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.

 

Germany decides to abandon nuclear power by 2022

page: 3
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
This is the result of anti-nuclear fearmongering and populism, not rational thinking, IMHO. Nuclear will be substituted by dangerous coal and importing costly power from abroad.

edit on 30/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


you're kidding Right? "dangerous" coal? since when has a coal plant ever melted down and blasted ionizing radiation across the northern hemisphere polluting for tens of thousands of years. what a maroon. what a nincompoop.




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by rigel4
 





Nuke plants are unsafe, we only need about 6 of them to get into difficulties and then tshtf.


Nuke plants, even counting those decades old, are the safest source of energy per TWh produced, even before renewables.

nextbigfuture.com...
edit on 30/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


yeah until they melt down(3-mile island, chernobyl, fukushima)

then an entire part of a country becomes uninhabitable. oh. and in the short period of time since we have used nuke power we have had a meltdown in every decade. more nuke equals more meltdown equals more massive solution and uninhabitable wastelands.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


As I understand it, Germany's solar output currently provides 20% of Germany's power needs. Given as that Germany's nuclear power reduction plan is scheduled for completion in 2022, I think 20% represents an excellent starting point.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Nuke seems to be the most efficient but most dicey source for power that we use. We have energy needs, have become dependent enough on energy to demand that our needs are met.

Have we learned enough about nuke power yet that we can build "safe" power plants with our latest technology? Is it do-able? It would seem there are definite crises reactions for every instance of systems failure that could occur. Do we know all these failure modes well enough to build-in automated fail-safes? Along with redundant back-ups?

Can we house these nukerators in a containment that would seal itself in the event of a core breach? Perhaps we would have safe, fully-automated nuke generators that can deal with any crisis after having eliminated human-error from the equation. What could go wrong then?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonosama

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by rigel4
 





Nuke plants are unsafe, we only need about 6 of them to get into difficulties and then tshtf.


Nuke plants, even counting those decades old, are the safest source of energy per TWh produced, even before renewables.

nextbigfuture.com...
edit on 30/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


yeah until they melt down(3-mile island, chernobyl, fukushima)

then an entire part of a country becomes uninhabitable. oh. and in the short period of time since we have used nuke power we have had a meltdown in every decade. more nuke equals more meltdown equals more massive solution and uninhabitable wastelands.

And then there's the problem of storing the waste which still hasn't been solved. On top of that there's the decommisioning, both extensive cost and storage of radioactive infrastructure.

One final point to the pro nuclear lobby : isn't a controlled nuclear explosion are rather extreme method of boiling water to generate steam to drive a turbine ?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
methinks something is missing here. a large well funded industrialized nation makes a statement to the effect that it will no longer have active nuclear reactors by 2022? another energy source is already in the works here. not solar, not wind, not coal. as efficient as nuclear energy is, what would cause the world to look to a different energy source (something new and maybe not as efficient as nuclear)? fear. true, i like conspiracy. but think about it. no one fixes something that ain't broke. so if it ain't broke, and you really need the world to move onto another power source... break what's not broken. there, i said it. we are all being led to use something we have not seen before. in fact how convenient if the origin of this new source is alien? saving us from ourselves. of course, if we don't need saving, just create a situation where we want to believe we need saving.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Sweden made a similar commitment some years back, but has not followed through on that. Once established, nuclear power is cheap and for that reason expensive to part from.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tonosama

Originally posted by Maslo
This is the result of anti-nuclear fearmongering and populism, not rational thinking, IMHO. Nuclear will be substituted by dangerous coal and importing costly power from abroad.

edit on 30/5/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


you're kidding Right? "dangerous" coal? since when has a coal plant ever melted down and blasted ionizing radiation across the northern hemisphere polluting for tens of thousands of years. what a maroon. what a nincompoop.


Scientific American


Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.


Yeah, Coal is so much better than nuclear, considering it is always putting out radioactive particles into the air.

I am guessing you did not know that, maybe do a bit of research before you call somebody a "nincompoop"


So much fear mongering in this thread.

Japan was shortsighted building nuclear power plants considering their geographic location.

Chernobyl was due to gross negligence AND a poorly built power plant to begin with. The whole RBMK-1000 system had several flaws in its design on a physics level. The plant also had NO containment system at all.
I was even reading that while trying the experimental procedure that led to the disaster, the technicians had turned off the key safety systems!

I have been researching this quite a bit, and before posting, was trying to find a source that would not inevitably be retorted as "bias" in reaction to the actual safety numbers of nuclear power.

However, here is one. I know "Bias, Bias, Bias", however, most of the research pretty much says the same thing and I liked the way this one was worded.
World Nuclear Assocation


One mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million.

Even months after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 it was assumed that there had been no core melt because there were no indications of severe radioactive release even inside the containment. It turned out that in fact about half the core had melted. This remains the only core melt in a reactor conforming to NRC safety criteria, and the effects were contained as designed, without radiological harm to anyone.*

* About this time there was alarmist talk of the so-called "China Syndrome", a scenario where the core of such a reactor would melt, and due to continual heat generation, melt its way through the reactor pressure vessel and concrete foundations to keep going until it reached China on the other side of the globe! The TMI accident proved the extent of truth in the proposition, and the molten core material got exactly 15 mm of the way to China as it froze on the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. At Fukushima, cooling was maintained just long enough apparently to avoid testing the containment in this way.

However apart from this accident and the Chernobyl disaster there have been about ten core melt accidents - mostly in military or experimental reactors - Appendix 2 lists most of them. None resulted in any hazard outside the plant from the core melting, though in one case there was significant radiation release due to burning fuel in hot graphite (similar to Chernobyl but smaller scale). The Fukushima accident should also be considered in that context, since the fuel was badly damaged and there were some off-site radiation releases.

Regulatory requirements today for new plants are that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents.



Strange how more people die from mining coal per year, than die from nuclear fallout from core meltdowns.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamwatcher
Strange how more people die from mining coal per year, than die from nuclear fallout from core meltdowns.


Fair enough. But mining coal is unlikely to devastate the planet (or part thereof), nor poison every living thing it comes into contact with, for generations.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Have people forgotten about Rossis energy catalyzer (cold fusion) device? First 1MW reactor being built in Greece by October; meanwhile he's looking to get an international patent and then release all the information that's currently confidential. When implemented, the reactors energy cost are less than 1 cent per kW/h. Do you realize what that means? It will completely revitalize and revolutionize energy freedom. We'll be running cars, trains, spacecraft, homes, etc; say goodbye to the age of oil.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
This is the result of anti-nuclear fearmongering and populism, not rational thinking, IMHO. Nuclear will be substituted by dangerous coal and importing costly power from abroad.


As is your response, fearmongering, populism, and irrational thinking.

Nuclear and Coal will be replaced by solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal sources coupled with massive energy storage systems including batteries, hydrogen, compressed air, flywheels, and other kinetic storage devices. More individuals will create off grid energy systems. Technological advances will reduce energy needs through efficiency.

Thoughts become things.
Think good thoughts.

Sri Oracle
edit on 30-5-2011 by Sri Oracle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 



And then there's the problem of storing the waste which still hasn't been solved. On top of that there's the decommisioning, both extensive cost and storage of radioactive infrastructure.


This has already been solved - long ago. Dig a system of tunnels and warehouses inside of mountain(s) - use proper compartmentalized construction and interior shielding (not nearly as expensive or extensive systems required). Post security guards and use proper handling procedures - recommend using rail transport of nuclear waste due to less risk of exposure via truck. Use a system similar to bank vaults - if someone tries to break in and steal materials - lock them inside.


One final point to the pro nuclear lobby : isn't a controlled nuclear explosion are rather extreme method of boiling water to generate steam to drive a turbine


There is no explosion. Nuclear reactors are incapable of reaching critical mass necessary for a bomb-like effect. They are no different from controlled chemical reactions - just at the nuclear level. Unlike chemical fuels, however, nuclear fuel can be made to be nonvolatile in storage and transport (a truck driving down the highway carrying nuclear fuel packaged properly could wreck and the cargo remain completely inert both in terms of radiation leakage and risk of spontaneous reaction - which is a concern with chemical fuel systems - you're better off driving behind a truck carrying nuclear fuel or waste than driving behind a truck carrying propane).



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Just saw an article about how about 40% of Germany's electricity is produced by nuclear energy. I'd like to see their plan to come up with that power. Just can't do it with current renewable sources. Plus they can't use greenhouse producing options either.

Can't see how they will achieve this.
edit on 31-5-2011 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Tonosama
 





you're kidding Right? "dangerous" coal? since when has a coal plant ever melted down and blasted ionizing radiation across the northern hemisphere polluting for tens of thousands of years. what a maroon. what a nincompoop.


Coal power plant releases more radioactive particles, and straight into the air, than nuclear power plant releases radioactive waste generating the same amount of energy. Nuclear waste is also nicely packed for storage instead of released into the air.

And this is just radioactivity. Then there are dangerous particle emmisions and coal mining industry.

Few people realise that we have coal Chernobyl every week. But that is not EVIL NUCLEAR, so average uninformed people do not care...



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 




And then there's the problem of storing the waste which still hasn't been solved.


Nuclear waste? What is that? You mean fuel for Gen. IV reactors?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by teapot
reply to post by Maslo
 


As I understand it, Germany's solar output currently provides 20% of Germany's power needs. Given as that Germany's nuclear power reduction plan is scheduled for completion in 2022, I think 20% represents an excellent starting point.



You are off by a factor of ten.

ITS 2 PERCENT.
And its very expensive electricity, that is only produced
when its sunny, and there is no storage system.

Solar power in Germany
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A portion of the Waldpolenz Solar Park

Germany is one of the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installers, with a solar PV capacity as of 2010 of almost 17,000 megawatts (MW).[1] The German solar PV industry installed 7,400 MW from nearly one-quarter million individual systems in 2010, and solar PV provided 12 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2010, about 2% of total electricity.[2] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[3]
edit on 31-5-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


The United States will never use Thorium power because Weapons-grade fissionable material is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor..........
imho



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


Total output from solar (and other renewable) sources is on course to far exceed the 20% I first postulated!


...it's worth noting that just today, total power output of Germany's installed solar PV panels hit 12.1 GW -- greater than the total power output (10 GW) of Japan's entire 6-reactor nuclear power plant.

www.grist.org...




Germany: renewable electricity output rises by 7.8% in 2010

According to the German energy industry association BDEW, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power generated 7.8% more electricity in Germany in 2010 than in 2009. In a written statement, the association said that renewables accounted for 102.3bnkWh in 2010, or 17% of Germany’s total power output, according to preliminary figures. This is up from the 94.9bnkWh seen in 2009 (16.4% of total generation).

www.ifandp.com...


At a growth rate of 7.8% per annum, I would suggest that by 2022, Germany will have achieved their stated aims and will be in a position to export renewable power.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
In Germany Eko-terrorist party have great influence on government but even in such circumstances they are not so crazy to abandoned nuclear power-plants. How they imagine that? They just shut the power-plants and then what? Russian Gas? Up to 2022 Germany need to increase production of energy, how do they imagine without nuclear energy? I thing this is just temporary propaganda. They had already announced once that they would shut this power-plants and few years later they resign of doing that. This time would be similar.
edit on 1-6-2011 by odyseusz because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-6-2011 by odyseusz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DClairvoyant
reply to post by windwaker
 


You can't catch radiation sickness from another member of the public unless you do these wrong things, he/she spits saliva in your mouth, your blood/urine gets contaminated with the radiated person, you have a family with the radiated person, as the newborn child's genetics will be mutulated with possible down syndrome, alzhimers diseases, etc.

Standing, breathing the same air as a radiated person will not make you sick. You would have to be breathing the same contaminated atmosphere and as for the paper masks, the public really have been mis-informed from their government, what a suprise... not! Every single skin pour absorbs Heavy Metal particles from the radiated areas of Fukushima, so cover your face with a paer mask will not prevent you from radiation sickness.

Why do you think the militaries spend thousandths on NBC (Nuclear biological Chemical suits to tackle radiation/chemical zones, your not likely to see a soldier walking 20km from a well-known High Level Security Zone with a pair of flip flops, t'shirt, trousers and a paper mask.

You people really need to start getting with it.. or you'll end up like Chernobyl victoms.

After I handed in all my greens after leaving the military back in 2009, I went out got a job, saved up for "greens" and bought myself an ex NBC suit. Just incase. And as for British and American intelligence, who had warned all of their citizens traveling to Tokyo to stay well as far as 50-60km away from Fukushima plant, and were ordered to leave Japan within arrival.


Greetings:

We are truly amazed that presenting what is a pure fact - without any spin associated to it - can generate such an outbreak of insecurity and outright fear-driven responses.

We had always expected that readers here can receive and interpret facts as presented, instead of demanding filtering for what some deem is unpleasant information.

We urge that sub-segment to immediately and permanently orient their attention to other media outlets that does the prefiltering for them, as per the government's mandate of not spreading panic.

Check this out:




Government Radiation Expert Deconstructs Myth Of “Safe” Radiation Levels
Nuclear radiation expert and renowned Government radiation expert, Chris Bubsy, deconstructs the myths and propaganda of so-called “safe” levels of nuclear radiation.


Since the Fukushima accident we have seen a stream of experts on radiation telling us not to worry, that the doses are too low, that the accident is nothing like Chernobyl and so forth. They appear on television and we read their articles in the newspapers and online. Fortunately the majority of the public don’t believe them.
(...)
And in an interview with me in Stockholm in 2009, Dr Jack Valentin, the ex-Scientific Secretary of the ICRP conceded this, and also made the statement that the ICRP risk model, the one used by all governments to assess the outcome of accidents like Fukushima, was unsafe and could not be used. You can see this interview on the internet, on www.vimeo.com.



Why is the ICRP model unsafe?

Because it is based on “absorbed dose”. This is average radiation energy in Joules divided by the mass of living tissue into which it is diluted. A milliSievert is one milliJoule of energy diluted into one kilogram of tissue.

As such, it would not distinguish between warming yourself in front of a fire and eating a red hot coal. It is the local distribution of energy that is the problem.

The dose from a singly internal alpha particle track to a single cell is 500mSv! The dose to the whole body from the same alpha track is 5 x 10-11 mSv. That is 0.000000000005mSv. But it is the dose to the cell that causes the genetic damage and the ultimate cancer.

The cancer yield per unit dose employed by ICRP is based entirely on external acute high dose radiation at Hiroshima, where the average dose to a cell was the same for all cells.


Please go to the source to read the full story - it is well worth your time. He concludes with this:


There is a gap between them and us.

Between the phoney scientists and the public who don’t believe what they say.

Between those who are employed and paid to protect us from radioactive pollution and those who die from its consequences.

Between those who talk down what is arguably the greatest public health scandal in human history, and the facts that they ignore.

more

Joseph Conrad wrote: “After all the shouting is over, the grim silence of facts remain.”


Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

Traces of radiation from the crippled nuclear plant in Japan are being detected in states from California to Massachusetts, carried across the Pacific on broad rivers of wind. But state officials say there is no public health risk.

OK....let's investigate that statement a bit further.

Let's start with this from the Wall Street Journal:

Radiation Detected in U.S.


U.S. states, which aren't recommending protective measures for the public, are reporting tiny amounts of radioactive iodine known as Iodine-131 that is seen in the early stages of a nuclear reaction. It has a short half-life of eight days, meaning that in that time, half of it will have decayed to a non-radioactive state, a process that will continue until it is undetectable, Mr. Matus said.

In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, public officials said radiation found in rainwater last week posed no threat to drinking water. Pennsylvania repeatedly tested the drinking water from six regions in the state over the weekend, but detected no Iodine-131, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said in a statement Monday.

People might "get alarmed by making what would be an [color=limegreen]inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water," Mr. Corbett said in a statement.

We offer the following article without comment:

28 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in Pennsylvania Rainwater Sample is 3300%
Above Federal Drinking Water Standard



Governor Corbett Says Public Water Supply Testing Finds No Risk to Public From Radioactivity Found in Rainwater, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor, March 28, 2011:

The (Iodine-131) numbers reported in the rainwater samples in Pennsylvania range from 40-100 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Although these are levels above the background levels historically reported in these areas, they are still about 25 times below the level that would be of concern. The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is three pCi/L. …

On Friday, rainwater samples were taken in Harrisburg, where levels were 41 pCi/L and at nuclear power plants at TMI and Limerick, where levels were 90 to 100 pCi/L.

Corbett emphasized that the drinking water is safe and there is no cause for health concerns. …

“Rainwater is not typically directly consumed,” Corbett said. “However, people might get alarmed by making what would be [color=limegreen]an inappropriate connection from rainwater to drinking water. By testing the drinking water, we can assure people that the water is safe.” …

This is not the radiation you seek... move along...

How Safe Is the Rain in America?

Prevailing winds routinely waft plumes of dust, coal-smoke, wild-fire soot, industrial grit and other microscopic particles from Asia to North America, several atmospheric scientists said.

Carried up by the rising warm air in the region around the damaged Fukushima plant, particles of radioactive isotopes such as Iodine-131 and Xenon-133 are being carried at about 50 miles per hour by winds blowing from west to east in a band of the atmosphere called the troposphere, about 6,500 feet to about 30,000 feet or more above the ground.


(...)
Generally, "the stuff will be spread in a long stream and, as it spreads, it becomes quite dilute," said research scientist Tony VanCuren at the California Air Resources Board.

Under current conditions, particles from the Fukushima complex would take about a week or so to cross the Pacific.

Typically, the particles will stay aloft until washed out of the air by rain or buffeted to lower altitude by turbulence, creating an unpredictable patchwork of fallout.

more

4 April 2011
Cesium-137 Threat Grows While MSM Remains Silent


Cesium-137 has been detected in drinking water and milk here in the United States. Cesium and Tellurium were found in Boise, Las Vegas, Nome and Dutch Harbor, Honolulu, Kauai and Oahu, Anaheim, Riverside, San Francisco, and San Bernardino,  Jacksonville and Orlando, Salt Lake City,  Guam, and Saipan while Uranium-234, with a half-life of 245,500 years has been found in Hawaii, California, and Washington.

The EPA has radiation monitoring sites situated around the country.

Radioactive isotopes spread through the atmosphere accumulate in milk after they fall to earth in rain or dust and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues and bone marrow where it increases risk of cancer.

more

The corporate media in the West is downplaying and basically ignoring the threat. On the one hand, the EPA tells us Cesium-137 is appearing in milk and water around the country, while on the other telling us not to worry.

The EPA said in March that “while they were above the historical and background norm, the levels weren’t considered harmful to human health.”

The agency sounds the alarm about radioactivity in cigarette smoke while minimizing the risk from an out-of-control nuclear plant that continues to spew radioactivity on an hourly basis... continuously!

Something is seriously wrong when a supposedly free media and government agencies in the U.S. downplay or completely ignore the threat.


“On April 4, the Japanese government also has requested the Japan Meteorological Society and Japanese universities not to release data from radiation measurement to avoid “public panic”. Rainwater samples have all demonstrated elevated concentrations of radioactive Tellurium-02, Ruthenium-04 and Technetium-04.

“280 sensors to measure radiation release from atomic bomb testing were established under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1996. These sensors are detecting levels equivalent to Chernobyl releases. One scientist, Gerhard Wotawa, noted, ‘I’ve never seen data like this in my career.’


So how do we deal with disaster?

Austria, Germany, Canada and Australia have banned eight episodes of The Simpsons dealing with nuclear crisis.

The Simpsons, now in its 24th season with 480 episodes, has been one of the few outlets to show the greed of nuclear operators, groveling toadies and a complacent public to a mainstream television audience — meltdowns caused by jelly doughnuts!

Kopp Online, Xander News and other non-English news agencies are reporting that the EU implemented a secret “emergency” order, [color=limegreen]without informing the public, that increases the amount of radiation permitted in food by up to 2000% (20 times) the previous food standards.

According to EU bylaws, radiation limits may be raised during a nuclear emergency
to prevent food shortages.

4 April 2011
Radiation Detected In Drinking Water In 13 More US Cities,
Cesium-137 In Vermont Milk



Radiation has reached the EPA's maximum contaminant level in some milk samples.




Radiation from Japan has been detected in drinking water in 13 more American cities, and Cesium-137 has been found in American milk—in Montpelier, Vermont—for the first time since the Japan nuclear disaster began, according to data released by the Environmental Protection Agency late Friday.

Milk samples from Phoenix and Los Angeles contained Iodine-131 at levels roughly equal to the maximum contaminant level permitted by EPA in drinking water, the data shows. The Phoenix sample contained 3.2 picoCuries per liter of Iodine-131. The Los Angeles sample contained 2.9.

The EPA maximum contaminant level is 3.0, but this is a conservative standard designed to minimize exposure over a lifetime, so EPA does not consider these levels to pose a health threat. The FDA, not the EPA, regulates milk.

UPDATE: The FDA's Derived Intervention Level for Iodine-131 in milk is much higher: 4700 picoCuries per liter.
Read why.

Radioactive isotopes accumulate in milk after they spread through the atmosphere, fall to earth in rain or dust, and settle on vegetation, where they are ingested by grazing cattle. Iodine-131 is known to accumulate in the thyroid gland, where it can cause cancer and other thyroid diseases. Cesium-137 accumulates in the body’s soft tissues, where it increases risk of cancer, according to EPA.

A rainwater sample collected in Boise on March 27 contained 390 picocures per liter of iodine-131, plus 41 of cesium-134 and 36 of cesium-137. EPA released this result for the first time yesterday. Typically several days pass between sample collection and data release because of the time required to collect, transport and analyze the samples.

But the EPA drinking-water data includes one outlier—an unusually, but not dangerously, high reading in a drinking water sample from Chatanooga, Tennessee.


The Watts Bar Dam site in Spring City, Tennessee

The sample was collected at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Sequoyah nuclear plant. A Tennessee official told the Chatanooga Times last week that radiation from Japan had been detected at Sequoyah but is “1,000 to 10,000 times below any levels of concern.”

The 1.6 picocures per liter reported by the EPA on Friday is slightly more than half the maximum contaminant level permitted in drinking water, but more uniquely, it is many times higher than all the other drinking water samples collected in the U.S.
more

5 April 2011


The flow of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean near Japan's distressed nuclear power plant has stopped, the plant's owners said.

The water was escaping from a concrete pit with a large crack in it, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. said. Officials said the company used a substance called liquid glass to seal the crack and the leak stopped Wednesday morning.

The release of radioactive waste has raised concerns in Japan and elsewhere about the safety of seafood. On Tuesday, Japan's government set its first radiation safety standards for fish after radioactive contamination in nearby seawater was measured at several million times the legal limit.

[color=limegreen]TEPCO insisted that the radiation will rapidly disperse and that it poses no immediate danger.

But an expert said exposure to the highly concentrated levels near the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant could cause immediate injury and that the leaks could result in residual contamination of the sea in the area.
more

12 April 2011
Nuclear Professor “Surprised” by Radioactive Seaweed South of Seattle


… KIRO 7 obtained samples of seaweed from Budd Inlet near Olympia two weeks ago. Professor Kris Starosta (a nuclear scientist) at Simon Fraser University confirmed the presence of radioactive Iodine Monday.

“We have seen Iodine 131 in the sample you sent us,” he said. “I think it’s pretty clear by now this must be Iodine 131 from releases from Fukushima.” …

“I think it is surprising,” Starosta said. “I guess I was assuming it wouldn’t reach this far, but it did.” …
more

12 April 2011
Fukushima Meltdown Could Trigger Atomic Explosion


A British professor and expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation told Alex Jones today evidence points toward a nuclear explosion occurring at the Fukushima Daiichi complex. Two explosions at the plant in March were described as hydrogen gas explosions by Japanese officials and the corporate media.

Using ratios of the radionuclides Xenon 133 and Xenon 133m which they measured by gamma spectrometer, the Russians demonstrated that the Chernobyl explosion was a fission criticality explosion and not principally a hydrogen explosion as has been claimed.

“I believe that the explosion of the No 3 reactor may have also involved criticality but this must await the release of data on measurements of the Xenon isotope ratios,” he writes in a statement on Fukushima and Chernobyl emailed to Infowars.com.

Busby further notes that the surface contamination and of dose rates 60 kilometers out from the Fukushima site on March 17 exceeded that released at Chernobyl.

He explains in his statement that the damaged reactors at Fukushima “are now continuing to fission. It is hoped that there will be no separation of plutonium and possible nuclear explosion. I feel that this is unlikely now.” Short of an actual plutonium explosion, the reactors remain open to the air and will continue to “fission and release radionuclides for years unless something drastic is done.”

Dr. Busby noted a precedent for the dire scenario now unfolding – a nuclear explosion at a plutonium production reprocessing plant in the former Soviet Union in 1957.

The incident at the Mayak facility was the second-worst nuclear accident in history after the Chernobyl disaster. The explosion released 50-100 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste and contaminated a huge territory in the eastern Urals.

The Soviets kept the explosion secret for 30 years. According to a report on the accident, about 400,000 people in the region were irradiated following the explosion and other incidents at the plant.

Ural Mountains Radiation Pollution

17 April 2011
Have the Real Cesium-137 Fallout Maps Been Hidden From the Public?

Compare these two images.

First the publicly released Cs-137 total column fallout map for 24th March. This analysis was made on 26th March.


Now the map on the server here for the same time on the same date. The key gradient is the same. This analysis was made the day before, on the 25th March.


That's right, it shows the Northern Hemisphere getting absolutely plastered with radioactive Cesium-137. If this is incorrect, why is it kept on file and not the public one?  If it is the real version, why is it not publicly released?
source.

19 April 2011
High Levels Of Caesium And Xenon Nuclear Fallout Found In Japan Radiation Forecasts Not Being Shown To The Public


We previously reported that Dutchsinse, who has been falling the Japan nuclear radiation forecasts being generated by different scientific organizations, stumbled across an entirely different set of radiation forecasts not released to the public.
more

Censored Japan Nuclear Radiation Forecasts Not Released To Public Found?

Japan nuclear radiation forecasts produced by the Norwegian Air Institute have apparently been censored and never released to the public. Here are three videos discuss these forecasts and making there existence public knowledge.
more


And this particular nugget from TEPCO:

19 April 2011
Current Status at Fukushima Daiichi
Workers have been struggling to prevent a nuclear disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Here's the current status of each of the six reactors. 
Last updated April 19, 2011.

20 April 2011
Comparison Of Censored And Uncensored Japan Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Fallout Forecast

Cover-up of Japan Fukushima Nuclear Radiation Fallout Forecasts Exposed!
We previously reported on the steady concentrated stream of Nuclear radioactive fallout heading toward the US and Canada.

We now have for the first time a side-by-side evaluation of two radiation fallout forecasts. On the left is the censored version released to the public downplaying the levels of radiation spreading around the world. On the right is the same uncensored forecast.




And now for something completely different:

27 April 2011


presents

America's Worst Nukes

Poorly-regulated nuclear power plants had 13 'near-misses' in 2010.

This is a great photo-essay put together by Rolling Stone Magazine and well-worth the read.




Arkansas Nuclear One
Location: Russellville, AR
Owner: Entergy
Near-miss: Security problems prompted the NRC to conduct a special investigation.
Details not publicly available.

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists, The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety
more

And that, my friends, were some highlights from April, 2011.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join