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.


America's Being Nuked - Can We Together Stop the Madness Before It's Too Late?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 09:36 PM
Oh this is good.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by thorfourwinds

Fukushima 45 Tonne Radioactive Leak 'Reaches Ocean'

Experts warn Japan faces more danger from radioactive particles in consumer food, after reports of a new toxic water leak from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
Some 45 tons of radioactive toxic water has reportedly leaked out of the shattered plant and may have found its way into the ocean during the weekend, according to David Wagner from Country Risk Solutions in Tokyo.

The nuclear station’s reactor hot zones melted down after a 11 March quake, and the tsunami which followed devastated the site altogether.

Wagner found the new leak is small compared to previous leaks: 80 per cent of all the radiation contamination occurred back in March.

There have been reports of radioactive substances being found in Japanese food in recent weeks. But the real problem according to Wagner, is that less than one per cent of the food is being tested for radioactive nuclide particles. Plus, food is only tested for Cesium-134 and Cesium-137, but not for other types of radionuclides, such as Strontium and Plutonium.

“Those are very dangerous radionuclides. Once they get into food and are absorbed with it – this could lead to bone cancer,” he says.

Japanese specialists are working to bring the nuclear fission in the destroyed reactors under control – but this is only expected by 2016. Later this month, Japan may declare the reactors in “cold shutdown”, meaning water used to cool the fuel rods would stay under boiling point. This is considered an important milestone in stabilizing the plant.

“That remains to be seen. But it is clear that they feel they’ve got it under control. But there is always a threat there could be another earthquake – and that is something most people do not talk about. It is possible,” David Wagner said.

The Fukushima catastrophe split global trends on nuclear energy, with some countries ceasing to pursue atomic power. One of these is Japan, where up to 80 per cent of all reactors are currently offline.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:39 PM
Some readings from LA.

posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by thorfourwinds

Melted Fuel Near Point of Reaching Bottom Container, Barrier Needed

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
People just don't seem to care about Fukushima as much as before but it's still a very real problem that's not going away. There are some major announcements coming out of Japan every week or so and I rarely hear much about them on ATS, and the threads that cover these announcements don't get much attention.

Well as I said it's not going away and could be getting worse.

The operator of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant revealed Wednesday that melted nuclear fuel has nearly reached the bottom steel wall under the concrete.

Following the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, all of the fuel inside the No. 1 reactor melted after cooling functions failed with a substantial amount of the fuel melting through the reactor pressure vessel and dripping into the outer container.

On Wednesday, Tokyo Electric Power Company, said the melted fuel has eroded the concrete base of the reactor container by up to 65 centimeters.
If the erosion expands another 37 centimeters, it would be hitting the steel wall.

However, TEPCO's analysis is rough at best because it is a prediction of the current situation inside the reactor based on its temperature change and injection of cooling water.

"TEPCO's analysis says we have 30 centimeters of the concrete base left to prevent the melted fuel to hit the bottom. But I am not confident that we have that much space left. We have to be prepared for the worst case scenario."

If the fuel melts through the remaining concrete embedment, which is only some 30 centimeters, it is bound to seep into the soil.

Therefore, experts say TEPCO must find a measure to prevent fuel leakage.

"I think they must install a 5 to 10 meter barrier in the basement to prevent the worst case scenario."

Leakage of melted fuel may invite a host of difficult problems such as safe removal of the fuel in a cold shutdown of the nuclear reactor in the future.

For that reason, experts stress TEPCO must promptly find a way to put a stop to the fuel erosion inside the reactor.


I still strongly believe they're not even close to telling us how bad it really is and how serious the long term effects will be. They can't even contain it locally so what's supposed to convince us they have the situation under control.

I have heard many theories of what could happen if these reactors this were to seep into the soil and most of them are very concerning.

Let's hope they figure it out before it's too late.

edit on 3-12-2011 by Corruption Exposed because: add source, sorry about that

Melted Fuel Near Point of Reaching Bottom Container, Barrier Needed

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 01:13 AM
Howdy tfw! Greetings from Winder! Thanks for heads up on continuing problem. Myself, I have renamed Fukushima incident "Wormwood". A little biblical for some peoples taste, but does give the extent this disaster could have. Keep up the good work.
God bless.

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:16 PM
Colorado snow test.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:53 AM
reply to post by Aircooled

Not to up on being nuked or irradiated. What are TLV's? Also if you could explain some terminologies i.e. rads, and all the other alphabet combos with /'s. Be most appreciated!

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by StormingHeaven

Storming. I will do my best but I'm in the same boat you are. An amateur civilian rad checker trying to learn as much as he can as fast as he can. If anyone with more knowledge wants to jump in and correct me, please do so.
His reading is about 10 times normal background radiation but because he's in Colorado, and they have higher background to begin with, it's about 8 times background. Having said that, it's way too high to blame on bananas or X-rays. I am enclosing a conversion chart and hopefully we'll all become comfortable with understanding these numbers at some point in the near future.

Ok, on to new biz. I just found this vid of a rain wipe,rad spike near Chicago on Nov 26th. My rain check video and spike of 10 x background, on the previous page was Nov 27th, in eastern Ontario. I wonder if we caught the same plume? I'm about 900 miles north east of this man.

He doesn't say how high his spike was but I have sent him a note and maybe the time I drop something here I can fill you in on how high his spike was. We're all on a hell of a learning curve here SH. I can tell you that the spike I got from my rain test on Nov 27th was 10 X my normal background and 16 points from Dangerously high. Since then all rain and snow have tested normal or close to. I check every day.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 10:56 PM
This is a lengthy post.

posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:24 PM

Originally posted by alwayssmile2
This is a lengthy post.

Oh,yea,try this one on for size,and get the coffee brewing.

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 07:50 PM
Some readings from our friend in Colorado. Higher this time.

I did my own rain checks today in eastern Ontario. At 2:30 pm I had a small spike, a little over double background. My dosimeter reads in micro-sieverts. I will be checking to see if his high numbers come my way.

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:06 PM
December 15th, eastern Ontario, rain check. I wonder if this blew in from Colorado?

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:50 AM
Nice post. Seems very interesting, but it scares me. ANY country can be nuked at any time and noone would know it until it started effecting everyone.

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 10:50 PM
Rad readings from LA.

Just so nobody gets too upset, I think he means this triple background would be very bad if it was steady. It's not. This is a rain check. Twenty minutes later he will be back to normal background. That doesn't mean it's harmless. His readings are high but temporary. [So far] Radiation numbers are a very confusing subject to learn, discribe, and convey to others in everyday language. [I'm trying] There is a very big gap in between moderately high, and get a lead umbrella and I will try to get some accurate comparisons.

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:49 PM

Originally posted by StormingHeaven
Howdy tfw! Greetings from Winder!
Thanks for heads up on continuing problem.
Myself, I have renamed Fukushima incident "Wormwood".
A little biblical for some peoples taste, but does give the extent this disaster could have.
Keep up the good work.
God bless.


We have been investigating the radioactive nuclear waste musical chairs fiasco which led to the $24 billion fund designated to build the “final resting place” for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste (Yucca Mountain).

Let’s look at the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. We could call this segment:
Nuclear Waste Fund Watch 2012.

By law, the federal government (DOE) is responsible for removing and permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel generated by civilian facilities, which pay fees for that waste disposal service.

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act authorized an underground repository to permanently dispose of spent nuclear fuel from civilian nuclear reactors.

Under contracts signed with electric utilities pursuant to NWPA, DOE was scheduled to start removing waste from storage sites at individual power plants for transport to a federal storage or disposal facility by 1998.

Currently, the federal government is 14 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations to dispose of this waste and by all indications, by the time any repository might ever be opened, it is likely to face at least a 25-year radioactive waste backlog.

But wait, there is no depository site even being actively considered - and Yucca Mountain is surely not going to be that depository, even after a $10 billion investment in that boondoggle.

In the absence of a federal underground repository to accept nuclear waste for storage, [color=Cyan]taxpayers are now starting to pay—in the form of legal settlements with utilities—[color=Cyan]for a decentralized waste storage system at sites around the country. (Those payments are being made from the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund.)

The Department of Energy (DOE) currently estimates that payments to utilities pursuant to such settlements will total at least $7 billion, and possibly much more if the program’s schedule continues to slip. Regardless of whether or when the government opens the planned repository, those payments are likely to continue for several decades.

Ultimately, Yucca Mountain, the repository that is was authorized under NWPA, [color=Chartreuse]would not provide sufficient capacity to store all of the waste for which the federal government is responsible.

The statutory cap on [color=FDD017]the amount of waste that can be stored there is significantly lower than the volume of waste that DOE expects will be generated during the lifetimes of existing nuclear facilities, let alone the additional volume from any new facilities that may be built. Congressional Budget Office


“Shelter-in-place” for radioactive nuclear waste?

It looks like us taxpayers (what a surprise) will have to pay utilities to dispose of a substantial amount of additional waste in the future... say at the rate of 2-3 thousand tons per year.

But what is the end-game?

These charts are from 1996, indicating that our USGOV knew that this was a no-win situation way back then.

When a reactor shuts down, its owners theoretically have three options: prompt and complete dismantlement; delayed dismantlement (sometimes called SAFSTOR); and entombment, probably in concrete.

In reality, however, [color=Cyan]dismantlement of the entire facility is not really possible because there is no place to ship spent nuclear fuel.

Are these people merely delusional or just plain stupid and therefore even more dangerous?

When a reactor shuts down, managers have two options. They can keep the pools operating, or, if they anticipate at-reactor storage for more than a few years, they can more economically move all of the spent fuel into dry storage.

Indications are that there may be some cost advantages associated with long-term centralized storage once reactors begin shutting down in large numbers, in large part, because of the high cost of operating pools. However, as long as reactors are operating, the costs of centralized and at-reactor storage appear to be comparable.

What part of “there is no centralized storage” is too difficult to understand?

At the moment, there are only three federal nuclear facilities currently storing defense/research spent fuel and high-level radioactive wastes - Savannah River, Hanford and INEL.

To be continued...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM

(Continued from previous post)

Let’s go with Door #3 for this discussion, since we have previously discussed Savannah River and Hanford.

A 1995 agreement between the DOE and the state of Idaho prohibits the DOE from shipping spent fuel from commercial reactors to INEL. (PSC of Colo. v. Batt 1995).

Actually, that is not quite the real story. Consider this:

In October of 1995, the state of Idaho, US Navy, and US Department of Energy (DOE) reached agreement (most often called the Settlement Agreement) settling a lawsuit filed by the state to prevent shipment of spent nuclear fuel to the INL for storage. Highlights of the agreement include the following:

• The state of Idaho will allow a total of 1,135 shipments of spent fuel to come to the INL
for interim storage over a 40-year period. Of those shipments, 575 will come from the Navy.

• The rest will come from other DOE sites, foreign research reactors (if DOE chooses to accept that fuel), university reactors and a specified amount from private companies directly supporting DOE research and development activities.

Now it gets really good.

• DOE will remove all spent nuclear fuel from Idaho no later than 2035.

And pigs will fly.

• DOE will treat all high-level waste at the INL, in preparation for final disposal elsewhere,
by a target date of 2035.

Treat? This should be interesting. DOE can’t even keep track of $24 billion or so.

• If DOE fails to remove all spent fuel by 2035, the state may levy a fine of $60,000 per day.

Good luck on collecting. BTW, how would a state strong-arm the feds?

If DOE fails to meet any of the agreement milestones at any point, the state may ask the federal court to halt any further spent fuel shipments to the INL.

This stuff just can’t be made up. Come on, folks. Just how many other gems like this are buried in the mountains of paper trails generated to hide this nefarious shell game?

Why is the Settlement Agreement good for Idaho?

Gets nuclear waste out of Idaho. Idaho is now the only state in the nation that has a court
order mandating that federal nuclear waste leave state boundaries by a specific date. No other state in the nation has such a legally binding commitment

Forces the federal government to dry up ALL the highly radioactive liquid wastes, which greatly reduces the risks to the aquifer

Prevents Idaho from becoming the dumping ground for the nation's commercial spent
nuclear fuel

Protects the economy of eastern Idaho

Poor, poor disillusioned Idaho governor. We are willing to bet that this will not come about as promised. How much are we talking about, anyway?

DEQ's INL Oversight Division estimates that approximately 10,851 shipments of nuclear material will leave Idaho. The first shipments began leaving Idaho in early 1999. The last shipments should leave Idaho by 2035.

Approximately 3,051 shipments of spent fuel will leave Idaho.

Approximately 7,800 shipments of transuranic material will leave Idaho for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.

An agreement between the state of Idaho and DOE was finalized in 2008 setting forth the compliance requirements for this section of the Settlement Agreement.

Huh? Where are the “Approximately 3,051 shipments of spent fuel ...” going?

BTW, wasn’t the reactor core debris and fuel from TMI shipped there in the late ‘90’s?

Special train for removal of damaged fuel.

Here are actual photos of the event.

Specially designed rail casks for hauling fuel core debris.

The federal government took responsibility for the waste after it left TMI's plants. [color=Chartreuse]The refuse will remain radioactive for more than 10,000 years...The Idaho lab houses about 99 percent of the uranium fuel from Three Mile Island.

The Energy Department and the state of Idaho plan to spend $30 million to move the 344 containers of TMI waste into steel-and-concrete dry storage casks, deemed an improvement from the 1950s-era cooling water pools that lack protective steel linings or a leak-detection system.

The rest of the fuel and other parts of the damaged generating station remain at the plant site near Harrisburg, Pa. The station will be dismantled after 2014, when the license for a sister plant expires.

Nuclear waste, secrecy and slippery slope

In January 2011, the state of Idaho signed a secretly negotiated deal allowing shipments of highly radioactive commercial nuclear waste to the Idaho National Laboratory.

To be continued...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM

(Continued from previous post)

Aha! The proverbial nose of the camel under the side of the tent. Guess what?

Nuclear waste, secrecy and slippery slope

In January 2011, the state of Idaho signed a secretly negotiated deal allowing shipments of highly radioactive commercial nuclear waste to the Idaho National Laboratory.

The “state” didn’t sign anything, as it has no hands.

The Governor, C.L. "Butch" Otter, signed the “secret” agreement.

It violates the spirit and intent of the 1995 agreement between Idaho and the US Department of Energy forbidding such shipments...

[color=Cyan]The state will be told, with a time lag of a year, the source and amount of spent fuel shipped here, any research project’s purpose and schedule and how much waste it will produce, and the waste’s “potential” disposition path.

Our good ol’ USGOV at work. Any time public policy is developed and carried out in secret, it undermines the transparency and accountability that are the bedrock of good government. However, there doesn’t appear to be either when speaking about nuclear waste.

And the game becomes more interesting the deeper the hole... this gem from March 1996:

Disposal and Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel - Finding the Right Balance
A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board

Although geologic disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste enjoys broad support from the scientific community in this country and abroad, a site has not yet been judged suitable for a repository nor has a repository design received final regulatory approval in any nation developing a radioactive waste management program...

Finally, the Board believes that future uncertainties and the likelihood that many reactors will be shutting down beginning in 2010 argue for having a fully operational centralized storage facility available — and [color=FDD017]capable of accepting around 3,000 metric tons of spent fuel per year — by at least 2010, ideally at a repository site...

How about in here?

Argentinean 3D street artist Eduardo Relero has created worlds of wonder on pavements all over the globe:
A visitor stands next to a 3D mural called, 'Insesatez', in Lleida, Spain

And this bit of information projecting 60,000 tons of spent fuel by 2010:

2 February 1997
Three Mile Island's radioactive debris remains a headache

Crews have completed the cleanup from the 1979 partial meltdown at the Pennsylvania reactor and transported the radioactive materials to a temporary underwater storage a continent away, in the Idaho desert. It will stay there until safer quarters can be built, at least 2010...

The situation reflects a larger problem facing the government and the nuclear industry - where to bury 30,000 tons of spent fuel from more than 100 commercial nuclear reactors from Maine to California. The amount is expected to double by 2010 and continue climbing as older reactors are shut down.

We notice that the estimates of the spent fuel totals are different by as much as 10,000 tons - 14 years ago and the information is all from government sources.

Back to the money trail.

Someone, some person - a living, breathing individual with a title and name - working for we, the people, has the charge of keeping track of this $24+ billion. Let us remember this as we wind our way down the rabbit hole...this is good stuff.

Title 42 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Jan. 7, 2011, and it is this version that is published here.

We recommend a careful read of this document.

United States Code: Title 42,10222. Nuclear Waste Fund | LII /
Legal Information Institute



(a) Contracts
(1) In the performance of his functions under this chapter, the Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with any person who generates or holds title to high-level radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel, of domestic origin for the acceptance of title, subsequent transportation, and disposal of such waste or spent fuel. Such contracts shall provide for payment to the Secretary of fees pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) sufficient to offset expenditures described in subsection (d) of this section.

To be continued...
edit on 25/12/2011 by thorfourwinds because: color

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM

(Continued from previous post)

(2) For electricity generated by a civilian nuclear power reactor and sold on or after the date
90 days after January 7, 1983, the fee under paragraph (1) shall be equal to 1.0 mil per

(3) (...) Such fee shall be paid to the Treasury of the United States and [color=Cyan]shall be deposited in the separate fund established by subsection (c) of this section. In paying such a fee, [color=FDD017]the person delivering spent fuel, or solidified high-level radioactive wastes derived therefrom, to the Federal Government [color=FDD017]shall have no further financial obligation to the Federal Government for the long-term storage and permanent disposal of such spent fuel, or the solidified high-level radioactive waste derived therefrom...

(5) Contracts entered into under this section shall provide that—
(A) following commencement of operation of a repository, [color=Chartreuse]the Secretary shall take title to the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as expeditiously as practicable upon the request of the generator or owner of such waste or spent fuel; and
(B) in return for the payment of fees established by this section, the Secretary, [color=Chartreuse]beginning not later than January 31, 1998, will dispose of the high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel involved as provided in this subchapter.

Providence, chain-of-evidence, whatever you call it - the buck stops with the Secretary.

This item is of particular interest:

(4) No high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel generated or owned by any department of the United States referred to in section 101 or 102 of title 5 may be disposed of by the Secretary in any repository constructed under this chapter unless such department transfers to the Secretary, for deposit in the Nuclear Waste Fund, amounts equivalent to the fees that would be paid to the Secretary under the contracts referred to in this section if such waste or spent fuel were generated by any other person.

Just exactly what departments of the USGOV are generating high-level radioactive waste or spent nuclear fuel that are involved in this nuclear waste Ponzi scheme?

University research reactors? Wouldn't be the first time places of higher learning would be used in a covert op.

Military reactors? US Navy? What do we have now, about a hundred or so nuclear-powered submarines and 11 aircraft carriers and 9 cruisers? Obviously, that spent fuel has to go somewhere.

This does not pass the smell test and seems to be a part of a circle-jerk Ponzi operation designed to obfuscate the fact that there is no money anywhere to be found as of this writing on Christmas Eve, 2011.


Merry Christmas everyone!

Happy Holidays to all on ATS and the best staff in the business! Thank you for making this “consciousness expanding tool” what it is.


Dare you try to prove us wrong, all you “regular” ATS debunkers?

Phage, care to take a swing at this?

We’re sure everyone would be interested in your unique answer to the long-term nuclear waste depository problem.

Also, can even you verify that the $24+ billion has not somehow mysteriously evaporated?

(e) Administration of Waste Fund
(1) [color=FDD017]The Secretary of the Treasury shall hold the Waste Fund and, after consultation with the Secretary, annually report to the Congress on the financial condition and operations of the Waste Fund during the preceding fiscal year.

Based on the foregoing, the Secretary is ultimately responsible for the $24+ billion.
Let’s cut to the chase and ask to see the money - plain and simple.

Oops... the Secretary of the Treasury is “Fast Timmy Furious” Guitner.

What was it we said about the fox and the henhouse?

Digging a bit deeper in the DOE mud:

5 April 2010
US nuclear utilities sue to stop waste fund fees

The demands:

• Want DOE to stop collecting $750 mln in annual fees

• Fees paid by consumers on monthly electric bills

• DOE should suspend fees until find Yucca alternative

• DOE says fees are legally mandated

The U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute and 16 utilities filed a lawsuit on Monday to try to get the Energy Department to stop collecting fees from utilities for a waste program [color=Cyan]now that a planned disposal site has been scrapped.

To be continued...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM

(Continued from previous post)

They want the court to tell the DOE to suspend collection of the fee, which it said amounts to about $750 million per year, because [color=FDD017]the Obama administration has announced it will not pursue plans to store waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. [ID:nN16251516]

The group says the fee, which is paid by consumers with a surcharge of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour on monthly electric bills, should be suspended until the government determines its new plan for waste.

The department's nuclear waste fund has a balance of more than $24 billion, the group said. The group first asked the DOE to stop collecting the fee last July. [ID:nN09459025]

It seems that they infer money is there as of 5 April 2010. And then this turn of events.

(...) At least one company, Exelon Corp (EXC.N), has said it will not pursue new U.S. nuclear plants at this time, citing the lack of a national plan for waste in its decision. [ID:nN25221371]

One might wonder why the sudden change of heart. After all, these guys are fairly big guns in the nuclear power business.

On the trail of the money; a name for the account where the $24+ billion resides: Treasury’s [color=Cyan]Nuclear Waste Fund.

27 July 2010
The Federal Government's Responsibilities and Liabilities Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act

(...) Starting in 1983, the NWPA authorized DOE to charge electric utilities fees to cover the costs of disposing of the nuclear waste they generate. Utilities today pay annual fees at a rate of 1 mil (0.1 cent) per kilowatt-hour of the electricity they sell that is generated by nuclear power plants...

The fees, which are recorded in the budget as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending), are deposited into the Treasury’s Nuclear Waste Fund.

Aha! We have an account at the US Treasury...should be safe there, n’est-ce pas?

(...) Table1 summarizes the government’s receipts and disbursements related to the nuclear waste disposal program from 1983 through the end of fiscal year 2009. During that time, $31.0 billion was credited to the Nuclear Waste Fund. That amount includes fees paid by the nuclear industry totaling $17.1 billion as well as $13.8 billion from intragovernmental transfers of interest credited to the fund.

Cumulative expenditures from the fund during that period totaled about $7.3 billion, mostly for analyses related to the waste disposal program and for initial design work by DOE on the Yucca Mountain facility. The NRC and other federal entities also received modest appropriations from the fund for work related to the program, leaving an unspent balance of $23.6 billion at the end of fiscal year 2009.

CBO estimates that in 2010, another $2.0 billion will be credited to the fund—nearly $800 million from fees and the rest from interest. Expenditures in 2010 will total $0.2 billion, bringing the fund’s end-of-year balance to $25.4 billion, CBO estimates...

The inference is that the money existed on this date, 27 July 2010, according to the CBO.

Is that like the fox guarding the henhouse?

Are there any hens actually still inside?

If, in fact, this document is shown to be false, are there any remedies to this situation?

Who should hang for this deception and outright theft?

Does anyone really care, or merely is this another piece of bravo sierra to be shoved in a corner, hopefully out of sight?

NukeSpeak...well, at least it's only six months old and states that the $24+ billion is there.

May 2011
Budget and Financial Management Improvements to the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF)

3. Administratively reclassifying the NWF annual fees as budget offsetting collections, so
that funds appropriated are the used/spent nuclear fuel management can be scored on a
net zero basis for purposes of compliance with Congressional spending caps.

We smell ‘eau de rat!

A closer look...

Background Report to the Blue Ribbon Commission
on America’s Nuclear Future

The NWF currently holds a surplus balance of over $24 billion, increasing at a rate of about $2 billion per year.

Annual fees provide about $0.8 billion per year; interest on the fund balance is credited at a rate of over $1 billion annually...

To be continued...

posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 03:50 PM

(Continued from previous post)

The NWF currently holds a surplus balance of over $24 billion, increasing at a rate of
about $2 billion per year. Annual fees provide about $0.8 billion per year; interest on
the fund balance is credited at a rate of over $1 billion annually...

Can't we just follow the paper trail?

The three issues for possible administrative action include:

1. Instituting financial management enhancements to foster multi-year budgeting and
appropriations; combined accrual and cash budgeting; and separate capital budgeting;

2. Applying the dual accrual/cash accounting and budgeting process for collecting the
annual 1 mil (0.1 cents) per kWh annual fee, with the timing of cash collections linked
to appropriations and outlays; and

[color=Chartreuse]3. Administratively reclassifying the NWF annual fees as budget offsetting collections, so
that funds appropriated are the used/spent nuclear fuel management can be scored on a
net zero basis for purposes of compliance with Congressional spending caps.

To sum up this possible exercise in futility, we are led to believe that as of May 2011, the money was there. Of course, there are “improvements” in the works.


Management of the used/spent fuel from commercial reactors is a business-like activity. Because of the very long time frames in permanent disposal of used/spent fuel, Congress decided in 1982 that the federal government would take management responsibility for used/spent fuel, but require the generators of the used/spent fuel to pay the full cost for this service.

Thus, management of used/spent fuel should be viewed as a business-like rather than inherently government function, such as national defense or highway maintenance...

Head spinning yet? Watch the sleight-of-hand here.

Does the $24+ billion simply evaporate in an accounting “reclassification?”

Enquiring minds want to see the money.

Peace Love Light
[align=center][color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution[/align]

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in