It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Sorry quoting myself here...BUT, those thingies I'm asking about are HUGE in comparison to size of cars and trucks on the other side of the road...could those be pipes, photo shopped in, to make it look like work is happening....I mean I feel stupid right now, but that photo does not add up....KWIM?
Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by Destinyone
Could they be dry cask storage?
And someone just tell me it's not the reactor vessel... or a full core of several hundred assemblies as they were taken out of #4 more recently and still hotter than others in the spent fuel pool - hence prone to fires.
Originally posted by Tworide
Here's a Geo Eye sat image from 3/19..
You'll see some of the same artifacts. The diagonal "pipes" is a structure of some kind. The dark image at the lower right end of the "pipes" are trees. It looks like they put in some sort of access to the reactor building coming off the "upper" corner of the building in the new pic. Orientation is the right side of the images is North,
Originally posted by monica86
I don't get why the case is closed? I don't find the same diagonal shape in the old picture.
can you guys explain
That thing really looks the content of the dry cask...without cask..
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by TriForce
IQ is a number (and I actually have no idea what mine is). Never, ever, as long as you may live, be intimidated by anyone to the point where you are loath to state your opinion.
Such is the basis for slavery.
As far as potential catastrophe I cannot argue your point. Yes, nuclear energy does have the theoretical capacity to create widespread disaster (as we are seeing). But so does some guy driving through a residential area dodging school buses in a jalopy at 120 mph. That one car has the capability to cause serious damage to many lives. So, do we outlaw automobiles? Or outlaw dangerous driving?
We outlaw dangerous driving, of course. Cars are necessary to our way of life.
So when we see the following:
then it becomes apparent to any thinking, informed individual that this is a disaster waiting to happen.
- A BWR reactor plant which pumps highly radioactive water/steam throughout a large area with minimal protection against leaks,
- This plant built on a major thrust fault line,
- This plant designed without adherence to potential earthquake intensity, and with zero safety margin in that respect,
- This plant designed without consideration of historic instances of tsunami probability,
- This plant designed with minimal backup systems in place,
- This plant having multiple 'minor' instances that indicate mismanagement, and
- This plant introducing a 'hotter' fuel than it was designed for, against the advice of the designers
Notice that none of those points above referenced the fact that the plant uses uranium as fuel. Without those many red flags, nuclear power has shown itself to be safe. Every accident that has occurred (and yes, there are many unfortunately) have been as a direct result of either poor design or mismanagement or lack of common sense in locating and operating said plant.
We just watched a guy driving down the road a few blocks away. He is in an antiquated Ford Pinto with bald tires, bad brakes, and his steering is so loose the first two turns of the wheel don't count. He has a 428 Cobra Jet motor with nitrous injection mounted up front and he has the gas pedal on the floor. He has missed hitting two school buses and seven children. Why are we surprised when he hits the next school bus and kills all on board?
And why do we want to outlaw all cars when this happens? The Buicks and Chryslers are doing just fine and providing a service.
I would be thrilled if there were no need for nuclear power; but there is. Wind has limits on how much energy we can take from the winds before we change the climate drastically. Solar just flat doesn't work for high-current AC applications. Hydro is awesome, but we are running out of rivers. Wave power is still in development, although promising. We are enacting legislation on fossil fuels due to carbon dioxide exhausts that are forcing them out. What's left? Nuclear!
We have a decision to make here if you are serious about getting rid of nuclear power... either deal with uranium, plutonium, strontium, cesium, etc., or deal with carbon dioxide. We seem to have chosen. Carbon dioxide is apparently the worst of the two choices.