It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Accident at Plant in Mississippi USA gets Totally Ignored!!! Why?

page: 9
236
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by daymarez
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Hi all... I live in Mississippi and this is the first I have heard of the accident. I've skimmed the local news and cannot find anything. I'll continue digging to see what I can come up with.





**I am a long time lurker of ATS. This is my first post, so be nice, please.



Thanks, we look forward to any input you can provide.




posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Elbereth
Nuclear Accident at Plant in Mississippi:

WJTV Story


I am going to see if I can embed this video report.


He claims it was "below levels", but the NRC report says the levels were unknown. Hmmm.

I want to see the actual read outs from their sensors on exactly what level they detected. Than I can do some conversions and figure out exactly what we are talking about here.

But I will state that "any level" of a radioactive pollutant is too much and potentially dangerous.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Kevin Kamps, of Beyond Nuclear, a nuclear watchdog group based in Maryland, talks to the Vermont House and Senate natural resources committee about the impact of the recently discovered tritium leak on the environment and on decommissioning costs.



"So it's been scientifically proven that Tritium is a cancer causing agent."
"Exposure to tritium can cause an increase in cancer."
"There is also the risk of genetic damage....there is also the risk of birth defects."

Please watch this video all. It's really eye opening. It was posted last year, so it is from way before this incident occurred.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:23 AM
link   

This is an excerpt of the presentation that Gordon Edwards gave at the PGS Nuclear Pros and Cons Conference in Ottawa on April 17, 2009.




"There is absolutely no way you can filter it out, you can't filter water from water."

"You cannot remove tritium from the drinking water by any technically available means that is affordable."

"The trouble is when you breath tritium vapor in through the lungs...the absorption through the lungs is, I kid you not, 100%."

Please watch this very informative seminar.

And here is a link to the Tritium Awareness Project's website with tons of information about the substance.
TAPCanada.org
edit on 9-5-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Both of these guys are really more anti-technology, anti-civilization, anti-human than anti-nuke.

Yes too much tritium is bad but very small doses aren't that bad. That's a good thing because tritium occurs naturally with no need for a nuclear power plant.

All conventional methods of generating electricity on a utility scale have inherent dangers. The best we can do is try and minimize those dangers.

We had a pretty good solution to the nuclear waste solution with the planned Yucca Mountain facility. Unfortunately anti-nuke activists and enviro-whackos shut that facility down before it was ever finished. Most reactor waste is much more dangerous now stored onsite at the plants where it was generated.

Modern breeder reactors can produce no waste at all but "Jimmuh the Dumb" Carter in what had to be one of the worst decisions in a string of truly moronic decisions banned the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and effectively banned breeder reactors since that is what they do. So we have a technology that will produce nuclear power with virtually no waste that was invented in the US but is only used in foreign countries.

We need nuclear power, make no mistake about that. Wind and solar power are pie in the sky fantasys that will never amount to more than a fraction of the power we need. Oil is the very basis for our modern civilization and using it to generate power when there are effective, clean, economical alternatives is incredibly stupid. Oil moves all of our goods at almost every point in the delivery chain. Oil is also used in the production of many of the goods we use and depend on. Oil is used in the pesticides that allow our farmers to feed much of the world. And in the machines that plant and harvest those crops.

As oil continues to become scarcer and more expensive we will need nuclear power more and more.

ps

Yes I know that oil is used to directly generate only a small percent of our utility electricity. But how do you think the coal that generates most of it gets out of the ground and to the generating plant that uses it?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


reply to post by muzzleflash
 


We need nuclear power, make no mistake about that. Wind and solar power are pie in the sky fantasys that will never amount to more than a fraction of the power we need.


Why are they pie in the sky fantasies? Didn't Steven Novack come up with a way to almost double (granted only from 25 % to 46 %) the efficiency and was working toward a way to try and reach 80% efficiency from solar panel energy absorption? We just have to keep working on technology to really utilize the solar power options.

Older link kabout the shooting for 80% www.ecogeek.org...

Newer link where they have it up to estimated 46% www.smartplanet.com... www.smartplanet.com...
edit on 9-5-2011 by kittendaydreamer because: second link didn't work www.smartplanet.com...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by kittendaydreamer
 


Wind plants at best only produce 20-30% of their projected output because even in ideal locations the wind doesn't blow all the time. What that means practically is every utility grade wind farm has to be backed up by a reliable, on call 24/7, conventional generating facility. Wind power is a scam being used to make hucksters rich from misguided government subsidies.

Solar has more potential but at best the sun is only out half the time. Battery technology is reaching it's limits under our current understanding of physics. Without safe, cheap, efficient batteries solar power has to be supplemented with conventional power systems when the sun isn't shining. You know have two large complex generating systems to construct and maintain doubling the cost to build and maintain.

Solar and wind both have niche utility in certain low power/non-critical applications like solar powered road signs that can store enough energy during the day to function throughout the night but they will never meet all of our energy needs.

It's not just that we can't produce enough with solar and wind current technology, it's that our best understanding of physics says solar and wind will never be able to provide all the power our modern civilization needs. Hence pie in the sky fantasy. We should have been building nukes like there was no tomorrow 20 years ago. We should be today even more.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I think that the U.S is trying to shift attention from the whole problem of nuclear power and so they do not report this disaster. Sad, but probably true.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RoyalBlue
 


I just found this:

www.wapt.com...

And I see that someone else posted the WJBT info as well. So far that is all I can find...



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by daymarez
reply to post by RoyalBlue
 


I just found this:

www.wapt.com...

And I see that someone else posted the WJBT info as well. So far that is all I can find...


Thanks for sharing that link. I appreciate it.

It says it was posted today just a few hours ago. Awesome.

This means media outlets are slowly but surely picking up the story. Keep at it guys, if we push hard enough maybe a big outlet will pick it up?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Perhaps this happened to be a convenient way to dump excess tritium, allowing the flooded Mississippi to carry it downstream, into the farms and cities below.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Say goodbye to our crops/food, independence when the SHTF. I hope I die when they flatten florida... I refuse to die of starvation.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
So, has anyone had any sort of confirmation concerning how much of this stuff was actually spilled?

Or are we all hoping for the zombie apocalypse?


I wonder if ll those saying 'why isn't the MSM on this?" would be calling it a 'distraction' from something else if they were covering it?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash




"You cannot remove tritium from the drinking water by any technically available means that is affordable."

"The trouble is when you breath tritium vapor in through the lungs...the absorption through the lungs is, I kid you not, 100%."

Please watch this very informative seminar.

And here is a link to the Tritium Awareness Project's website with tons of information about the substance.
TAPCanada.org
edit on 9-5-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



How much was released. IT would seem it would take A LOT to reach levels that would be dangerous to humans considering the amount of flood water present and the rate of dispersal.

I thin you the REAL issue here is finding out if this was an intentional release during a flood. I suspect worrying about thi being a major spill is the wrong angle.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
Man this whole mess stinks of population culling. Adding Georgia just breached the realm of statistical probability.

When the dust settles, there are ways to clean up the mess. Science and medicine are going to have to make some major technological leaps in the near future to keep up with this NWO mess in progres. I read about someone who figured out how to deradiate certain water polutants in the seventies. It was designed for the possibility of dealing with water issues on mars. It was a stupidly simple idea, but brilliantly elegant. Used borosilic fiberglass filters glass and reverse osmosis over an active gold bead collector.

Tons of things you can do.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
its horrible...

who knows how often that hapen...its the same here in germany by the way

sorry news link is german

german news



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
If you go to NRC.gov, there is no real mention of this happening. Instead, you find an article on their home page about how the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) constantly monitors tritium at all US nuke plants. It goes on to say that "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been overseeing nuclear power plants and their tritium monitoring programs for several years. Our reviews have confirmed leaks with tritium in underground pipes have not affected public health and safety and the environment." Add a couple of links and ....Abra Cadabra! Your attention is magically diverted...to something far worse?! Instead of one big release, they have known about constant leaks for how long? Really? I feel so much better knowing that consistant leakage into the environment is logged and deemed "safe" but a large release is hidden from public view by an obvious media blackout (except for the Podunk Tribune, insert sarcasm here). Which one is worse? Apparently....Osama Bin Laden is worse.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by angrydog
its horrible...

who knows how often that hapen...its the same here in germany by the way

sorry news link is german

german news


Wow thanks for sharing that link. I didn't realize how close Biblis A was to a major containment breach. Hell, I didn't even know Biblis A existed. That's a problem we are facing when there are hundreds of these reactors all over the place.

Thank you for bringing this issue out and giving it attention.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by thereisnotruth
If you go to NRC.gov, there is no real mention of this happening. Instead, you find an article on their home page about how the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) constantly monitors tritium at all US nuke plants. It goes on to say that "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been overseeing nuclear power plants and their tritium monitoring programs for several years. Our reviews have confirmed leaks with tritium in underground pipes have not affected public health and safety and the environment." Add a couple of links and ....Abra Cadabra! Your attention is magically diverted...to something far worse?! Instead of one big release, they have known about constant leaks for how long? Really? I feel so much better knowing that consistant leakage into the environment is logged and deemed "safe" but a large release is hidden from public view by an obvious media blackout (except for the Podunk Tribune, insert sarcasm here). Which one is worse? Apparently....Osama Bin Laden is worse.


Very good observations there.

Perhaps we are making a difference slowly but surely?

The truth may suck big time, but we are actually starting to get a general idea of what it really is. And it's rather upsetting, but I have to say I am overjoyed that such facts are becoming known and discussed.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
So, has anyone had any sort of confirmation concerning how much of this stuff was actually spilled?

Or are we all hoping for the zombie apocalypse?


Trust me I wish none of this ever happened. I would gladly prefer a reality where everything was fine and dandy, and I could go play some cool video games and not have to be worried.

Also, as far as I am aware, no one knows the amount of tritium that was released in the Grand Gulf incident.

The NRC doesn't really know (or admit if they do know), the Grand Gulf operator Entergy Corporation doesn't know how much (or don't admit it), and neither do we the people.

We have to take a common sense approach here due to lack of hard facts on actual levels of contamination. Any release is a big deal, and it's terribly negligent.

If anyone can find actual data on the quantity released we can do calculations and determine that. Problem is, there may not actually be any data to find...



new topics

top topics



 
236
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join