to something here ~~ Litocean~~



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by litocean
Chrissy,
I cut and pasted your emails to some one in Miami from 1978/ 1979/ that thinks she had worked with you in the FAA .And really wants to chat with you .Her first name was Barbara at Tammi Airport .And Barbara said there were only 4 women as air traffic .So i gave Barbara all your pages here and Barbara thinks she knows you. And think your right on the mark of what your posting .You the stuff and bag of chips ~~~ Please send me email at Litocean @aol.com .And if your the person Barbara knows she would like to say hello / So send email to that aol~~~ Thanks we are backing you here good luck ~~ And let me know on my aol account if your Chrissy who Barbara knows .Thanks Litocean~~~ Do not break Chrissy hold your ground ~~~


Since XGovGirl has been BANNED - a decision I hope the MODS will reconsider- I have emailed your msg to her.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Why was Chris banned ?
And thanks for sending my email .But do not get it banned here .Im new and yeppers have been here a while .Just read never post much.But why cant people say what they want .Is this not why this site is here to say what we think and see or hear .Peace ~~~



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
"and also the 6 day wait was a good form of population control. "

sorry, I had to stop reading right there. This type of thinking is rampant on these boards. 1,000 people died so far right ? Lets multiply that by 10 to acount for missing persons etc to 10,000


compared to ;
www.wrongdiagnosis.com...
44,000 to 98,000 deaths annually from medical errors (Institute of Medicine)
7,391 deaths resulted from medication errors (Institute of Medicine)



5 times as many americans are killed every year by their own doctors than were killed by the NWO sending katrina into nawlens



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Way to go keeping XGG in the loop guys. I've been in touch. She's still posting over at Myspace. Sooner or later the truth will be revealed.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
what happened to this thread, and why was this member banned? this info was interesting, and the thread content is hardly as ludicrous and empty of facts as many other threads that get positive approval on this board.

[edit on 24-9-2005 by Shoktek]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Are you people serious?

Now I'll freely admit I underestimated just how unstable she was, but it was clear from the very beginning, that XGG was a little off the deep end.

Now what was worse, the fact that I pointed out a few glaringly obvious problems with her theories or the fact that many of you are just encouraging and enabling her?

Anyone that hypersensitive on an internet forum is clearly needs help.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
In case anyone wants to pick up the slack, here is the score so far.

Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.

Waterford 3 was not flooded.

Waterford 3 is on the other side of the Mississippi river from NOLA.

Entergy, which operates Waterford 3 also operates a number of fossil fuel generating plants in and around the NOLA metropolitan area.

Many of these fossil fuel plants were damaged by Katrina and the flooding. While I am sure that there are some environmental problems related to these fossil fuel plants being flooded, I am just as sure that none of those problems include radioactive contamination.

The NORCO facility is across the river from Waterford 3. It has nothing to do with the operation of the nuclear power plant. It is a refinery.

The example of underground storage tank removal projects she lists on page 1 in support of her theories have nothing to do with nuclear waste. Every corner gas station in this country has gone through a UST removal/ remeidiation project. Every school older than 30 years old has gone through an asbestos abatement project.


There is no evidence of nuclear contamination in NOLA.

Three Mile Island has nothing to do with Katrina.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you people serious?

Now I'll freely admit I underestimated just how unstable she was, but it was clear from the very beginning, that XGG was a little off the deep end.

Now what was worse, the fact that I pointed out a few glaringly obvious problems with her theories or the fact that many of you are just encouraging and enabling her?

Anyone that hypersensitive on an internet forum is clearly needs help.


If you think that THIS is one of the more "off the deep end" threads on the board, then you must not spend any time at all actually looking at posts here...I do see a banning is warranted from the outburst, but I'm mainly just trying to say that the board standards here seem a little bit skewed...either let all the crazyish type people/theories post here, or define topics that are allowable more clearly. But people should have every right to post their ideas on here without being ridiculed, if they are passionate about it and have a legitimate topic. Anyway this is probably one reason I hardly post here anymore



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Who ridiculed her?

All that happened was that she was asked to back up her claims.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Howard:

How big of you to *bash* someone no longer able to defend themselves... That must make you feel good.

Even a cursory review of the first of your positions ("Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.") produces the following:




Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized

A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.

The report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools and ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The Bush administration has long defended the safety of the pools, and the nuclear industry has warned that moving large amounts of fuel to dry storage would be unnecessary and very expensive.

The report was requested by Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as homeland security officials sought to understand the potential consequences of a Sept. 11-scale attack on a nuclear facility.

Because the report is classified, its contents were not made public when it was delivered to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last summer. Even a stripped-down, declassified version has remained under wraps since November because the commission says it contains sensitive information.

However, the commission made excerpts of the report public when Chairman Nils Diaz sent a letter to Congress on March 14 rebutting some of the academy's concerns. His letter also suggested that the academy had largely backed the government's views about the safety of existing fuel storage systems.

E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the academy, said the letter was misleading and warned that the public needs to learn about the report's findings.

"There are substantive disagreements between our committee's views and the NRC," he said in an interview. "If someone only reads the NRC report, they would not get a full picture of what we had to say."

Although the commission said it is keeping the report under wraps for security reasons, some officials who have seen the document suggest that the NRC is merely suppressing embarrassing criticism.

more...



and...




www.nmcco.com...

...The lack of a repository has placed nuclear power plants in the position of storing more used fuel than expected for longer than originally intended. The result is that many nuclear plants-which each produce an average of about 20 metric tons of used fuel annually-are running out of storage capacity. By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools, and by the end of 2010, 78 will have exhausted their storage capacity...




Read that again, Howard....By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools...


Hmmmm? How many months are left? 15? Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006?

BTW, how old is Waterford 3??? 20 years or so??

Why would we need any of these companies... Private Fuel Storage, LLC ???

I bet these guys will be a very expensive option. Could it be some have already pursued less expensive options? That is, if there ARE other options. Could it be that some have been forced to pursue other options?

Proof...no.
Enough to question...yes....And certainly enough not to sheepishly accept your self-important dispositive declarations.

From the same source above:




During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.



Gee, Howard, if everyone is storing onsite as you suggest, why the shipments above? Just taking them for a friendly country drive...a breath of fresh air??


Oh, and one more thing.

XGovGirl's mention of Three Mile Island was in response to your assertion that:


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Because what she is suggesting is a MASSIVE conspiracy to break federal, state and local laws, as well as to put hundreds, if not thousands of lives at risk.


What were the quotes from the sources she posted?



"College Park, Md.: I was in Harrisburg during the meltdown. The local news media told us nothing. What information we could get on the serious nature of the accident came from the national television news in the evening. It has been a continuous stream of lies and evasion, from the beginning to the present. "

"... But they NEVER TOLD US THAT IN 1979!! The reality of just HOW bad it was has really only recently come to light. The utility company lied through its teeth all through the crisis, when the lives of people living in the area were at stake! How do we know that they won't do that again, if there is another crisis? "


Yeah, credibility can never be questioned. Like lying has never happened before.


EDIT: Just to be clear here. I am not saying I support her theory (at least not yet), just her right to advance it and have it questioned with a little more respect, grace and courtesy than was shown here.


[edit on 24-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Even a cursory review of the first of your positions ("Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.") produces the following:




Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized

A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.
(edited a long C&P)




Read that again, Howard....By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools...



Hmmmm? How many months are left? 15? Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006?


So what part of that states that these facilities have been shipping used fuel rods off site?



Originally posted by loam

Why would we need any of these companies... Private Fuel Storage, LLC ???



They have not received their license yet, and therefore have not recieved any fuel rods yet.



Originally posted by loam
From the same source above:




During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.



Gee, Howard, if everyone is storing onsite as you suggest, why the shipments above? Just taking them for a friendly country drive...a breath of fresh air??




Yes, occasionally some fuel from comeercial power plants WAS shipped off site. This was generally a small piece of a larger fuel rod that was sent to a facility like Argonne National Labs for research programs. (they have a number of ongoing research programs into fuel rod and reactor safety as well as nonproliferation research). In addition, prior to 1979, most power plants shipped used fuel rods off site for reprocessing. However, that is no longer done.


All of the country's nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. Today, this used fuel is stored at the plant sites, either in used fuel pools or dry storage.

www.nmcco.com...

The majority of used fuel rod shipments today involve Navy reactor fuel and have nothing do do with commercial power plants like Waterford 3.


Yes the permanent storage of used fuel rods is a major issue.

Where do you suggest we put it, Yucca Mountain?

That has no bearing on the contention that fuel from Waterford 3 was stored off site.



[edit on 24-9-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   
OK, lets get to the heart of the matter.

Is it possible that used fuel rods from Waterford 3 were shipped off site?

Is it possible that these fuel rods were shipped locally to sites in and around NOLA such as the Norco refinery or the NASA facility at Michoud?

How would this have been done without licensing these storage facilities?

Is there anyone on this board that thinks that these are valid questions?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Even a cursory review of the first of your positions ("Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.") produces the following:




Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized

A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.
(edited a long C&P)




Read that again, Howard....By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools...



Hmmmm? How many months are left? 15? Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006?



Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what part of that states that these facilities have been shipping used fuel rods off site?


READ AGAIN, Howard: Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006? If not, what do you think they might be doing with those fuel rods? Moreover, it is not an unreasonable assumption that some plants *MAY* already have run out of space. If that were true, what do you think would have happened? What choices would they have had?



Originally posted by loam

Why would we need any of these companies... Private Fuel Storage, LLC ???




Originally posted by HowardRoark
They have not received their license yet, and therefore have not recieved any fuel rods yet.


Herein lies the heart of the matter....YOU don't read very well.... "WOULD," and later my use of "WILL," *are* future tenses...




Originally posted by loam
From the same source above:




During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.



Gee, Howard, if everyone is storing onsite as you suggest, why the shipments above? Just taking them for a friendly country drive...a breath of fresh air??




Originally posted by HowardRoark

Yes, occasionally some fuel from comeercial power plants WAS shipped off site. This was generally a small piece of a larger fuel rod that was sent to a facility like Argonne National Labs for research programs. (they have a number of ongoing research programs into fuel rod and reactor safety as well as nonproliferation research). In addition, prior to 1979, most power plants shipped used fuel rods off site for reprocessing. However, that is no longer done.


Occasionally??? Let's do the math... 30 years and 3000 shipments...results in 100 transportation events of spent fuel cells a year!

THAT IS 8.3 TRANSPORTATION EVENTS OF SPENT FUEL CELLS A MONTH.

Does this meet the definition of "Occasionally"? You have a very strange sense of scale....


And BTW, Howard, where is YOUR proof that all 3000 shipments were "a small piece of a larger fuel rod that was sent to a facility like Argonne National Labs for research programs" and "for reprocessing"?

I want proof for each one of the 3000 shipments...



Originally posted by HowardRoark
The majority of used fuel rod shipments today involve Navy reactor fuel and have nothing do do with commercial power plants like Waterford 3.


There is NO evidence in your source that indicates it accounts for the "majority" of shipments I refer to above. (Oh, and for the one year that statistics are provided for in the pie chart, US Navy reactors only accounted for 6.95% of the shipments to that single IDAHO facility...which, BTW, in and of itself proves off-site storage occurs.)

Can we say DISINFORMATION??? Isn't that against the rules on this board?


[edit on 24-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Oh, and Howard:




Radioactive Leakage At Indian Point 2

Sep 20, 2005 3:57 pm US/Eastern

A small amount of slightly radioactive water has leaked from the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, officials said Tuesday.

Spokesmen for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owner of the Westchester County plant, said the water was found several feet underground and was no danger to the public or to plant workers.

Less than a pint a day has been collected since the water was spotted in late August and soil samples show no radioactivity a few feet away, the officials said.

``We see nothing at this point that indicates any widespread contamination,'' commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said.

He said there was ``nothing to the extent that anyone exposed to it would suffer any severe health effects.'' Nevertheless, the NRC launched a special inspection, he said.

Indian Point's critics said the leak was another indication that the plant should be closed, and Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano said he should have been informed long before Tuesday.

``It's absolutely unbelievable that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy would keep us in the dark,'' he said. ``This leak could be small; it could have reached the Hudson (River); it could have been going on for years.''

more...








New York state chides NRC for late notification of Indian Point leak

September 21, 2005, 5:26 PM EDT


WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) _ New York state is demanding "a full and open investigation" into the discovery of radioactive water outside the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant.

James Tuffey, director of the state Emergency Management Office, complained in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about not being notified of the leak until Tuesday, "well after it was initially discovered."

"At a time when the public is expecting the highest level of coordination between and among all levels of government and their agencies, this failure to share and coordinate this information is unacceptable," he said.


...

Other officials, including county executives Andrew Spano of Westchester and C. Scott Vanderhoef of Rockland and Rep. Nita Lowey, also have complained about the lack of notification.

Tuffey asked the NRC to send him copies of all its reports on the leak and said that after consulting with Gov. George Pataki's office, "I am calling for a full and open investigation."

more...






[edit on 24-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by litocean
Why was Chris banned ?


she violated the ATS Terms of Service in several of her final posts. Those are the posts that have been removed and or edited that you can no longer see.



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Thank you Guys for restoring the info!!! I have downloaded and made copies of all for future needs and ref.......


Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you people serious?

Now I'll freely admit I underestimated just how unstable she was, but it was clear from the very beginning, that XGG was a little off the deep end.

Now what was worse, the fact that I pointed out a few glaringly obvious problems with her theories or the fact that many of you are just encouraging and enabling her?

Anyone that hypersensitive on an internet forum is clearly needs help.


Personally if I were to uncover or even just suspect something was as terribly wrong as this could turn out to be, I too would be a bit 'unstable' and near 'the deep end'.

BTW, Howard, I'm sure you'll not mind me asking for proof of your expertise in the mental health field......and some of the back up material you much have consulted to arrive at your diagnosis.......hummmm?



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
This data seems a little more accurate


Although the vast majority of U.S. spent fuel has never been moved from the reactors that generated it, numerous shipments have taken place. Utilities have transported spent fuel among reactor sites for storage, and some has been shipped to commercial reprocessing and storage facilities. During the 1980s, spent fuel debris from the ruined Three Mile Island 2 reactor was shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. DOE also has transported significant amounts of spent fuel from naval and research reactors. No known radiological harm to the public has resulted from those shipments, according to NRC:

The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material. (See Endnote 33.)

NRC statistics show that 1,335 metric tons of spent fuel was commercially transported in the United States from 1979 through 1995, in 1,306 separate shipments. A total of 356 metric tons were transported in 1,168 highway shipments, while 979 metric tons were carried in 138 rail shipments. The highest amount commercially transported in one year was 193.4 metric tons in 1985. During that period, the distance traveled by all commercial nuclear waste shipments totaled 839,000 miles.


www.ncseonline.org...



posted on Sep, 24 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
This data seems a little more accurate


Although the vast majority of U.S. spent fuel has never been moved from the reactors that generated it, numerous shipments have taken place. Utilities have transported spent fuel among reactor sites for storage, and some has been shipped to commercial reprocessing and storage facilities. During the 1980s, spent fuel debris from the ruined Three Mile Island 2 reactor was shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. DOE also has transported significant amounts of spent fuel from naval and research reactors. No known radiological harm to the public has resulted from those shipments, according to NRC:

The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material. (See Endnote 33.)

NRC statistics show that 1,335 metric tons of spent fuel was commercially transported in the United States from 1979 through 1995, in 1,306 separate shipments. A total of 356 metric tons were transported in 1,168 highway shipments, while 979 metric tons were carried in 138 rail shipments. The highest amount commercially transported in one year was 193.4 metric tons in 1985. During that period, the distance traveled by all commercial nuclear waste shipments totaled 839,000 miles.


www.ncseonline.org...



Ok, Howard, this article doesn't help you any...

First, the operative words are "No known radiological harm to the public has resulted from those shipments, according to NRC"

Secondly, "none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material," is an odd construction of the sentence.... Don't you think? READ THAT CAREFULLY.

And, finally, "some has been shipped to ... storage facilities," directly contradicts your previous assertion that none have done so.

I think it is safe to assume that readers of this thread will find your refutations less than adequate.



[edit on 24-9-2005 by loam]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join