It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Environmental Devistation Coverup

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:05 PM
But can you confirm that the Waterford plant IS or WAS in fact flooded?

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:17 PM

Looks like Bush has big ties with Entergy Corp.

Read on here...

& *Correction -ELI stands for Entergy Louisiana, Inc. *

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:18 PM
Based on the airspace maps there is a site near the lake. I just got a bit sidetracked. I'm Trying to clean up this mess I made here as well.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:29 PM
Hmmm----this could be the most fascinating info to show up on here in a long time---really excellent information so far, thanks a lot for posting what you've found.

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:36 PM
If I recall, doesn't the Waterford plant sit by the lake? If that's the case....

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:00 PM
Waterford is on the south/west side of the Mississippi, opposite New Orleans.

This aerial photo of the site was taken on August 31 by NOAA.

The reactor containment is the big round building in the middle of the picture near the top.

No flooding is evident in this photo.

an old photo of the site:

[edit on 16-9-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:16 PM
There actually seems to be two different restricted airspace (aka nuclear) areas, at two different locations for the Waterford III plant.

That one in the photo above is located far off from the flooded/seriously damaged area near Lake Ponchartrain. The picture of the reactor above is the main location closer to Baton Rouge protected by acres and acres of land.

If you look at the airspace maps for the Waterford III plant there seem to be two different restricted airspace locations for Waterford III.

Site I - This is where the main reactor is located from the photo posted above. The main reactor (only reactor?) is located here which is a good distance from the majority of the flooded area near the superdome.

Site II - Interested in this restricted airspace for Waterford III plant near the populated city & majority of damage/flooding. Could this be where the spent fuel is located off-site?


From Entergy on Spent Fuel Storage

" The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that hazardous used fuel could be stored at plant sites for 100 years without adverse health or safety consequences.

While spent fuel is currently being stored safely on-site, Entergy Nuclear looks forward to the federal government's establishment of a permanent disposal site. .....


"..... they will be
placed into anti-contamination bags and loaded into shipping containers
for shipment offsite for decontamination and disposal...."

(this states off-site which I gather means away from Site I above)

*sorry now I'm really getting the hang of this. From this point forward I'll do my best to make this more easy to read and not as cluttered on this thread, using quotes and links instead of this big mess I've already made here*

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:52 PM

Here we go much better

There seems to be some kind of spent fuel storage here in St. Charles Parish


"Unit 3 (Waterford 3), located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.

The proposed action would change the Waterford 3 Technical
Specifications to allow an increase in the Waterford 3 Spent Fuel Pool
(SFP) storage capacity from 1088 to 2398 fuel assemblies..."


So far looking for this Entergy storage area I've found this location in Harahan (which is within St. Charles Parish) address as listed: Suite 300, 800 Commerce Road, Harahan. Based on addresses I can find for Entergy in the area questioned. I'm still looking for other locations that could possibly be the spent fuel storage building. From the way the above sounds, they consider this location "Unit 3" of Waterford III?




removed because the satellite will not lookup that address it takes you to the superdome. grrrrrr

I'm posting this data because I might be overlooking something that someone else notices and I don't.

*Ignore the flood estimates they seem to be off all over the place*

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:30 PM
ahhh forget it I'm going around in a circle now. It looks like specific areas are blocked in the mapping site I'm using.

This is getting me mad because I was sent to the Superdome via map for the address and those two locations are not in the same place.

Adding to my stress..grrr... they send the best of the best in there with GALOSHES :

Marines from Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment

I'm walking away from this for a bit before I lose my mind!

I still don't buy it.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:21 PM
Waterford 3 [Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3] St. Charles Parish

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:24 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
No flooding is evident in this photo.

From St. Charles Parish Forum

"good news for ormond. this is 3rd hand info but source is a man who works for entergy and is still working in n.o. so hopefully info is dependable. ormond has no known flooding, LOTS of downed trees, no running water, no electricity. Luling, willowdale subdiv., westbank st. charles parish in general got hit harder than destrehan and is flooded. how much? do not know. this is all i know at this time. " (Homeowner there)


"Furthermore, plant operators were informed up to several months in advance of the scheduled mock attack. Entergy's Waterford 3 nuclear plant in Louisiana failed 2 mock attacks (1999 and 2000). Entergy's River Bend plant failed a mock attack in June of 2000."

I see that main plant above but I'm getting their sites all over the place and in some places the main reactor site you have photographed above is listed as being in:

Taft, La.,
Killona. LA,
St. Charles Parish

So which one is it?

Due to all the restrictions they place on the aerial viewing I'm getting more fustrated.

The one you posted above I'd assume is the main and largest site, but the addresses, maps, and info from Entergy doesn't add up. Do they have more then one large nuclear reactor for Waterford III?

Also the last thing but seemingly most important thing I'm reading is that they kept their Spent Fuel pools outside!!! WT-heck????

"Large cooling pools inside reactor containment buildings were designed to store this fuel, but several years ago the pools began to fill up. Now, at many plants, the highly radioactive fuel is stored in cooling pools outside the containment building. ...

Yet at plants that are being decommissioned, the nuclear fuel is even less closely guarded.......

But the chorus of nuclear industry critics continues to grow. "The overall focus [at these sites] is not to protect the public but to get the NRC's blessing and ensure profits," says one nuclear security officer. Starting next week, the Waterford 3 plant, which had boosted security to pass the NRC's terrorist exercise, will begin to reduce its training programs and its guard force. "As soon as the NRC leaves," says one guard, "they downgrade security."

[edit on 16-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:31 PM

But is there any way to confirm through any sources you have that A) The Waterford plant is flooded or B) Any of the containment facilities housing spent fuel have been flooded? Of all the pictures we've seen of flooding in NOLA, IF the Waterford plant or containment facilities are or were flooded at all, seeing them would clarify the situation. We need some comfirmation of some kind. Anyone owe you any favors, XGovGirl?

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:40 PM
Keep looking, XGovGirl, keep looking.....

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 11:27 PM


this is an old photo of the site from the NRC web site.

Some other views:

Note the large, high voltage trasmission tower, the round containment building and the rectangular buildings surrounding the reactor. Note the Mississippi River in the background.

Now look at the following photos that were taken on August 31:

aerial photo1

aerial photo2

You can see the large tower and the reactor building. You can also see that the site is not flooded.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:19 AM
The above two aerial photos can be found on

this site.

these are the two photos

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:34 AM
Howard already been to those sites and posted those pictures earlier in the thread. The point is there are other sites, each reactor has 47 sites within itself. I see those pictures, I also see on that site it is boxed up so that you can't view other areas. I do not like that website you went to for the satellite images nor do I trust those pictures. For all you know they could have been taken prior to. As for those old pictures of the site, they were already posted.

That plant part of Waterford III keeps its spent fuel OUTSIDE alone, it was not in the majority of the flooding area. But if you look at the airspace maps
you will see that is a completely seperate area from the other restricted airspace (nuclear) area roped off for the Waterford III plant. The other area is near the Lake and New Orleans. That is the area I'm trying to match addresses to, however most of the survillence programs will not allow you to see those areas.

Aka I still don't buy it, and I'm not curious about that plant much anymore beyond how they could store their spent fuel outside. It was also just along the river and not at the lake. What I'm questioning now is the other sites and if they had another reactor to go along with that main reactor of Waterford III. Sheesh yourself whose side are you on, you've been bashing this info. since I started posting. Do you actually question anything or are you in the wrong thread? Sorry but that seems to be the case. The airspace maps for waterford 3 mark off two restricted airspace areas, that means areas that most likely deal in nuclear technology.

What I'm getting from everything I'm reading is that there is in fact another main spot they use for either storage or they have another reactor somewhere.

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:37 AM
I say the bureaucracy down there is on purpose. Just this morning I saw something on the news about an ice company that recently drove trucks down there only to be sent all the way to the Carolinas. People are getting turned away for a reason, and it isn't just road blockage. I don't care what they say about certain areas moving back in, I'm quiet positive there is a contamination issue somewhere it's just a matter of locating it.

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:43 AM
Go to this flood satellite map. The water levels are based on now so they are off, but look at the plant to the left. There are specific areas blocked off. I've used every satellite map from google right through the entire list. I don't buy it.

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Mirlin11

But is there any way to confirm through any sources you have that A) The Waterford plant is flooded or B) Any of the containment facilities housing spent fuel have been flooded? Of all the pictures we've seen of flooding in NOLA, IF the Waterford plant or containment facilities are or were flooded at all, seeing them would clarify the situation. We need some comfirmation of some kind. Anyone owe you any favors, XGovGirl?

I'm still working on it here, according to people on the St. Charles Parish homeowner forum FEMA & Entergy were in there and in charge of everything. Also if you remember from the beginning St. Charles Parish was never in any video coverage and it was said to have had a lot of damage. I'm looking into finding info. second hand now and still going through news articles. As for that main plant that is surrounded by acres of land where the reactor is, I'm more curious about what they have near new orleans that would be protected by airspace even though there is an airport there. Waterford III has a heliport at the airport, but I'm wondering if they had a spent fuel storage location within range of the airport there that may have been kept there for shipping it out. There are a few different things I'm looking at now. I'll post again when I have it all together, I'm all over the place now. If you guys want to just remove the thread that is no problem but I'm telling you there is protected Waterford 3 airspace near the NO area. It wouldn't be protected for just anything. You are not allowed to fly over a nuclear reactor, it's the same thing.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by XGovGirl]

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:51 AM
Something is up I just need to pinpoint it and I will. I'm never wrong
I hate to say that but I've called every single thing that has happened this whole year on another political forum. I always get bashed but months later everyone says OH WOW you were right. I just have a strange track of thinking but it hasn't failed me yet
Not cocky just always right haha kidding.

in an agreement between ExxonMobil Corp. and American Natural Energy Corp., Tulsa, Okla., covering 11,000 acres in Bayou Couba field in St. Charles Parish southwest of New Orleans.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in