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.

 

American Nuclear Sites, Are They Worth The Risk?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by laiguana
Sure...unless people around the nation are prepared to double their electric bills.
See...nuclear energy is still the best trade off when it comes to reliable, clean energy. Energy that gives us a break from our dependency on foreign oil. And given the huge energy demands we have in this country it's the best option available...

Then why did Japan, who is reportedly heavily dependent on Nuclear power, threaten their citizens that their electricity would go up an equivalent of 10 US dollars a month if they got rid of nuclear power??? 10 US dollars, that's it ??? I don 't believe Nuclear Power fills a big enough void to make a noticeable difference, especially due to the costs associated with it, (and that's BEFORE the catastrophic costs due to accidents and negligence)...




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Then why did Japan, who is reportedly heavily dependent on Nuclear power, threaten their citizens that their electricity would go up an equivalent of 10 US dollars a month if they got rid of nuclear power??? 10 US dollars, that's it ??? I don 't believe Nuclear Power fills a big enough void to make a noticeable difference, especially due to the costs associated with it, (and that's BEFORE the catastrophic costs due to accidents and negligence)...


So sayeth the anonymous Frenchman on Youtube ..... I think you will need a better source for that.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Short and simple. No they're not worth the risk of human, animal or plant life.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
America should have converted to nuclear power years ago. It's safer than any other power source, it's cheap, it's reliable, it's clean. You have pretty much 0% chance of dying from radiation exposure from nuclear energy.

www.nsc.org...


No one died as a result of the Three Mile Island disaster, and experts have published a 148 page report detailing everything that caused the Chernobyl disaster and how it could have easily been fixed.
www-pub.iaea.org...


Coal kills more miners every year than the initial blast at Chernobyl killed, not to mention the pollution caused by fossil fuels which kills countless more people annually.
www.pittsburghlive.com...

A study found that in Europe alone wind energy has killed more people than nuclear energy.
manhaz.cyf.gov.pl...

And the leading cause of accidents with wind power is "blade failure" which is when a turbine blade shatters sending shrapnel flying through the air.
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk...

Then with hydroelectric power of course you get floods and dam breakage, so remind me again why we're afraid of nuclear power? Did we just randomly decide that this power source is somehow worse than all the others? Or maybe you're all sheep blindly following the media when they tell you that nuclear power is "bad" and that we should return to the dark ages, over-hyping any minor nuclear related incident while covering up and ignoring deaths caused by other power sources.



REALLY???...Your defense of Nuclear Energy leaves me.......speechless!!! Did you forget what energy resources Nuclear Energy relies on for mining, transportation, for its own power to build and run, and maintain??? Let's not talk about what mining for nuclear materials does to the environment, loss of life from mining accidents, etc.

And talk about loss of life, have you been to a cancer hospital recently? I would rather die from shrapnel from an exploding turbine blade, than to die slowly and painfully from radioactive poisoning over a long time, any day.

And don't get me started on the lies of how much electricity is REALLY replaced by Nuclear Energy, lies sold to us by Nuclear lobbyists...................



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ToFarGone
 

ToFarGone, thank you for bringing this here, good find!

This is a huge problem that needs to be brought to the forefront of Americans' minds. I suspected once Fukushima happened, it would start shedding light on other dark places like our own backyards here in the U.S. People would initially blame Fukushima for any contamination here, but over time people are going to figure out it's been our own plants, and processes, and officials that have been allowing contamination to go on here for years, undetected! And not that it could be any worse, except for the looming catastrophic accidents waiting to happen here, along with our already contaminated soil and water and air.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ToFarGone
reply to post by TDawgRex
 

Yeah, lol, and there's that. How does that make sense? How can they even pretend that makes sense?

Something like the annual amount of incurred radiation goes from 1 millisieverts per year, to a min/max of 20-100 millisieverts per year. WTF?

It's like something out of 1984 dude. One day this is the truth, and tomorrow the truth is different.
Is everyone still this asleep? Japan, what are you going through?!


Greetings:

Thank you for your participation. We sincerely appreciate those like you and TDawgRex who take the time to contribute.



It's like something out of 1984 dude. One day this is the truth, and tomorrow the truth is different.
Is everyone still this asleep?


Newspeak...

Did someone mention the EPA?


19 May 2011
At this time, [color=limegreen]there is no public health threat in the U.S. [color=limegreen]related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.

At this time, theoretical models do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.
source


... who can say that and keep a straight face?

Perhaps this will interest you also:


23 April 2011
Japan Nuclear Iodine Radiation In San Francisco Milk Over 2600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit
source



10 May 2011
Hawaii Farmers Treating Milk With Boron After Finding Radiation 2400 Times Above Safe Levels

source

This was around the same time that the EPA stopped Fukushima nuclear radiation tests on milk, drinking water and rainwater saying the levels of radiation were constantly dropping and posed no health risks.


EPA officials, however, [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.

Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA’s regional headquarters in San Francisco, said [color=limegreen]the agency’s written statement would stand on its own.

IMHO, these people theoretically work for we, the people, and this type of behavior should not be tolerated!

Where are those people that actually are aware (and care)?

From the lackluster response to many threads dealing with this subject, one might surmise that there are not enough of us - or that we are not connecting in a collective voice to shout from the rooftops:

America's Being Nuked - Can we Together Stop the Madness?


In the unlikely scenario that pollutants could affect fish that have traveled to the U.S., FDA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to test seafood caught in those areas. Together, FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.


The FDA has claimed that there is no need to test Pacific fish for Japan nuclear radiation reports the Anchorage Daily News but when drilled on details by the reporter, the FDA [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions and gave the reporter the run-around.

The FDA says there will be no testing of fish until NOAA testing finds cause for alarm but NOAA [color=limegreen]refuses to answer questions on what kind of monitoring has been done.
source



25 April 2011
New EPA Radiation Tests Show Cesium in California Rainwater at Highest Level Since Crisis Began
source



3 May 2011
Hot Radioactive Particles in Seattle at 50% of Levels Seen in Tokyo
source

OK... 50% of what? Are we, the people, to be the least bit alarmed? Do the EPA and FDA have the best interests of the American people at the forefront of decision-making? Are we really screwed? Does anyone read this? Does anyone care?

Interesting. As we write this, David Morrison (NASA mouthpiece) is in the History Channel talking about ELE's - specifically doomsday asteroids (1,100 1 kilometer or larger). 6,000 to one odds. (More on this buffoon in Cometgate2).

Space Guard Survey promoted heavily as a "... not to worry, feel good" piece. (Bangs head on desk and reaches for Vice-Grips).

But we digress. Meanwhile, back at the ranch:


3 April 2011
140,000 Times More Iodine-131 Released at Fukushima Than Three Mile Island… Using March 22 Estimates
source



3 May 2011
Radiation In US Food Will Be Nationwide Problem, Not Just Regional, From Fukushima Nuclear Radioactive Fallout
source



3 June 2011
5.77 microsieverts per hour of radiation measured near Tokyo at ground level — Government “is desperately trying to keep it quiet...”
source


And from our friend Alexander Higgins:

U.S. Radiation Map

Updated With Real Time EPA RadNet Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring For Every Major City In America On A Single Page

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
GAO: leaks at aging nuke sites difficult to detect

Read more: www.seattlepi.com...

In a written statement, he compared the ongoing nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima Dai-ichi plant to the kind of meltdown he said could happen in the U.S. if a pipe that is supposed to carry water to cool a reactor's core fails. "There would be no warning because no one ever checks the integrity of these underground pipes," Markey said. Read more: www.seattlepi.com...






edit on 22-6-2011 by RoyalBlue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoyalBlue

REALLY???...Your defense of Nuclear Energy leaves me.......speechless!!! Did you forget what energy resources Nuclear Energy relies on for mining, transportation, for its own power to build and run, and maintain??? Let's not talk about what mining for nuclear materials does to the environment, loss of life from mining accidents, etc.


There are significantly fewer uranium related mining accidents than coal related mining accidents, plus there is no air pollution like you get with fossil fuel power plants, which means less deaths. For the energy required to mine and transport uranium to power nuclear plants they use, guess what, nuclear energy! A lot of ships nowadays are powered by nuclear energy, in case you didn't know that, and by the way none of the crew members experience any problems.




And talk about loss of life, have you been to a cancer hospital recently? I would rather die from shrapnel from an exploding turbine blade, than to die slowly and painfully from radioactive poisoning over a long time, any day.


Like I the source I posted said, you have exactly 0% chance of dying from exposure to radiation from a nuclear power plant. Have you ever flown on an airplane or gotten an x-ray at the dentist? Congratulations, you've received more radiation than you'd get from living next to a nuclear power plant. Actually, the amount of radiation you're exposed to living next to a nuclear power plant is significantly less than the amount of radiation you're exposed to living next to a coal power plant.

Like my other source said; a study conducted in Europe, a continent where nuclear energy is the dominant energy source and wind power is almost non-existent, has more deaths annually caused by wind power than by nuclear power. In fact, do you want to know how many deaths in Europe are caused by nuclear power every year? Zero. Want to know how many deaths in Europe are caused by every other power source? Hundreds. I think it's pretty clear what power source is the safest here.


And don't get me started on the lies of how much electricity is REALLY replaced by Nuclear Energy, lies sold to us by Nuclear lobbyists...................


Like I said, we should have started converting to nuclear power years ago. The facts are that nuclear power provides a cheap alternative to fossil-fuel-based sources of electricity. With comparable capital and operating costs, and a mere fraction of the fuel costs, it can provide electricity at 50-80 percent of the price of traditional sources. It is extremely reliable, and is by far the cleanest of any viable energy source currently known.

In America today the nuclear industry ranks among the safest places to work. It experiences only 0.34 accidents resulting in lost work time per 200,000 workers compared to an average of 3.1 throughout the private industry. In the past 40 years, hundreds of thousands have died as a result of coal mining and other forms of energy production, yet there has not been a single fatality, or even a serious injury, resulting from the operation of civilian nuclear plants in the United States. The annual probability of radiation leakage for the newest reactors is estimated at less than one in a billion--a level of safety no other source of energy can even approach.

The truth here is that the opposition to nuclear power is based not on science, but on hostility to science and technology.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Oh yeah and I forgot to add how rapidly nuclear technology is advancing. A lot of the things that are concerning critics of nuclear energy could be prevented with this baby here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some of the advantages of which are


Nuclear waste that lasts a few centuries instead of millennia [3]

100-300 times more energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel [4]

The ability to consume existing nuclear waste in the production of electricity

Improved operating safety


Coming soon to a town near you by 2030! If we'd adopted nuclear power back when it was new we'd probably have these things right now.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Oh yeah another thing I forgot to mention, about this claim you made,


And talk about loss of life, have you been to a cancer hospital recently?


Living next to nuclear power plants is believed to have no effect on cancer development.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The biggest causes of cancer as a result of radiation are due to exposure to ultraviolet radiation, medical imaging, and radon gas.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Then why did Japan, who is reportedly heavily dependent on Nuclear power, threaten their citizens that their electricity would go up an equivalent of 10 US dollars a month if they got rid of nuclear power??? 10 US dollars, that's it ??? I don 't believe Nuclear Power fills a big enough void to make a noticeable difference, especially due to the costs associated with it, (and that's BEFORE the catastrophic costs due to accidents and negligence)...


So sayeth the anonymous Frenchman on Youtube ..... I think you will need a better source for that.


That so-called "Frenchman" was reading directly from the Japanese newspaper Japan Times June 15th edition. If I can track down that edition I will re-copy the print here.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
10 US dollars, that's it ???


This amounts to $7440 extra dollars over the average Japanese male's life, not counting childhood. I could buy a nice TV for that, or a used car. Not to mention the rapidly rising costs of fossil fuels, so the actual amount saved is much, much more than that.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


..............Wow, nuclear industry trolls are out today..................



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by RoyalBlue
 


You do that.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
reply to post by Nosred
 


..............Wow, nuclear industry trolls are out today..................


Wow, after this masterfully worded scientific refutation to my post, I think I changed my mind about nuclear energy. The evidence you just brought to light proves it's pretty bad.

*Sarcasm self-test complete*



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
"It's safer than any other power source, it's cheap, it's reliable, it's clean. You have pretty much 0% chance of dying from radiation exposure from nuclear energy."

"So remind me again why we're afraid of nuclear power? Did we just randomly decide that this power source is somehow worse than all the others?" "Over-hyping any minor nuclear related incident...



Can any of our Japanese friends weigh in? This is not a "randomly over-hyped, minor" nuclear accident. How many of these kinds of spills and leaks need to happen before you change your mind? When we can no longer procreate? When we can't eat? When our ocean is too polluted to support life? I just don't get it. Please tell me the price YOU are willing to pay?
edit on 22-6-2011 by wildoracle13 because: i carnt speal



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wildoracle13
 


Do you know how many dams break and mines explode and wind turbine blades shatter every year? Not to mention that the nuclear plant in Japan was hit by a freaking Tsunami. That's like saying skyscrapers aren't safe after 9/11.


Edit:

If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: Also comparing a nuclear power plant built in the 60's to modern nuclear power plants is like comparing WWI biplanes to an F/A-18 Jet. Technology has advanced since the 60's.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Interesting you should mention failures ... MIT just published a preliminary study on Fukushima and I thought this was interesting


All engineered structures (e.g. power plants, bridges, skyscrapers, dams, highways) will fail if
subjected to loads far enough beyond what they were designed for. The catastrophic failure of
an irrigation water dam in the Fukushima prefecture, which occurred when the earthquake hit,
went virtually un-reported in the media. What does this failure say about the safety of hydro
power? Are the design basis selections of energy industry structures posing high environmental
hazard, such as oil drilling platforms offshore, coal mines and water dams, consistent with those
of nuclear plants? If not, are we as a society irrationally accepting higher risks from certain
technologies than others?


mitnse.files.wordpress.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by wildoracle13
 


Do you know how many dams break and mines explode and wind turbine blades shatter every year? Not to mention that the nuclear plant in Japan was hit by a freaking Tsunami. That's like saying skyscrapers aren't safe after 9/11.


Edit:

If anything, the situation shows how safe nuclear power is. Consider that forty year old plants were hit with an earthquake five times the strength they were designed for and yet they still shut down safely. The generators came on like they were supposed to when grid power was cut. Then the tsunami hit and the generators were wiped out. However, the battery backup still worked for the designed eight hours. The problem happened when no new generators could be put in. Even so the problems have been minimal--media scare mongering for ratings not withstanding.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: Also comparing a nuclear power plant built in the 60's to modern nuclear power plants is like comparing WWI biplanes to an F/A-18 Jet. Technology has advanced since the 60's.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Looks like about 1 or 2 dams break every year around the world and some are predicted and left to fail. 77 US deaths from mine explosions since 1989. 67 deaths globally in all of history from wind turbine failure. Why is it that I can't find a reliable source that definitively states total deaths from nuclear radiation? Maybe it's me but... I don't know. I am not cool with the idea that a nuclear power plant half the world away can fail and shorten my life span. No wind turbine blade can do that, no coal explosion can do that nor a dam breaking. Also, none of those things are impossible to clean up. We don't have to wait and see what the impact is going to be, if it can even be measured. And, technology may have advanced since the 60's but apparently those in the nuclear business haven't figured out that it's not a good idea to put these on fault lines or where they can be washed away by a freakin tsunami. Oh well. Let's hope they learn?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildoracle13
Looks like about 1 or 2 dams break every year around the world and some are predicted and left to fail. 77 US deaths from mine explosions since 1989. 67 deaths globally in all of history from wind turbine failure. Why is it that I can't find a reliable source that definitively states total deaths from nuclear radiation?


Because there have been zero deaths have been caused by radiation in America. No American has ever been killed or injured in the entire 50 year history of nuclear power in the US. Recent studies have shown that it's safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office.


Maybe it's me but... I don't know. I am not cool with the idea that a nuclear power plant half the world away can fail and shorten my life span. No wind turbine blade can do that, no coal explosion can do that nor a dam breaking.


Since when is any nuclear plant shortening your lifespan? Can you provide a source for this information? Only 0.005% of American's yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal, 200 times less than we get from a commercial flight, and about the same as eating one banana per year.


Also, none of those things are impossible to clean up. We don't have to wait and see what the impact is going to be, if it can even be measured.


All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this "waste" can be recycled. Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gas emissions and uses less land than almost any other form of energy.


And, technology may have advanced since the 60's but apparently those in the nuclear business haven't figured out that it's not a good idea to put these on fault lines or where they can be washed away by a freakin tsunami. Oh well. Let's hope they learn?


Anywhere in Japan can be hit with a tsunami at any time, and like I said the Fukushima power plant was built in the 60's. Do you want the scientists to travel back in time and teach them how to build a better nuclear reactor? A modern nuclear reactor is exponentially safer than the ones that were built in the 60's so you can't use this as evidence of nuclear power being "not safe".



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
No American has ever been killed or injured in the entire 50 year history of nuclear power in the US.


Greetings:

Really?

Read on...


3 January 1961
The world's first nuclear-related fatalities occurred following a reactor explosion at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho. Three technicians were killed, with radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. [color=limegreen]The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive waste, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. Another incident three weeks later (on 25 January) resulted in a release of radiation into the atmosphere.

24 July 1964
Robert Peabody, 37, died at the United Nuclear Corp. fuel facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island, when liquid uranium he was pouring went critical, starting a reaction that exposed him to a lethal dose of radiation.

19 November 1971
The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. [color=limegreen]Some was taken into the St. Paul water system.

March 1972
Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system.

27 July 1972
Two workers at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia were fatally scalded after a routine valve adjustment led to a steam release in a gap in a vent line. [See also 9 December 1986]

28 May 1974
The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels."

22 March 1975
A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down.

28 March 1979
A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths.

1981
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year.

11 February 1981
An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee.

July 1981
A flood of low-level radioactive wastewater in the sub-basement at Nine Mile Point's Unit 1 (in New York state) caused approximately 150 55-gallon drums of high-level waste to overturn, some of which released their highly radioactive contents. Some 50,000 gallons of low-level radioactive water were subsequently dumped into Lake Ontario to make room for the cleanup. The discharge was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the sub-basement contamination was not. A report leaked to the press 8 years later resulted in a study which found that high levels of radiation persisted in the still flooded facility.

1982
The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year.

25 January 1982
A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air.

15-16 January 1983
Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant.

25 February 1983
A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1.

9 December 1986
A feedwater pipe ruptured at the Surry Unit 2 facility in Virginia, causing 8 workers to be scalded by a release of hot water and steam. Four of the workers later died from their injuries. In addition, water from the sprinkler systems caused a malfunction of the security system, preventing personnel from entering the facility. This was the second time that an incident at the Surry 2 unit resulted in fatal injuries due to scalding [see also 27 July 1972].

1988
It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc.


28 May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.

15 February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.

6 March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.

Nov 2005
High tritium levels, the result of leaking pipes, were discovered to have contaminated groundwater immediately adjacent to the Braidwood Generating Station in Braceville, Illinois.
(...)
source

We could go on, but we think the point has been made.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join