Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Environmental Devistation Coverup

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:47 PM
link   
I am going to copy this from loam's site on pumping water out of No

Where I've been. My ex is an Environmental Engineer who has specialized in hazardous waste clean up.
First job after he got the Masters was with HOOKER chemicals. AKA the "Love Canal" company. Then Alaska, in order to comply with the newly formed EPA regulations, developed a hazardous waste position and I spent 14 years total, 3 in Juneau, 11 in Anchorage. He worked for the state, the city of Anchorage, a private engineering company and finally started his own company, working for the North Slope Oil companies, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and private companies. Due to the doctoral level courses he took and licensing, he could act as the site safety officer as well as doing sampling and testing.
And he had the responsibility to shut down a site cleanup if it became apparent that the contamination was toxic not hazardous. The one time he had to do this, it took at least 3 weeks of badgering the prime contractor, the state DEC and finally calling EPA officials from Seattle, who closed it and put it on the Super fund list.

So, after all this questioning, I decided to call and have a chat with him. (We are on good speaking terms).

On the nuclear aspect. Even the stored spent fuel is so highly contained in layers of protection that it would be really unlikely a significant break could occur. The still possible and most likely source would be the huge dump that has been on the Superfund list for years. Given the Government's record on radioactive waste associated with military uses (Rocky Flats, the upstate New York workers...) I would almost be surprised if there isn't any there.

If a small enough level did somehow get released, Alan actually saw it as potentially beneficial to kill some of the bacteria! Apparently this would be less likely to cause mutations than chemical treatment.
Because it would be buried, spread out and hopefully even contained somewhat, the risk would be highest to the people doing the cleanup.

I wouldn't let up on trying to get info about this potential. Thanks for all the work, I think getting information like this is one of the really powerful aspects of the 'Net. Even if a problem turns out different than it first appears, being able to get to some of this info helps us common citizens have the power of knowledge to know what battles to fight. Where do we put our time and energy. Watchdogging the EPA, oil and chemical companies, local governments etc. is what government for the people.... is all about.

And it really helps to show some of these connections to the energy companies, the regulatory agencies and Bush so that we elect better candidates to begin with - and watchdog them.




posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirlin11
I see your point Ginny. This whole thread could easily explain Val's Falls Creek experience.


And the EPA's languid testing.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   
[edit on 19-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ginny in CO
On the nuclear aspect. Even the stored spent fuel is so highly contained in layers of protection that it would be really unlikely a significant break could occur.


Hey Ginny, about this. Would you mind asking him what his thoughts on flooding are. Although I've read about the spent fuel having layers of protection, including the tons of metal and such, due to the info. from the International Atomic Energy Agency they just recently noted in August that flood was a high risk factor to this. I looked at the setup around the Spent Fuel and it seems to be protection from wind damage but not water flooding damage. Any thoughts he has on this would be great and could clear up the reason why the IAEA came out with their warning to the Nuclear community just prior to Hurricane Katrina. Info that seemed to be too late. Do the layers of protection account for flood damage beyond just wind damage (water rushing in and then out again), your help on this would be great! Thanks



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

or at best, may be hoping to fortuitously discover illegal activities of yours (like doing drugs) that will enable them to deal with you in other ways.


they are probably getting very fustrated that i live such a boring, drug free life over here unfortunately (chuckle) I've also got backed up DOD (Department of Defense) forms not only of what happened but also the covering up of such afterwards. I was even denied the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) to get my OWN written statement, which was clever of them but as we learn in the military, the papertrail is most important, always make copies when you do anything



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by XGovGirl
You're not interested in the info. in this thread anyway so why do you continue to try to shead negativity on the idea and discredit it?Clearly from a few pages back you do not want to even think about this being a possibility.


I am willing to consider any possibility, as long as it is based on accurate and reliable information. Unfortunately, your posts have been anything but. I'm sorry if it seems like I am picking on you, but you tend to throw out a lot of information and all I am doing is trying to determine what is what is data and what is conjecture on your part.




Please provide more definite proof that spent fuel rods from Waterford were stored at Michoud.


You're kidding right? Michoud being an old army military facility, the place that barge recovery workers from NASA use, a bomb weapon factory, that question isn't even a question.


No I'm not kidding. here is another case where you seem to be jumping to conclusions without providing any supporting data.

For instance, according to the Michoud web site:

In 1940, with the outbreak of World War II, the U.S. government purchased a 1,000 acre tract as the site of war-related construction. Within three years, the world's largest building at that time -- 43 acres under one roof -- was completed, and plywood cargo planes and landing craft rolled off the production line to aid the war effort.

During the Korean conflict the facility was again activated for the production of 12-cylinder air-cooled engines for Sherman and Patton tanks.

In 1961, with the space race with the Russians heating up, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) took over the facility for design and assembly of large space vehicles. The first space project at the Michoud facility was the design and development of the first stage of the powerful Saturn booster, destined to place man on the moon. Construction of the Saturn S1B and S1C boosters continued at the Michoud facility until the early 1970s, when the Apollo program wound down and work began on the Space Shuttle, the next generation launch vehicle.

www.lockheedmartin.com...

Where do you get your information that the site was once a "bomb weapon factory?"



I have a bunch of docs on this but really who even needs those,

you do, figure out a way to get them on line and let's see them.



why else would Waterford III rent space there is the question you should ask yourself


Again, what info do you have to support that contention? The post where you listed the toxmap hits?

You do realize that Entergy has three fossil fuel generators in that area.

www.entergy.com...



There is plenty of info. online about Michoud, their history of ground soil contamination, this plant has been used since the 40's-50's for weapons production and you don't believe there is any prior-existing nuclear waste contamination that could have leaked into the waterways. It was flooded, so that is already a given.


Yes they made rockets there, they built the saturn boosters. That doesn't meant that they made nuclear weapons there also. Do you have some hard data that can support your contention that their is nuclear waste at Michoud? It's not that I don't beleive you, but I can't find much on the 'net. If you can point out where I can see this, I would appreciate it.




As for the spent fuel pools there, it is just a matter of finding out what buildings were damaged. Will this ever be available for the public? Highly doubt that, but this will all come to light down the road once they can't hide it from the public anymore, and once this happens you better be your pants that they are going to play dumb.


Once again, what actual data do you have that supports your contention that spent fuel from Waterford 3, was stored at Michoud? What connection does Entergy have with NASA and Lockheed Martin?


Curious why you would question Michoud?


Because you brought it up and were making a big issue out of it.



"the Norco facility has been authorized to handle small quantities of radioactive material for calibration purposes since at least the mid-1970s. Officials have emphasized throughout the history of the company that they never handled anything beyond such small quantities,

Testing equipment? You've got to be kidding.
You are talking about small cesium sources inside x-ray flourescent analysers and such.


The company has been allowed as much as 660 pounds of depleted uranium, which is the spent fuel from nuclear power generation and is considered minimally radioactive.


Depleted uranium is minimally radioactive. and it IS NOT spent fuel from nuclear power generation. Spent fuel rods are radioactive and will remain so for a long time. Depleted uranium is produced when the enriched material is separated from the ore and has never seen the inside of a nuclear power reactor.





Because it would have been illegal and impossible to move the fuel without someone figuring out that it was illegal.


Wrong again, it is not illegal. Just years back the Nuclear Reg. Commission started giving Premission to plants to allow for off site assemblies and storage. I'm a bit too lazy at the moment to quote this
but I believe it was back in the thread here. It isn't illegal, as long as
there are premissions made to the storage companies, such as the Norco
company above and a few other places Waterford was using.



Yes, it is illeagal to move and store spent fuel rods in anything other than fully approve vehicles and facilities. The approval process includes the notification of local government and first responders as well as many other people within the local, state and federal government as well as private contractors and workers. Now I realize that the Katrina disaster exposed some of the failings of the government, but it is asking a lot to put forth the proposition of a massive coverup involving all of these people.




"We've been storing our excess Spent fuel rods because we are one of the biggest producers, the Nuclear Reg. Commission backed us and allowed for us to increase our capacity a while ago, and because of this we've been storing excess spent fuel all over highly populated areas of New Orleans.

Not only that we here at Entergy Corp. just extinguished a fire that was burning from the moment Hurricane Katrina hit until September 1st. That fire was located at a place we like to hide some of our excess spent fuel rods...... oh yeah and by the way that large explosion downtown you heard was also our responsibility too. But don't worry folks...... there is NO DAMAGE, have a nice day"


So basically it is your contention that Entergy has been hiding spent fuel rods in third party sites all over New Orleans and no one knows about it.

I'm sorry, I just don't find that very plausible. You have to provide some more hard data, links or such to support your theories.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
This entry from a previous post may help:

"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."

This scenario had to do with outside, unprotected nuclear fuel that terrorists could get to if the companies don't maintain security.

The problem is not that the containers can't be in water - that is basically essential to cooling it - it is the risk of flooding by high (20 -30 + ft) waves to either outside storage or even inside if the structure has been damaged by hurricane force winds.
As big and heavy as they are, if the containers are moved by enough water and covered with silt, etc. finding them could be a problem.

As far as the containers themselves - they are designed for temporary storage, transportation and permanent storage. Yucca Mountain has the least risk of flooding, earthquakes, high winds, etc.

Lets clear this up a little:

quote:" Because it would have been ***illegal and impossible*** to move the fuel without someone figuring out that it was illegal." Lone Gunman

XGG :"... it is not illegal. Just years back the Nuclear Reg. Commission started giving Premission to plants to allow for off site assemblies and storage. It isn't illegal, as long as there are premissions made to the storage companies."

LG :"Yes, it is illeagal to move and store spent fuel rods ***in anything other than fully approve vehicles and facilities***. The approval process includes the notification of local government and first responders as well as many other people within the local, state and federal government as well as private contractors and workers. "

That qualifying statement in the second comment by LG was quite a reversal of the first. The transport has to be fully approved : vehicles, route, time, where from, where to, local authorities along the route, etc. and it is legal. The time is always at off peak hours.

That said, and going back to the above, it may be possible to trace this storage change except I would consider it 'mas nicht'. The initial delays and refusing access to responders may have been due to Entergy and the Gov trying to be sure the containers had not been moved - and it was unlikely. If anything they should have been better prepared to check them out immediately - by chopper so there would be no hold up.

Michoud does concern me. If you do have documentation/knowledge of the bomb construction, it is important. I remember you commenting about having found something that you connected to the DU info you have been researching, but no link or info. Having seen too much of how the Military operates on some of this stuff, this is my problem: despite the everything in triplicate reputation, records are lost. Whether naturally or intentionally. Military personnel are moved very frequently. If something was done in the 40's or 50's and the information sealed and stored, there could be a lack of awareness and ability to locate the records.

The Love Canal fell into something of this nature - and they had a much better chance of having an "institutional history". Let enough years go by and everyone was gone who knew that the transfer of the land that was the Love Canal, explicitly stated that the clay barrier should not be broken. The City had paved over the small piece they needed for a school parking lot, no problem. Along comes a developer with a HUD plan and gets the land for housing. No one checks that first transfer to the city or stops to connect the dots that this was a known dump and maybe they should check it out for safety. The stupid thing was that for all the things Hooker probably HAD done to pollute, they got the blame for something they actually did right. The clay the stuff was deposited in would have met EPA standards - as long as it wasn't disturbed. Why did they sell the land, for $10? Well, the City needed just an edge of it, for parking. It had no other value.

In the 40's to 60's era, putting anything in the big landfill would have been acceptable. Which makes the landfill a potential concern. Did anyone check when it was put on the Superfund site whether there was evidence of nuclear activity? Would they have even known that it might be there? And it may be that the DU, before it goes through the incredible heat of an explosion, is not as dangerous as after. My understanding is the scientists at the Manhattan Project reported the extreme sensitivity of human DNA to DU. The heating effect just promotes it's spreadability and increases it's resistance to containment. It doesn't require very large amounts, if you get close enough or ingest it.

Leakage from either site might not create large enough amounts to do general harm. Clean up is another issue.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   
Waterford III has a "Waterford Michoud" Plant remember? You fail to believe they keep any of their excess spent fuel there when they have independent companies handle it as well? You don't see those companies listed on a map of nuclear (plant) threats across this nation do you? Why not? Because it might just be stored in your backyard by an independent storage company, but don't worry it's safe and secure! That is just silly!

"9. Michoud Petroleum, Gas Entergy New Orleans Inc 838 "
www.eia.doe.gov...


About prior contamination and current contamination:

NASA building in itself no threat? Can you say nuclear propulsion?? or did that also just fall into your bag of what is "not important" considering contamination along with factories prior used for producing depleted uranium weapons (ARMY)? Give me a break!

You don't honestly believe that NASA and Space Exploration has nothing to do with using nuclear science do you?

Just because the Michoud factory is now being used by NASA in some parts for Space ventures doesn't mean that is the only thing taking place there. When NASA says don't worry it's not a weapons factory, that does not mean that other parts of it aren't subleased out to such assembly, nor does it mean this location doesn't have a lot of prior history as such. Waterford III plant ia a civilian corporation leasing part of Michoud, remember?

Most likely they are STILL producing weapons there not to mention space technology exploration that is taking place in the NASA Michoud section. Just because NASA says they aren't producing weapons, doesn't mean it hasn't been contracted out as an assembly plant prior to, or now contracted out to such in parts that NASA is not using. It also doesn't mean it doesn't have a huge and long history of being an old weapons/miliary factory. Do you really believe military and govt. buildings such as this aren't used for such means?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact- the grounds there are prior contaminated

From Dec. 1997 discussing contaminated facilities.

The current GAO study provides detailed descriptions of contamination and cleanup at three facilities: the John F. Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida; the Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana; and the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, northwest of Los Angeles, California.

("ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP COSTS: NASA Is Making Progress in Identifying Contamination, but More Effort Is Needed," GAO/NSIAD-97-98, June, 1997. Free individual copies of GAO reports maybe requested by calling 202/512-6000.)

216.109.125.130.../pubs/crme/crme-IV-7.html&w=michoud+depleted+ur anium+weapons&d=X_I7xsp5LbAZ&icp=1&.intl=us

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From NucNews:

nucnews.net...

The panel was charged with examining three sectors within the company's space and strategic missiles sector: Astronautics in Denver; Missiles and Space in Sunnyvale, Calif.; and Michoud Space Systems in New Orleans.

www2.usenetarchive.org...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
About damages to facility after Katrina

NASA Moving La. Workers To KSC (Source: WESH)
NASA leaders are relocating workers from its hurricane-ravaged Michoud facility to KSC in hopes of keeping the best schedule for the next Shuttle flight. .........


Update on Michoud Facility Damage (Source: NASA Watch)
"MAF (Michoud Assembly Facility), the very place where we needed the most intensive work activity for Return To Flight Part 2, was almost directly in Katrina's path and was hit pretty hard. Lots of damage to facility. Rough estimate is that 60% of workers there lost their homes. Also estimate 4-6 weeks to restore power and water to facility. Since the ET is so key right now, KSC has been asked to ascertain what, if any, ET PAL ramp rework could possibly be done here."

Katrina Costs NASA at Least $1.1 Billion
Post Date: 2005-09-09 09:54:56 by JohnA
4 Comments
USA: September 9, 2005 CAPE CANAVERAL.......along the US Gulf of Mexico. The storm was likely to set back NASA's plans for another shuttle launch next year. The hurricane hit the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, which assembles shuttle fuel tanks, and..........

Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, where the shuttle's fuel tanks are built, and the ...................

-------------------------------------------------------


Michoud has fifty years of history under government operation




Fifty years of history and 31,999,99 horsepower mark the difference in these two pictures taken at the front of Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) in New Orleans, Louisiana. The top image shows a 1915 horse and buggy passing in the front of the old Michoud Plantation. The bottom image is a 32 million horsepower Saturn I booster passing over the same road. The brick chimneys, the remnants of the Antoine Michoud Plantation built in the mid-1800s, still remain as in 1915. Michoud Assembly Facility built the stages of Saturn I, Saturn IB and Saturn V vehicles under the management of Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). Top photo 1915 - lower photo 1964.


66.218.69.11.../ne ws/oped-01h.html&w=%22michoud+plantation%22+nuclear&d=fSwqzWFULcc6&icp=1&.intl=us


Michoud has destroyed property according to the Vice Pres and their claim of a billion in damages

www.mafstatus.com...

but then as usual ...."don't worry things aren't so bad after all"



I can post a book of history to disprove you but really I don't like the way you sound nor do I agree with you a bit. I wont waste my time trying to prove what I'm sure you already know too far well.

You are clearly on the "nuclear energy" side of the fence. Do you work for Entergy Corp. by chance because you're starting to sound quite a bit like a public relations employee. Please go donate some of your hard earned money for future technologies that can effect our health, you're starting to sound like a "no damage" person to me. Depleted Uranium, spent fuel, weapons facilities, all very safe indeed, no contamination!





You can see photos of Michoud here they are offering to the public, under image 5 you see it was flooded now that the water has gone. It doesn't look HORRIBLE, but there are in fact damages. Flooding being the main concern and who knows how much water was there prior to these photos.
Also question what photos you don't see. 1 Billion in damages is a big claim for "no damage" again. It is just the simple fact that the grounds there were indeed flooded. Anything that is a safety or health concern to the public will never be told by any govt. agency until it is already too late and people are sick. FACT- check your history on that one.

Check the ground, zoom in for full resolution, you can see the water lines on the pavement as well. Also notice the body of water in the distance. Ground soil contamination runs off in all directions in itself, and from the fact above, it already has a history of soil contamination alone. As for how much water flooded in, and if any spent fuel pools were located there from waterford, if not NASA, that is just another question there will be no hard facts on or news articles pointing the problem out to the public.

As for testing grounds and such, that contamination testing will be done by govt. alone.

We need independent testing done all over New Orleans and near the Waterford III plant. I will not be satisified with any govt. testing anymore,
I believe the public is being lied to and the dangers were very clear to top
officials before stepping in. If you don't think they are briefed on this stuff prior to, why bother having leaders at all.

www.nasa.gov...




[edit on 19-9-2005 by XGovGirl]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:31 AM
link   
This along is a aerial photo of Michoud Air Products, if you think this place isn't leased out you are wrong.

Michoud Air Products
New Orleans, LA
Pre- and Post-Hurricane Katrina



Visible in the imagery is the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina

The images below were taken by the SpaceImaging Ikonos satellite. The before-image was taken on 18 July 2003. The after-image was taken on 2 September 2005.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:38 AM
link   
About the "nuclear weapons" comment as well .....I never said they made nuclear weapons there but the fact is we put depleted uranium in our weapons that we use everyday in Iraq. Not to mention we've used them in Gulf 1 as well as Serbia. Over 12 good years of production no less probably 40 years of experimentation.

Your idea of nuclear being atomic bomb and what is hazardous to health is outdated.

We use depleted uranium in our weapons, that is fact. And a modern way to have a "nuked" impact idea on those who breathe in the dust particles after explosion.

How that relates is using such materials, in such a facility to build these weapons produces contamination. No matter how much you wish to think that the military cleans up after themselves, they don't. They are careful, but prior to now we did not have the same environmental and health considerations nor standards, thus that ground soil was already contaminated just from whatever prior use that ground has had in its history. I'd like to see if NASA ever cleaned it up when they knew about it or if that was just another thing pushed to the side.

I'm starting to sound like an environmentalist now.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   
And I know the difference between depleted uranium and spent fuel very well but thanks for trying to clear that up for me.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I also have to note that we're talking about numerous different things at once so there is no confusion as to which issue deals with what:

ground contamination
water contamination
air contamination


depleted uranium falls into the cat. of weapons being produced at a factory, thus grounds contamination

spent fuel falls would fall into the cat. of water contamination if flooded- do you know more then the International Atomic Energy Agency about such problems that could occur if a nuclear reactor is flooded, no less spent fuel pools were effected. I believe the IAEA stated that a reactor should NOT be turned on after being flooded. I believe France also said the same thing in 1999.

Spent fuel also being highly radioactive so I hope the above post about it's protection is correct and it was in fact covered from any possibility of flooding, not just protected from wind damage with its incasing.

air contamination having to do with anything having gone up in flames such as anything at the Waterford facility, & /or contracted companies they have stored their "low level" nuclear radioactive waste with.

There are different topics at hand so don't try to discredit knowledge, I don't claim to be an expert but don't make me a fool.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
First of all. please put long links into {url=LINK}name{/url} blocks as they frequently get broken up and don't work or they nlow the margins otherwise.


Now, Where in my posts did I ever say thatthere was no contamination at Michoud?

I'm sure that with it's long history of heavy industrial usage, there are plenty of issues.

Yes it is possible that they worked with depleted uranium, or used other radioactive materials in their history. So what?

Do you have specific proof that their were materials just laying around on the ground just waititng to be swept away by the flood?

No.


From one of your links


Table 2. Ten Largest Plants by Generating Capability, 1999
State Plant Primary
Energy Sources Operating Company Net
Summer
Capability (MW)
Louisiana
1. Willow Glen Petroleum, Gas Entergy Gulf States Inc 1,875
2. Ninemile Point Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,736
3. Big Cajun 2 Petroleum, Coal Cajun Electric Power Coop Inc 1,730
4. Little Gypsy Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,193
5. Waterford 3 Nuclear Entergy Louisiana Inc 1,075
6. Rodemacher Gas, Coal CLECO Corporation 963
7. Riverbend Nuclear Entergy Gulf States Inc 936
8. R S Nelson Petroleum, Gas, Coal Entergy Gulf States Inc 843
9. Michoud Petroleum, Gas Entergy New Orleans Inc 838
10. Waterford 1 & 2 Petroleum, Gas Entergy Louisiana Inc 822



So Entergy has a bunch of oil and gas fired power plants. That doesn't prove anything.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
ooohh boy I was about to post something but there were some mistakes in some things i posted prior. i'm onto something better and will correct those mistakes above shortly. those mistakes led me to some better info ohh baby this is getting deeper

Howards right the idea that excess spent fuel should be located and stored near the plant....at least be within the restricted airspace ...

and it is....

the issues of concern are hightened now ill show you in a few

[edit on 19-9-2005 by XGovGirl]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
"Yes it is possible that they worked with depleted uranium, or used other radioactive materials in their history. ****So what***? Lone Gunman
(GASP)

Anyone who does not have some knowledge base on depleted uranium, its use in weapons manufacture and America's history on this : just google depleted uranium. And don't plan on having a good day.

If there is one huge issue missing on this board (well, not that I have found), it's DU.

If you can find articles from Al Jazera (sp?), they had some pictures of babies born in Afghanistan and Iraq that will not leave your brain. LOOK at them. And go look in the mirror.
It's YOUR country, YOUR military, YOUR elected officials. YOUR votes.

GET INFORMED


On the nuclear containers: I had forgotten a discussion with Alan on this years ago. This what they are meant to be transported and stored in for however long they are dangerous. He actually feels some of the transportation regulations are excessive because if they weren't that safe, we wouldn't transport them. But it's like the safe attitude towards any weapon: ALWAYS handle as if it is loaded.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
XGG got your message and tried to reply, seems I haven't made the minimum 20 posts to send a U2U.

Can't do anymore today, thanks for the comments and I totally agree!



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Ginny*, Why do you keep calling me LoneGunMan?


* or is it BC ?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XGovGirl
Waterford III has a "Waterford Michoud" Plant remember?



No, actually, I'm sorry, I can't remember where you got this from. I read through the thread and can't find where this came from. Can you repost that part again?

Thanks.



[edit on 20-9-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The timing and content of this story seems interesting....




Fail-safe?

Parts of the lead shielding may start to melt and seals may fail, but an extreme fire would not cause the release of any significant amount of radioactive material from the casks that would bring highly radioactive waste to a proposed storage site in Utah.

So says a new study by safety experts at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that looked at what would happen to the casks used to ship spent reactor fuel if they were subjected to a fire, such as the one in the Baltimore railroad tunnel in July 2001.

This is a "what if" study, said Earl Easton, a senior advisor in the NRC's spent fuel project office.

The results contradict an earlier study by a radioactive waste watchdog group.

The NRC study covered three kinds of shipping casks, including the kind that will likely be used to ship spent fuel through Utah County should a proposed storage facility at the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley become a reality.

That project became more likely after the NRC approved a license for the facility last week.The NRC safety study used a computer model based on data from actual fires, including the Baltimore tunnel fire, which burned for several days. The study showed no spent fuel would be released from the casks.
The odds of such a fire involving radioactive waste would be one in five trillion rail miles traveled, Easton said.

But a 2002 report by Matthew Lamb and Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates estimated that had the train in the Baltimore tunnel carried spent fuel, such as that bound for Skull Valley or Yucca Mountain, nearly 400,000 area residents would have been exposed to radiation.

The resulting exposure would have resulted in 5,000 to 32,000 related cancer deaths within 50 years. And if either facility in Utah or Nevada were to open, hundreds of such shipments would be rolling through communities across the country each year for 24 to 38 years, the report said.

Easton, however, took issue with Lamb and Resnikoff's assumptions that may be outdated and rely on cask deformation from a severe impact. "We don't think these apply," Easton said. The Baltimore fire did not involve any severe impact. Incidents that involve impact and fire have been the subject of other studies, he said. The type of cask likely to hold spent fuel bound for Skull Valley, the Holtec Hi-Star 100, would be the least likely of the casks tested to leak, he said.

The computer model showed the hottest part of the fire would be about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. After seven hours at that temperature, the inside of the cask still would be well below the temperature at which the fuel rods would break down, Easton said. The fuel rods would be inside a stainless steel canister welded shut, which in turn would be inside the shipping cask that consists of 10 inches of multiple layers of metal. A nine-inch lid would be secured with bolts tightened 10 to 15 times as tight as the lug nuts on a car. The weak link is the seals between the lid and the cask. On two types of casks the seals failed, and the model showed a small amount of radioactive contamination -- known to experts as "crud" -- could leak out.

"We don't believe that this would pose any significant danger to first responders," Easton said. If one person were exposed to all of it, it would result in a third of the allowed exposure of 500 millirem per year for first responders -- about the same as an X-ray. On the Hi-Star 100, the seal is metal and less likely to fail at the tested temperatures, Easton said. In addition, the metal covering on the fuel rods and the inner canister would remain intact.

"We don't expect any spent fuel to come out of that," he said.



What an odd coincidence ....

[edit on 19-9-2005 by loam]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Having a very fond mental image of Howard Roark for 25+ years, I can't use the name for someone who is no Howard Roark. Unfortunately, you do make me feel like my Dad always has. Very bright -PhD in Physcial Chemistry, still all the marbles and physically fit at 80. From my earliest memories I can hear him say "use your noggin". Then when we tried to do something, or said something, "wrong" he had an oxymoron: "That's what you get for thinking" .
I can't do anything about who you are or how you trigger those emotions, it's just coincidence. I opted to use your signature name instead.

I can put you on "ignore" if you prefer.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join