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.

 

Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!

page: 5
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


No, it's not just a claim.

www.nrc.gov...


Frequently, they have

* not established control populations for study;
* not examined the impacts of other risk factors;
* used very small sample sizes to draw general conclusions;
* not performed environmental sampling and analysis;
* selectively chosen to ignore data in certain geographic locations or during certain periods of time because they did not “fit”;
* not subjected their data to the independent peer review of the scientific community as a whole; and
* used an incorrect half-life for Sr-90 which gives a false impression that strontium levels in the environment are decaying more rapidly than in baby teeth.


Edit: The National Cancer Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, the Connecticut Academy of Sciences and Engineering, the American Cancer Society, the Florida Bureau of Environmental Epidemiology, and the Illinois Public Health Department all found no evidence that living next to a nuclear power plant increases likelihood of cancer.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Once again...Consider the source...The United States Regulatory Commission.

Your quote left out this

There are a number of questions about the Health Project studies with regard to methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. Generally, these studies have not followed good scientific principles.....


So the NRC has questions about the methodology of a study that condemns their industry.. Why is that not surprising?
The Tobacco industry has done the same thing for decades. I think there is good reason for us to question the NRC's motives.
Questions about methodology, assumptions and conclusions, do not necessarily invalidate their findings.
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 


I'm sure if you looked at the method that was used to reach their conclusions you might notice some scientific errors as well. Do you have any reason to believe that the United States Regulatory Commission, the National Cancer Institute, and the Nation Institute of Health are unreliable or are lying about the methods used in the experiment?

Sorry but to me it looks like you're just flat out denying the facts here.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Hundreds of people are killed by wind turbines?
I was born and raised in Calgary, and south of Alberta towards the Crowsnets and , Leathbridge, and Pincher Creek, all around that area there are thousands of wind turbines.... and umm... I have never heard of any such freak accident...
So I find that very hilarious...
More afraid of wind turbines then nuclear power plants.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Sparky63
 


I'm sure if you looked at the method that was used to reach their conclusions you might notice some scientific errors as well. Do you have any reason to believe that the United States Regulatory Commission, the National Cancer Institute, and the Nation Institute of Health are unreliable or are lying about the methods used in the experiment?

Sorry but to me it looks like you're just flat out denying the facts here.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


There have been plenty of times in recent years where the USG has been unreliable or has lied to the general public... Until the USG becomes transparent in its actions and actually serves the people it was created to serve instead of the lobbyists and corporations, there will be plenty of skeptics.

Plus individual peer reviews would be nice... The USG just isn't as trustworthy as it used to be.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I've been seeing posts about this plant for days now and still no catastrophe as I said there wouldn't be.. this is quite overblown right now.. They have procedures in place if the river does rise over the limit.. processes to shut the plant down, they have flood barricades in place and other measures..

This whole thing originated with a Sorcha Faal article including a russian document that to my knowledge has never been proven to exist.. other claims were that the plant was already flooded when it's clearly not.

I'm not saying there's no risk but when dozens of people are crying wolf we lose perspective .. This plant is being watched closely, it's been reported in the news where I'm at more than once per day.. I see footage, hear statements.. people are definitely keeping an eye on it..

The Japanese reactor probably could have handled the tsunami better had the plants not first been damaged by a devastating quake which broke the containment area .. we're not dealing with the same situation here.

Some of you people are going to stress yourselves to death long before anything real happens...

Edit: If you don't trust the media .. where are you getting your news? .. I know Mr. Faal is one major source that began the ball rolling.. that's a very horrible source
edit on 22-6-2011 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Sorry but to me it looks like you're just flat out denying the facts here.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Have you personally verified that these are truly the "facts" or are you just taking their word for it because they tend to agree with your position? I will admit that I do not trust the claims made by these government agencies. I doubt their claims of safety and have no confidence that they would be inclined to tell the truth about the industry they personally benefit from.

I'm sure that the people in Japan and in Chernobyl were also told that they had nothing to worry about.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
I doubt their claims of safety and have no confidence that they would be inclined to tell the truth about the industry they personally benefit from.


I don't think people in the "Cancer industry" benefit from lying to people about potential sources of cancer. Why would they tell you that X-rays and airplanes can cause cancer but lie about something like this? It just sounds like you're grasping at straws here.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Sparky63 is clearly more knowledgeable than them.. don't argue



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
West Fremont County to evacuate

omaha.com...-fremont-county-to-evacuate




About 600 people in western Fremont County in Iowa are being ordered to evacuate their homes, due to rising waters on the Missouri River.

Officials fear a federal levee on the Missiour River could be overtopped. The troublesome spot is located north of Hamburg, Iowa, by the Nebraska City bridge, said Mike Crecelius, the county's emergency management director.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

I don't think people in the "Cancer industry" benefit from lying to people about potential sources of cancer. Why would they tell you that X-rays and airplanes can cause cancer but lie about something like this? It just sounds like you're grasping at straws here.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


There have been several instance of scandal and fraud in this industry;
Here is one for example:

BREAST CANCER FIASCO:
MAJOR SCANDAL ROCKS NCI;
BRODER'S JOB NOW IN DOUBT

From The Cancer Chronicles #21
© May 1994 by Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

By now, most people have heard how Montreal cancer
researchers faked the data they sent to the National
Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) of NCI;
and how this fraud contaminated more than two dozen breast
cancer studies (L.A. Times 4/2). This led to the removal of
Bernard Fisher of the University of Pittsburgh as head of
NSABP. It also triggered Congressional hearings, with public
apologies from top NIH officials.

Less known is the role of NCI itself in hiding this fraud from the
American public. It turns out that the facts of the case were
known to the federal Office of Research Integrity for three
years. ORI sent these allegations to Dr. Samuel Broder, NCI
director, who then sat on them....
www.ralphmoss.com...

Here is another:

Additionally, Dolle's team showed that women who start OCs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times and recent users of OCs within the last one to five years multiply their risk by 4.2 times. TNBC is an aggressive form of breast cancer associated with high mortality.
"Although the study was published nine months ago," observed Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, "the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."

Brinton was the chief organizer of the 2003 NCI workshop on the abortion-breast cancer link, which falsely assured women that the non-existence of the link was "well established." [2]

www.abortionbreastcancer.com...

Here is an interesting quote:

"If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." [Dr. W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute to the New York Times, April 14, 1954]


There are more if you care to do the research.

Back to the Nuclear power issue:
I think there is ample reason to doubt any claims of safety the NRC makes regarding the very industry that justifies their existence.

You may trust them...I don't.


edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus

Sparky63 is clearly more knowledgeable than them.. don't argue


Not more knowledgeable, just skeptical. Sorry if you have a problem with that. It isn't like there are no examples of our government lying to us is there?

Just to be clear regarding the topic of this thread:
I doubt that the two Nebraska plants are in imminent danger. They have enough notice of the rising water to take the necessary precautions. The danger they are facing is anticipated and planned for.
edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Hey, if you folks would please stop arguing about-- cancer or whatever-- and please say updates about the topic, namely "Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!"

Ordinarily I wouldn't care about your loooong tangent, but my husband is on a business trip to Omaha, and will not be coming home until tomorrow night. I'm just a little frazzled at trying to stay abreast of this whole flood situation. Omaha just happens to be on the river between the two plants. Any news? Eppley Airport, if the sandbags hold, is where he will fly out of tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by Nosred
 


Im sorry to say this but please by all means, look around and take the blinders off. Europe will indeed be obliterated if that huge Volcano blows...its quaking there and everywhere. Volcano's around the globe are spewing and more are on alert. We have no idea whats going on in the ocean with the residents (dying off in thousands) not to mention the volcano's that are spewing underneath as well.


Not one person has ever been killed by nuclear power in Europe. It's kind of funny that a continent who relies heavily on nuclear power, Europe, has never had a nuclear power related death but has hundreds of thousands of deaths annually related to literally every other power source except for solar. Please look at the facts before claiming that nuclear power is not safe.



I'm sorry, what? Since when hasn't nuclear power killed anyone in Europe? I'm sure you remember Chernobyl which spewed radiation all over Europe. You do know, we still have strict regulations with food from several places in the UK regarding contamination from that disaster.
It might not have killed people instantly, but the radiation have been over big parts of Europe for over 25 years.

Edit: I'm actually pro-nuclear, but that only goes for new reactors, not the ones older than 10 years.
edit on 23-6-2011 by honeybat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:29 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


I had not seen very much coverage in the MSM lately but Rachel Maddow covered it last night.

Fort Calhoun

I certainly hope that we do not have to go through a disaster like Japan has in order to change the way we do things. I support nuclear power only because it is the most viable option right now but I would much rather have a serious plan to move away from nuclear power until we find a more responsible way to deal with any waste as well as preventing the threats we are seeing now. Germany has done it and I would love to see the U.S. do it as well.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:59 AM
link   
More:






Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant?

Earlier this month, workers at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant surrounded the reactor and other key parts of the facility with a massive water berm called an “AquaDam”.

Fort Calhoun had a foot-deep pool next to the reactor for spent fuel rods. The pool was so full in 2009 that they were sealing the fuel rods up in dry casks and sticking them in an on-site ‘mausoleum’.

This, of course, is why there is a no-fly zone around the plant — someone might realize that wherever the fuel casks and underground fuel pools are, they are NOT inside the condom.

Hat tip and a bow to Arthur Hu for finding the dry-storage bunker, half-submerged OUTSIDE the condom. It’s the smaller brown building adjacent to the white tank.

No one really knows what their condition is – or even if the spent fuel is still on-site. No one in the major media is asking the question, and the operators aren’t saying.



Of course, I find this sufficiently disturbing, as the truth is usually the first casualty not just in war but in any crisis:




FDC 1/6523 - CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, BLAIR, NE

!FDC 1/6523 ZMP FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS FORT CALHOUN NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
BLAIR,NE

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR
SECTION 91.137(A)(3) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT FOR
FLOOD RELIEF EFFORTS WITHIN A 2 NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF
413113N/0960438W OR THE OMAHA /OVR/ VORTAC 316 DEGREE RADIAL AT 26.1
NAUTICAL MILES AT AND BELOW 3500 FEET MSL.


Link.



If they are afraid people might see something important, then you should be VERY afraid too.

edit on 23-6-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by David9176
Many countries, such as Germany, are shutting down their power plants or attempting to phase them out.

We should do the same here in the US..imo.


Germany does not experience earthquakes or tsunamis, and more people in Europe are killed by wind power than by nuclear power. About one hundred people in Europe are killed every year by wind turbine blades shattering, about zero people in Europe are killed every year as a result of nuclear accidents.


When Chernobyl had its melt down radioactive fallout covered Europe, you can’t say that people in Europe are not dying because of nuclear power plant accidents.
I still personally think that had something to do with cancer issues.
What about the cancers and whatever else???

Jay



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ototheb85
 



Originally posted by Nosred
...about zero people in Europe are killed every year as a result of nuclear accidents.



In the context of Chernobyl, it's a completely specious statement. There is sufficient credible evidence to indicate otherwise.



edit on 23-6-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Ya know.....I am completely OK with living my life like my ancestors did to have a peaceful life and be able to raise my children with such.

Scientists, Mr. PHD, and so on do not necessarily have common sense.

Think for yourself, educate yourself, and realize we do not have all the answers.

It is common sense that Nuclear is not safe. Never will be....

How can we make the most money is how our Big Money guys think not how can we live in a non toxic environment for the health and safety of our people.

Come on ya'll! Work with me!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   




top topics



 
30
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join