Environmental Devistation Coverup

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Kinda weird they would go to this trouble - unless it was to support the route restrictions on transported fuel.
Don't even bother applying for transport approval (discussed above) if it involves going through a tunnel.
If you have to reroute hundreds of miles, too bad.

I suppose they could also use it for "what if" scenarios. In some rare/unusual situation, the risk/benefit analysis might allow a shipment with specific precautions (fire trucks escorting?)




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:22 AM
link   
Um, guess I could use initials. No worry, something will come to my ADD mind.

And since that will be too short for a post. I will pass this on.

President George has a new position on Roe versus Wade

He thinks it too late to worry about how people got out of New Orleans.




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Loam Ginny another "odd coincidence" yesterday did you catch a few officials say the "other reasons" thing.

Clearly it was not a good idea to give the heads up for people to enter New Orleans again, even I didn't agree with the NO Mayor on this but
did you guys CATCH THAT yesterday????????

One military official and one FEMA official said reasoning for not going in:

"____add anything here_____ and other reasons" ....I kept hearing this other reasons thing.

One official seemed kind of hesitant when he said he, I believe he was from FEMA? I'm not too sure but he seemed very strange when he said "other reasons" like he wanted to say it but couldn't say it. Very hesitant, what is this "other reasons" they are talking about beyond the obivious dangers there....could this "other reasons" be the nuclear contamination? I believe it is, I believe people are becoming aware of it.

See I can totally see this playing out.....all of a sudden they are going to hit the public with it after some time of being in there and say "well we just figured this out but guess what..." and I think they will keep people working in there for as long as possible (military, relief workers, fire fighters, etc) because they need SOMEONE to clean up that mess right? Then they're gonna slap everyone with it...."we've got a bit of nuclear contamination folks but don't worry. we just found out, so sorry to have you in there, everything should be fine just keep working"....

I totally believe this is the "other reasons"

As for the map above, there were two locations Waterford and Ebasco services. Prior info. I found on the net led me to believe that the fire was directly across from the plant. The plant however is just up north not directly across from the Norco facility. There is the reactor but there was some previous info. I found that started me on the idea that was where the corporate office was located and not the reactor. Anyhow to make a long story short. I figured out what EBasco Services is, it's a lot of things
to waterford including their ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). EBASCO Services has a lot of different things they do, but included in that is waste management and transportation. They have an environmental division as well as a waste management division. I have some new interesting pictures to show you too. I'll have to get to it later though . So the fire on the 31st looked to be directly across from one of the buildings Waterford uses for their waste management (EBASCO). I'll show some pictures and documents a bit later this afternoon.

This "other reasons..." thing yesterday on the news was quiet interesting to this all.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
-For what its worth-

New Orleans Based Unit Could Face Bankruptcy

11:39 AM ET, Sep 20, 2005, by David Weidner, MarketWatch

"Entergy Costs could Reach $1.1Billion"

the gist = Entergy Corp. Units:

* Entergy New Orleans Inc. (possible bankruptcy)
* Entergy Louisiana Inc. (loss ~$400million)
* Entergy Gulf States ( ?? high-moderate losses)
* Entergy Mississippi Inc. ( ?? - ditto - ....................)
* others not on reports Yet!

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


sorry, no link, this article is provided to EarthLink.net customers

but i do see Entergy Execs holding out their hands for gov't $$$$



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by XGovGirl


As for the map above, there were two locations Waterford and Ebasco services. Prior info. I found on the net led me to believe that the fire was directly across from the plant. The plant however is just up north not directly across from the Norco facility. There is the reactor but there was some previous info. I found that started me on the idea that was where the corporate office was located and not the reactor. Anyhow to make a long story short. I figured out what EBasco Services is, it's a lot of things
to waterford including their ISFSI (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation). EBASCO Services has a lot of different things they do, but included in that is waste management and transportation. They have an environmental division as well as a waste management division. I have some new interesting pictures to show you too. I'll have to get to it later though . So the fire on the 31st looked to be directly across from one of the buildings Waterford uses for their waste management (EBASCO). I'll show some pictures and documents a bit later this afternoon.

This "other reasons..." thing yesterday on the news was quiet interesting to this all.



I’m sorry; I am having a little trouble following what you are trying to say.

So, there was a fire at a refinery (not all that unusual).

This fire was across the Mississippi river from Waterford 3 (about a mile or so away, at least).

And this means, what?

I’m looking forward to seeing your pictures and documents. Maybe they can clear things up.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Oh, and Chrissy, while you are at it, don’t forget to post the information on the ”Waterford Michoud Plant”

Thanks, I would appreciate it.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
XGG showed this pic of Michoud Air Products earlier but it only showed a pre-Katrina view. On the website, if you move your mouse over it, it shows a pre and post Katrina view that depicts the flooded facility:

With and without flooding

[edit on 20-9-2005 by Mirlin11]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Regarding Michoud Air Products:



Air Products (NYSE:APD) serves customers in technology, energy, healthcare and industrial markets worldwide with a unique portfolio of products, services and solutions, providing atmospheric gases, process and specialty gases, performance materials and chemical intermediates. Founded in 1940, Air Products has built leading positions in key growth markets such as semiconductor materials, refinery hydrogen, home healthcare services, natural gas liquefaction, and advanced coatings and adhesives. The company is recognized for its innovative culture, operational excellence and commitment to safety and the environment and is listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability and FTSE4Good Indices. The company has annual revenues of $7.4 billion, operations in over 30 countries, and nearly 20,000 employees around the globe. Hydrogen makes up 98% of the known universe, and it is the third most abundant element on the earth's surface. It is the lightest of all the gases, with a gaseous specific gravity of 0.0695. It is a component of water, minerals and acids, and it makes up a fundamental part of all hydrocarbons and organic substances. At atmospheric temperatures and pressures, hydrogen exists as a gas; however, it liquefies at -252.9°C (-423°F). Next to helium, it is the coldest known fluid.

NASA's nearby Stennis Space Center utilizes 70 percent of all the liquid hydrogen used by NASA. As NASA's Center of Excellence for large propulsion systems testing, Stennis has expertise in the handling and application of cryogenic materials. NASA uses supercold liquid hydrogen as the fuel to help power the Shuttle three main engines during the ascent phase of flight, ground testing and propulsion development. Liquid hydrogen also acts as the propellant for the Shuttle's onboard fuel cells.


There's alot of talk on the page this quote comes from about hydrogen production for their customers but there is no mention of spent fuel or anything about nuclear plants. We haven't talked about Hydrogen or what possible effects the flooding of a facility that produces Hydrogen might be. XGG, do you have anything else on Michoud Air Products?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Looks like a typical industrial facility to me.

What does that have to do with spent fuel rods from the Waterford reactor?

That is the whole point of this thread. XGG has claimed that there is widespread radiocative contamination of New Orleans.

Is there?

There is no proof of it.

Where would it have come from? Did it come from Waterford 3?

Well Waterford 3 was not flooded or severly damaged so it is hard to see how the flood could have contaminated the city from a power plant on the other side of the river that wasn't flooded.

Did Entergy scatter used fuel rods all over the city of New Orelans?

XGG seems to think so, but I seriously doubt it. I mean, c'mon.


In any case, she has not produced any proof of her claims although they are interesting to read



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mirlin11
We haven't talked about Hydrogen or what possible effects the flooding of a facility that produces Hydrogen might be.


Hydrogen is a gas. If it didn't catch fire, then who cares if the plant was flodded.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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?


Don't you have work to be doing for the NRC? I don't know what you're interest in me is and like I told you in the private message....well you
remember.

Just because you try to discredit everything as if you have no web access over there to search yourself. You know very well you are bringing up
little bits here and there just to get to me. More then anything, I just think you're on the other side of the fence and clearly you have no concern or interest in environmental/health related issues that concern the whole population of folks residing in this fantastic country.

I am not the only one questioning your intentions and since you didn't deny working for such, please after this don't respond to my posts and make sure you pass on that message to your nuclear cheerleading friends


I'm not posting false information, I'm posting research and questions
on such. I don't see a problem questioning if something more has taken
place in NO.


Links as you requested:


Some of the biggest remaining outages include Entergy's 959 MW Michoud station in Orleans Parish, Louisiana

www.rednova.com...

Waterford 3 nuclear reactor and the 825 MW Michoud natural gas and oil-fired station

news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050830/us_nm/utilities_katrina_outages_dc_1



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:28 AM
link   
I was going to go past the first name idea that came to my ADD brain... until I saw "Chrissy"

Some people need to grow DOWN. They need to "return to the vision they started life with"(sound familiar?). To, as a child " be able to RELISH the moment" (Ray Bradbury).
Between the ages of 3 and 5, a child can ask between 300 and 400 questions a day. Depending on how the questions are answered, the child learns how, what, who, why and when to question.

There IS such a thing as a stupid question. There are also questions that are simply time killing and focus detracting. ( I once sat in a major policy decision meeting with about 10 professionals and listened in total disbelief as one of them derailed it by asking a series of inappropriate question. It took at least 15 minutes - of 10 professional salaries- to get back on topic) Asking the right question is an art and a process. Sometimes, it takes a lot of questions that don't lead to a satisfactory answer to get to the questions that start filling in the missing pieces of the picture.

The human brain actually works from a negative (Steven Pinker "How the Mind Works"). Like a photograph negative. Like the way the brain receives images from the eye - upside down. The brain works more efficiently on the R side, metaphorically, intuitively and with imagery. When it grasps a problem with "the picture", it starts trying to get the L brain to help out with words, numbers, known facts.

We certainly have to ask the "bean counting" questions at some point. And you can ask however you chose. Intelligent discussion, brainstorming and dialogue are most productive and least sabotaged by maintaining respectful language, promoting a supportive environment in which to question. Sometimes it's hard to see how someone else's mind is working because you don't have the same photographic negative.

Many of us have had at least one learning experience from making inflammatory accusations and finding out they were baseless. After that, we usually learn some caution and get our ducks in a row before going on record. And sometimes a situation is just giving the R brain Uh-Oh message too loud to wait. There is a wide range of how much damage and danger could have occurred. The problem is that the potential for some really ugly danger is there, the record of government and industry has had some really big screw ups
(rent the movie "Erin Brokovich" if you didn't see it) and given how much preventable damage has occurred, I'd like to be sure we aren't missing something. I will end up taking care of some of these people. I've seen enough of the previous screw ups in WWII, VN and Iraq I vets, Rocky Flats workers and others, not to want to see and hear anymore. I work a primarily cardiac floor now. Anyone who comes in with chest pain is "guilty until proven innocent" as I tell them. Because the risks to the 2-3/100 that have or are close to having a heart attack, are too great not to.

Personally, I started my "second childhood" about 2 years ago. This one has been a lot of fun - doing things I couldn't do in the first one. Think I'll stay in this one for 2 decades too. Then I'll be retiring...

True confessions: My dentist INSISTS I do not have a big mouth. He even has to use kids tools sometimes. I DO have 2 (TWO) degrees in BS
(Nursing and Sociology)



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ginny in CO
( I once sat in a major policy decision meeting with about 10 professionals and listened in total disbelief as one of them derailed it by asking a series of inappropriate question. It took at least 15 minutes - of 10 professional salaries- to get back on topic)


Is that the purpose of your last post?

Getting back to the subject of this thread.

Does anyone have any proof that New Orleans is contaminated with radioactive material?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by XGovGirl
Just because you try to discredit everything as if you have no web access over there to search yourself. You know very well you are bringing up
little bits here and there just to get to me. More then anything, I just think you're on the other side of the fence and clearly you have no concern or interest in environmental/health related issues that concern the whole population of folks residing in this fantastic country.


No, I am just looking for the truth. Unfortunately I do not trust your interpetation of the facts. This little issue is a prime example of the situation.

let's just recap it shall we?




Originally posted by XGovGirl
there was flooding and damage to the Michoud facility, also the NASA/old military facility and a part used by Entergy for Waterford III spent fuel storage.



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



Originally posted by XGovGirl
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.

I have a bunch of docs on this but really who even needs those, why else would Waterford III rent space there is the question you should ask yourself
BTW my father also does the barge runs for NASA, if we were on talking terms I would probably just give him a call to hear first hand but due to the amount of info available about the Michoud plant online I don't think that call is necessary.




Originally posted by HowardRoark

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


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...

. . .

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?



Originally posted by XGovGirl
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!




Originally posted by HowardRoark
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?



Originally posted by XGovGirl
Links as you requested:


Some of the biggest remaining outages include Entergy's 959 MW Michoud station in Orleans Parish, Louisiana

www.rednova.com...

Waterford 3 nuclear reactor and the 825 MW Michoud natural gas and oil-fired station

news.yahoo.com.../nm/20050830/us_nm/utilities_katrina_outages_dc_1


Nope, sorry, All that proves is that Entergy had a couple of oil and gas fired power generating stations there. That is not proof of a "Waterford Michoud" plant. That is not proof that a nuclear generating plant was renting space at Michoud. That is only proof that Entergy has two generators there.

How is that supposed to prove that Waterford 3 was storing spent fuel rods at Michoud?

It doesn't.

Is it your contention that Entergy was storing spent fuel rods at every single one of it's non-nuclear facilities?

That is absurd.



[edit on 21-9-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Hmm... This is interesting.

Of all the skeptics on this board (and surely there is more than one), only one is working really hard to discredit everything XGG has posted. Why is that? Who are you Howard Roark, and why are you here? To find the truth about certain events, or keep others from asking questions that lead to the truth? Just wondering, because while you're trying to discredit XGG's posts, you haven't offerred any alternative explanations for anything she's posted. Why is what she's posted so impossible?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
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.

A conspiracy that would involve just about everyone who works for Entergy, its subcontractors and vendors, State and federal safety inspectors, auditors, and regulators, local building inspectors, fire departments, etc. Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have to be in on this "plot" to store used fuel rods from the Waterford 3 power station in all of the places that she has implied that they are stored at.

The alternative explanation is that there is no "Environmental Devistation Coverup." There are no fuel rods that have been flooded. That the people who work for the State and federal agencies, Entergy, Norco, NASA, Michoud Air Products, etc are, by and large, ethical, moral people who are not criminals, who go to church, live next door to you, send their kids to the to the same schools as you do, and who would no more be involved in such an absurd conspiracy as you would be.


Furthermore, the conjectures that she has posted are not even remotely supported by the slightest shred of proof.

For instance: Entergy wants to handle and put out the fires related to broken gas lines.

Is that due to a conspiracy involving nuclear materials or just due to the fact that they are the gas company. What do you think?




[edit on 21-9-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
What say you to that XGG? Can you clarify in one short post what it is that you suggest is the "environmental devistation coverup", who is involved, and who would gain what from it? Can you explain this in one short post, straight and to the point?

[edit on 21-9-2005 by Mirlin11]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
(meant to post this 2 days ago had it saved)

Some more interesting information and some food for thought

I ended up going back to the coverage map of Katrina's path again. Then I went back into the NOAA aerial photography page which is where Howard so kindly provided the aerial image of Waterford 3 for us from.

The image comes from this NOAA map:





Now consider the fire map from that I posted earlier.It stated there was an on-going fire for over 12 hours on August 31st

According to yahoo driving directions, the area marked on the fire map seems to lead to the Norco/Shell facility.
Also if you look at this exact location on this NOAA aerial photography map the aerial photos are quiet interesting.


The photos show just cloud coverage over the area....

Or is it?

Thick clouds, with some black cloud coverage in there as well.






The NOAA website these aerial photography photos come from states that any photos with 244 in the beginning of the photo were taken on August 31. Any aerial photos with number 243 in front of them were taken on August 30th. These aerial images were taken during a two day time period.

An interesting statement made by NOAA before you can access these photos:

"This imagery was acquired by the NOAA Remote Sensing Division to support NOAA national security and emergency response requirements"


This explains why there are no satellite imagery websites available for the public to look at satellite images of anything near the Waterford 3 plant. I tried just about all of them. Under the idea of national security clearly..... because this is a nuclear plant we're talking about.

This also explains why areas of this aerial photography map photos are "boxed in" so that the public can only see photos that the government wishes for us to see of the area, correct?





So is that just cloud coverage or something more?


If you compare it to the other photos the clouds do seem to be much thicker. Comparable to photography in that immediate area such as this photo below, just a bit down the river.






The cloud coverage there is not the same. although I do see some thick clouds in other spots on the map that are a bit comparable as well as seeing some dark tint but not as much.


Can someone confirm that this is not in fact a fire burning at this location?

The reason I question this is because there is no news coverage about fire damage at Norco refinery.

I also question the Entergy photo from Reuters of the large fire burning dated Sept. 3rd or 4th I believe.
There are no marks on the fire map for those days, leading me to believe if the fire on the 3rd or 4th was
active it must not have been as big as this one because it didn't even get noticed on the fire map.






Flooding


It looks quiet nice for cloud coverage, but clearly based on the location nearby there was in fact some flooding there.



This photo below is the Waterford 3 plant. There seems to be quiet a lot of cars there although 2 days after Katrina hit I would assume there are a lot of regular employees located nearby after the storm on call to checkout the damages. That being just a passing paranoid thought at it's best
There sure were a lot of employees there...

Waterford 3 Aerial Shot





Another strange thing I noticed is if you go to this website to look at Waterford Aerial photos:

web.elastic.org...

It leads to a broken FEMA link:

www.fema.gov...




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


My Mistake With all the info. about the Waterford 3 plant out there I was starting to think that the corporate office was located further north and the actual reactor was located directly across the river from Norco/Shell. Based on some info. that I saw earlier I was questioning the actual location of the reactor being that Waterford has different addresses listed for such in various documents I've read. It was because of different addresses I was comparing.
Anyhow that is cleared up after just looking at the coordinates for the plant location, and this was a mistake on my part as I mentioned earlier something about the Corporate office if anyone noticed that. It was a good thing that I made this mistake because it made me look into EBASCO more in depth which is what is located across from the Norco/Shell refinery.

"EBASCO Services Inc Waterford" EBASCO has a lot of services for the Waterford 3 plant, including waste management and waste transportation. I'm curious now to find if this is where the excess spent fuel for the Waterford 3 plant was stored. It would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? If you look up EBASCO Services Inc. they have a wide range services for Waterford including environmental, legal, waste management, etc.

Now I'm trying to find out if this EBASCO Services Inc. is actually considered on the property of the Waterford 3 plant considering Waterford 3 has a lot of land coverage for the plant. Even if they aren't located directly on property of the reactor itself, EBASCO Services would be just a little distance away but would still be under the nuclear restricted airspace the Waterford III reactor, thus allowing for the spent fuel storage and service of transportation "readiness" of the spent fuel when the time comes to move it.
This is just something I'm questioning now as well. It could indeed be where they have the excess spent fuel off-site.

Anyhow this is just hypothetical, but this location would be directly across from the Norco/Shell refinery. I'm questioning Norco's involvement with Waterford 3 as well, what, if anything they had located there from Waterford 3, and again another hypothetical due to relationship activities I've seen in my research thus far and trying to figure out where Waterford III had it's excess spent fuel.

With that mistake it led me directly to some Waste Management info on EBASCO for Waterford so this mistake was a good thing even though some here are getting their chuckles because they believe they are above this all.
So if there was a large fire at this location, why no mention?

Just something else to think about...



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Well LOOKIE HERE



Entergy Unit to Consider Bankruptcy Filing

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050921/ap_on_bi_ge/katrina_entergy_4


Entergy "No Damage" BushCo. looking for "Entergy also said in a statement Tuesday that it plans to pursue various avenues for recovering costs from the storm, include insurance reimbursements, potential federal relief and "existing or new rate mechanisms."


I thought they had "no damage"............sure just the electric and gas lines
.....uh huh....


Sounds like filing Bankruptcy is their quick way to bank on some Gov. Support. You scratch my back I'll scratch your back, as we see from all prior
Entergy/Bush ventures since 2000.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM




posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
And this:


www.msbusiness.com...

NEW ORLEANS — Fitch Ratings downgraded the senior secured rating of Entergy New Orleans Inc. (ENOI) to "CCC" from '"BBB" and placed the ratings on "Rating Watch Negative." Fitch has also downgraded other subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation, including Entergy Mississippi Inc.


"Entergy Mississippi Inc.'s ratings reflect a strong regulatory environment and an ability to recover past storm costs of similar magnitude."





top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join