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.


Nuclear Energy Advocates Insist U.S. Reactors Completely Safe Unless Something Bad Happens

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:40 PM

WASHINGTON—Responding to the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sought Thursday to reassure nervous Americans that U.S. reactors were 100 percent safe and posed absolutely no threat to the public health as long as no unforeseeable system failure or sudden accident were to occur.

"With the advanced safeguards we have in place, the nuclear facilities in this country could never, ever become a danger like those in Japan, unless our generators malfunctioned in an unexpected yet catastrophic manner, causing the fuel rods to melt down," said NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko, insisting that nuclear power remained a clean, harmless energy source that could only lead to disaster if events were to unfold in the exact same way they did in Japan, or in a number of other terrifying and totally plausible scenarios that have taken place since the 1950s.

"When you consider all of our backup cooling processes, containment vessels, and contingency plans, you realize that, barring the fact that all of those safety measures could be wiped away in an instant by a natural disaster or electrical error, our reactors are indestructible." Jaczko added that U.S. nuclear power plants were also completely guarded against any and all terrorist attacks, except those no one could have predicted.


posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:42 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Oh good, that's reassuring isn't it.
Everything will be just fine...unless it goes wrong.

were also completely guarded against any and all terrorist attacks, except those no one could have predicted.

Let's hope the terrorists give all the plans in advance then.
edit on 20-3-2011 by keepithush because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 09:49 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Everythings great, except when it isn't.

2nd line.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:32 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

unless sudden accident happens?

sooooooo....what do they consider an earthquake and a tsunami to be lmao? strange wording there
edit on 20-3-2011 by onyx718 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:46 PM
Sure. Uh-huh.

Wasn't the Titanic called unsinkable? Look what happened there.

And the insane drivel spewed by our leaders and corporate slaves goes on, and on, and on.......

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:48 PM

source that could only lead to disaster if events were to unfold in the exact same way they did in Japan

Talk about spin.

He says this to supposedly put our minds at rest over what is happening in Japan and yet it's the same combined events that will render the reactors dangerous!

From what I've been reading online and please correct me if I am wrong, but there are quite a few reactors in America that are near earthquake and possible tsunami zones?
How many are situated in areas where both are a possibility?

I really hope these guys are taking notes about the Japan disaster to learn something to bring back to make the ones in the U.S safer.
I hope they just don't have a cest la vie attitude not now, after knowing what they know.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by GoldenFleece

Of course there was this report by the Congressional Research Service last year prepared for members and committees of Congress entitled:

Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities - August 23, 2010

Which definitely raises a lot of questions especially when you review this section here:

Nuclear power plant vulnerability to deliberate aircraft crashes has been a continuing issue. After
much consideration, NRC published final rules on June 12, 2009, to require all new nuclear
power plants to incorporate design features that would ensure that, in the event of a crash by a
large commercial aircraft, the reactor core would remain cooled or the reactor containment would
remain intact, and radioactive releases would not occur from spent fuel storage pools.
NRC rejected proposals that existing reactors also be required to protect against aircraft crashes, such as by adding large external steel barriers, deciding that other mitigation measures already required by NRC for all reactors were sufficient. In 2002, NRC ordered all nuclear power plants to develop strategies to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions that could result from aircraft crashes or other causes. NRC published a broad final rule on nuclear reactor security March 27, 2009, including fire mitigation strategies and requirements that reactors establish procedures for responding to specific aircraft threats.

To read more of this 14 page report go here:


edit on 3/20/2011 by manta78 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 12:46 AM
OK, time to fess up. This is actually an Onion parody. It's even correctly linked.

I was sure people would immediately realize it's a joke, but I guess it shows how jaded we've become, actually believing that the government and Nuclear Regulatory Commission would make these kind of preposterous statements to assure us of the safety of nuclear power plants.

I was planning to see how long this would go undiscovered, but I've posted some important information in another forum and I don't want to be accused of perpetrating a hoax.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 02:42 AM
It's not a parody though, it rings true 100%. Except when maybe it doesn't apply.

Our nuclear reactors ARE completely safe and perfect barring the incidence of any accidents or flaws being revealed.

I loved the truth in this article even though you could say it's not truth.

To be serious here I only WISH the Govt and Nuke Agency were this honest and up front.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:52 AM
I used to be a fence-sitter with nuclear power. I have believed until recently that nuclear energy needn't be too dangerous to risk - if they used all that concrete and rebar.

Now I'm not a fence-sitter. I am absolutely against nuclear power as it is being done now. The massive amounts of concrete and rebar used in modern reactors is simply not enough. And to use relics such as Fukushima was criminally negligent.


When are THEY going to order the entombment of Fukishima? What are we waiting for? Of course the answer is money... Already rich people who don't want to lose their money and sod the peons.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:21 AM
That is such a vacuous statement; it's like saying "The world is peaceful unless there's war."
I thought these people used spin doctors, and professional liars. They must really think the population at large have a serious mental deficiency if these are the messages they broadcast out.

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:08 AM
Our nuclear reactors ARE completely safe and perfect barring a asteroid strike.

I am for building reactors inside mountains 500 feet of rock would protect against almost anything.

If it did not we just seal the reactor in the mountain with concrete.

Also reactors can be built that are not boiling water reactors but hot water reactors.

We have geothermal that do not run on steam but hot water that flashes a gas to turn turbines.

A reactor designed to heat water to below boiling but unable due to low grade of its fuel to melt down the fuel would be safer then the designs used not.

A pebble bed reactor is one of those types that can not melt down,
A Subcritical reactor is another one that can not melt down if it looses cooling.
It needs a neutron source to run,
Turn off the neutron source and the reactor goes cold.

top topics


log in