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.

 

New US reactor to take delivery of fuel

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

New US reactor to take delivery of fuel


www.world-nuclear-news.org

Westinghouse will soon begin shipping fuel to unit 2 of Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA's) Watts Bar nuclear power plant. The reactor, due to begin operating in 2013, will be the first new US unit to start up since 1996.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

Will America's Nuclear Power Plants Fail in an 8.0 Earthquake?

Is This the Beginning of the End of Nuclear Power in the U.S.?

Will America's Nuclear Power Plants Fail in an 8.0 Earthquake?



edit on 22/6/2011 by thorfourwinds because: lynx




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Greetings:
This appears as utter madness in light of recent events, not to mention the possibility of our own "nuclear nightmare" if only a single one of the many aging dams upriver from Fort Calhoun and Cooper - like the Fort Peck in Montana - fail.

The potential of earthen dams breaking and causing a catastrophic situation has been downplayed here on ATS as something that would have very little consequence - but that's another thread.

One might think that nuclear power, in general, has a difficult time ahead to regain/build public confidence.

What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?

The second brick-buster would be an insurance policy that indemnifies the public from ANY liability.

Here in Georgia, Georgia Power got a measure passed that allows them to bill the customers for any project over-runs on their nuke plant construction!

Looking forward to your participation and thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

www.world-nuclear-news.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Thanks for posting and bringing this to light! I live in Tennessee, near the Sequoyah plant, and had not heard any news of Watts Bar adding another reactor... :\

I think the best possible plan would be to not build anymore conventional, nuclear reactors and rather turn to other energy sources such as thorium nuclear plants and solar... or perhaps investing some interest in the newly developed e cat cold fusion process that outputs 800% more energy than it inputs.
Check it out
www.naturalnews.com...

We definitely need to start to phase out conventional nuclear energy but the corporations wouldn't allow it... there are plenty of national and international politicians backed by nuclear energy and I'm sure that the majority of the support is in the United States.

Maybe I should move?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Greetings:

Let's look at the press release carefully, if you please.

This is a front page news story in world nuclear news, which is a good read, if you know what we mean. Who can pass up such headlines as this?


Working conditions improve at Fukushima unit
Workers at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have entered the reactor building of unit 2 to assess the working environment. Ventilation of the building has led to a drop in humidity. Meanwhile, the system to decontaminate water on the site is in operation.

Has anyone told the workers?

Back to Watts Bar II.


Westinghouse announced that it will ship fuel assemblies for the Watts Bar 2 reactor in late July and August. The fuel has been produced at its fuel fabrication facility in Columbia, South Carolina. Once received by TVA, the fuel will be stored in the fuel storage vault or used fuel pool areas common to both Watts Bar units 1 and 2.

The process of actually loading the fuel into Watts Bar 2 is scheduled to begin in 2012, with the unit expected to begin commercial operation in 2013. Unit 2 will be the first new reactor to achieve commercial operations in the USA since Watts Bar 1 started up in 1996.

Why are they receiving the fuel assemblies so many months in advance of actually loading the fuel?


TVA was issued a fuel handling licence on 15 June by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). This licence authorizes the company to receive, possess, inspect and store 193 assemblies containing uranium enriched up to 5%. However, the licence does not authorize TVA to use the fuel in a reactor. The NRC is currently reviewing TVA’s application for an operating licence for Watts Bar 2. It expects to complete that review next year.


the licence does not authorize TVA to use the fuel in a reactor.

A chink in the armor? How about a lawsuit postponing the license approval until the issues of waste and insurance have been met?

Dave Stinson, TVA vice president of Watts Bar Unit 2, commented: "Having fuel ready to load into the new unit is critical as we approach the last year of construction."

We would like that comment expanded upon. Why is it critical to have loaded fuel during construction?


"Adding more nuclear capacity to our generation portfolio will move TVA closer to our vision of leadership in the nuclear industry, while providing more low-cost and clean energy for the region," he added.

Obviously, the solution is to offer alternatives to this particular application and enlist the people that have the most chance of experiencing negative impacts from this nuke.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I don't like being this close to a large storage of plutonium nowadays and will probably consider moving before the end of its construction... just too much weird ish going on for that nonsense... especially with all the tornadoes that have been ripping through.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?


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.

Why are you guys so hellbent on stopping nuclear power? Nuclear power has killed far fewer people than any other power source excluding solar power. There have been a total of three nuclear related accidents in the past 50 years, one of which could have been easily prevented if basic safety measures hadn't been ignored, one of which harmed nobody, and one of which took an entire tsunami to cause.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


I would have to agree with you nuclear power has killed less people so far. Lets wait and see how many people die from Fukushima.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?


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.

Why are you guys so hellbent on stopping nuclear power? Nuclear power has killed far fewer people than any other power source excluding solar power. There have been a total of three nuclear related accidents in the past 50 years, one of which could have been easily prevented if basic safety measures hadn't been ignored, one of which harmed nobody, and one of which took an entire tsunami to cause.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Its not about stopping nuclear power, its about investing in more-efficient, safer thorium reactors.




It has been estimated that the nuclear energy available in thorium is greater than that available from all of the world’s oil, coal and uranium combined. Thorium is approximately three times as abundant as uranium in the earth’s crust


So its more abundant and less-expensive and has the capacity to produce more energy than the conventional process.... the only reason the USG isn't seriously interested in it is because you can't produce plutonium for weapons. lol



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?
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.

Why are you guys so hellbent on stopping nuclear power? Nuclear power has killed far fewer people than any other power source excluding solar power. There have been a total of three nuclear related accidents in the past 50 years, one of which could have been easily prevented if basic safety measures hadn't been ignored, one of which harmed nobody, and one of which took an entire tsunami to cause.


Greetings:


There have been a total of three nuclear related accidents in the past 50 years...

Really?

We'll start with a few of the nuclear-related power plant accidents in the U.S.


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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Why are you guys so hellbent on stopping nuclear power? Nuclear power has killed far fewer people than any other power source excluding solar power.
Nuclear power is not economically feasible, you're missing the point with your talk about safety, though that's an issue also.


Originally posted by thorfourwinds
What do you think about a call to action - focussing on first stopping any new construction of a nuclear power plant that does not have a waste-disposal plan in place - such as the highly-publicized Yucca Mountain?

The second brick-buster would be an insurance policy that indemnifies the public from ANY liability.
You've correctly identified the two key issues right there.

Nobody knows the cost of disposing of the waste because nobody's figured out how to dispose of it yet. Obama's administration killed the Yucca mountain waste disposal site.

The problem is the US government promised to take on the nuclear waste disposal and have failed in their commitement to the nuclear industry to provide waste disposal.

I do think that no licenses should be renewed until this problem is addressed, and the nuclear industry should be able to sue the government to make it fulfill its promise. Once we figure out the cost of disposing of the waste safely so it won't hurt anybody for the next 50,000 years, the disposal cost may be far higher than anyone anticipates.

And what will probably stop the nuclear industry dead in its tracks, is your second point: "an insurance policy that indemnifies the public from ANY liability". In the US I think the insurance cap is something like 10 billion dollars. The costs from Fukushima is expected to run hundreds of billions of dollars, so the lousy $10 billion won't even put much of a dent in that.

If the nuclear plant operators had proper insurance, they won't be able to afford nuclear power.

That's the main problem with it, aside from the safety, but it's kind of related because if you make a large area of land uninhabitable and have to compensate all the landowners, that can run into huge amounts of money very quickly.

So I agree completely, the waste disposal and insurance are the big issues with nuclear power that if properly addressed, will be the reason for shutting down the industry. The safety issues could be addressed, but not well enough to prevent the insurance from being unaffordable.

It seems to me like TEPCO is already insolvent yet people seem to be pretending that it's still a viable entity which doesn't have liabilities that far exceed its assets. I don't know why the Japanese government hasn't taken over the company since only the government has the resources for those kinds of liabilities. The government also needs to build the barrier to prevent the core from contaminating groundwater like Chernobyl did, because I don't see TEPCO doing it.



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


I'm a supporter of nuclear power, and far more interested in the development of thorium reactors. They're safer for one and seems like it would be cheaper to produce as well. Given China's increasing energy demands, they're already ahead in this endeavor. Their energy program consists of a thorium-based molten salt reactor system.
But you have to understand that this isn't a debate with the DOE, as I'm sure most of the folks there would agree with you on that. The DOD and all associated, however...wouldn't appreciate that tidbit of info floating around much.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


What you've said is true, and there was a lot of funding already spent on the Yucca Mtn project...approximately $15.4 billion.
Another effort gone to waste..... Brings back memories of the Super Collider project in TX...Oh well...looks like we'll never find a way to dipose of bureaucractic waste.
edit on 23-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Greetings:

For your edification and enjoyment:

IAEA Briefing on Fukushima Nuclear Accident
3 May 2011, 19:50 UTC


Atoms for Peace
The IAEA is the world's center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up in 1957 as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.

Our Work
The IAEA works for the safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology. Its key roles contribute to international peace and security, and to the world's Millennium Goals for social, economic and environmental development.

We find the following information from the IAEA News to be disconcerting, to say the least.

Add the fact that today is 17 July the latest update is from 2 June 2011, and one might wonder WTF?

We will merely highlight certain areas of this report, and hope to set the hook for others to investigate all of these assertions further.

25 April 2011

Management of On-site Contaminated Water
According to the 25 April evaluation by NISA of the report submitted by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), there is a little less than 70 000 tonnes of stagnant water with high-level radioactivity in the basement of the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3.


...a little less than 70,000 tonnes of stagnant water with high-level radioactivity in the basement of the turbine buildings of Units 1, 2 and 3.

This amount and date should be added to the database on reported amounts of radioactive water being sloshed about.

We are sure that the numbers do not add up correctly in the long run.


The stagnant water (around 120 m3) in the basement of the turbine building of Unit 6 was transferred to a temporary tank on 1 May.

To our way of thinking, this statement indicates a finalization of the process.

However:


The transfer of stagnant high-level radioactivity water from the basement of the turbine building of Unit 6 was resumed on 2 May.

120 cubic meters... why this statistic in different terms than tonnes?

A cubic meter of water weighs one metric tonne. So, 120 c/m = 120 tonnes.

Why confuse the issue?

How much more high-level radioactivity water is there to transfer?

[color=limegreen]It has always been our contention that the information so vitally necessary to our survival as a species is intentionally garbled by utilization of a myriad of terms - much like radiation readings - to confuse the reader.


Work to block the Unit 2 trench pit was started on 1 May.

What are the dimensions and where does this trench go / connect to?

Why does it need to be blocked?

Is this a part of the suspected MOX nuclear weapons facility?


Plant Status
On 27 April TEPCO provided an update of the estimated percentage of core damage for Units 1, 2 and 3 following an assessment (the values assessed previously which TEPCO had provided on 15 March are given in parentheses):
Unit 1: 55% core damage (70%) 15% DECREASE
Unit 2: 35% core damage (30%) 5% INCREASE
Unit 3: 30% core damage (25%) 5% INCREASE

(Color added for emphasis.)

This reflects a revised assessment [color=limegreen]rather than any recent changes in conditions in the reactor cores.

Hey, team, does this jive with previous info released by TEPCO and/or the JAPGOV?

Still blowing smoke...


White "smoke" continues to be emitted from Unit 2 and Unit 3. There was no more white "smoke" seen emanating from Unit 4 as of 21:30 UTC on 25 April or from Unit 1 as of 21:30 UTC on 30 April.

In Unit 1 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the feedwater line at an indicated flow rate of 6 m3/h using a temporary electric pump with off-site power.

In Unit 2 and Unit 3 fresh water is being continuously injected into the reactor pressure vessel through the fire extinguisher line at an indicated rate of 7 m3/h using temporary electric pumps with off-site power.

On 29 April TEPCO checked the status inside the reactor building of Unit 1 using a remotely controlled robot and confirmed that there was [color=limegreen]no significant leakage of water from the primary containment vessel. Nitrogen gas is still being injected into the containment vessel in Unit 1 to reduce the possibility of hydrogen combustion inside the containment vessel. The indicated pressure in the reactor pressure vessel is still increasing.


The indicated pressure in the reactor pressure vessel is still increasing.

This would seem to indicate that there are no leaks in the RPV as of today, 29 April 2011.

Perhaps an important point to remember.


In Unit 1, the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is
142° C and at the bottom of reactor pressure vessel is 106° C.

Hot water (286.7˚ F) is being injected at 6 tonnes/hour.

Where is this water going?

Why hot water? We thought the objective was to cool.


In Unit 2 the indicated temperature at the feedwater nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 118 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure. On 28 April an amount of 43 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the spent fuel pool using the spent fuel pool clean-up system.

Why the difference in water temperature?

Where is this fresh water coming from that it is hot?


On 28 April an amount of 43 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the spent fuel pool using the spent fuel pool clean-up system.

Does this indicate that the SFP "clean-up system" is back to fully operational status?


On 2 May an amount of 55 tonnes of fresh water was injected into the Unit 2 spent fuel pool using the fuel pool clean-up system.

In the matter of only 4 days, where did the previously-injected water go? If it was filled only on 28 April, 55 tonnes of water is "missing" from the SFP clean-up system, indicating something less than fully operational... n'est-ce pas?

Or is all back to "normal" and merely "circulating" the water? If so, where did the water go?


In Unit 3 the indicated temperature at the feed water nozzle of the reactor pressure vessel is 99 °C and at the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel is 124 °C. The reactor pressure vessel and the dry well remain at atmospheric pressure.

Again, why the difference in water temperature?


There has been no change in the status in Unit 5 or in the common spent fuel storage facility.

OK now for you "anti-scattering agent" buffs.


Spraying of anti-scattering agent at the site is continuing. An area of about 1 000 m2 on the south side of the turbine building of Unit 4, and an area of about 4 400 m2 of the surface on the slope around the former main office building, near the on-site gymnasium and on the west side of the shallow draft quay, were sprayed on 1 May.

And now, for something completely different.


2. Radiation Monitoring
The daily monitoring of deposition of caesium and iodine radionuclides for the 47 prefectures continues. Deposition of Cs-137 and Cs-134 was detected in six prefectures on 2 May. The values reported ranged from 2.6 Bq/m2 to 19 Bq/m2.


Compared with recent data, deposition of these radionuclides has been detected in fewer prefectures and in lower amounts than for previous days.

Recent data being the immediately preceding 51 days since 3/11?

"Fewer prefectures" and "lower amounts than for previous days" is Newspeak - Doublethink- Goggledegook - Bravo Sierra - it all means the same - disinformation.


Gamma dose rates are measured daily in all 47 prefectures.

[color=limegreen]A general decreasing trend has been observed in all locations since around 20 March.

How is this possible?

Does this even seem feasible - or is the fix already in at this early date?

Take particular look of the low descriptions being used in the following portion of this travesty.


Gamma dose rates reported on 2 May remain at 1.7 µSv/h for Fukushima prefecture and 0.11 µSv/h for Ibaraki prefecture.

The other 45 prefectures had gamma dose rates of below 0.1 µSv/h, falling within the range of local natural background radiation levels.

Gamma dose rates reported specifically for the eastern part of Fukushima prefecture, for distances of more than 30 km from the Fukushima Daiichi plant, ranged from 0.1 µSv/h to 19.7 µSv/h, as reported on 2 May.

Since 1 April there has been [color=limegreen]one remaining restriction on the consumption of drinking water relating to I-131 (with a limit of 100 Bq/L), which is applicable only for [color=limegreen]one village in the Fukushima prefecture and [color=limegreen]only for infants.

According to the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), I-131 was detected in one prefecture on 29 April, with a reported value of 0.22 Bq/L; in two prefectures on 30 April, with reported levels of 0.04 Bq/L and 0.10 Bq/L respectively; and in one prefecture on 1 May, with a reported level of 0.38 Bq/L. Cs-137 was reported on 30 April in only one prefecture, with a measured level of 0.05 Bq/L.

All these levels are [color=limegreen]below the limits set by the Japanese authorities for the restriction of water consumption due to the presence of radionuclides. The other samples did not show levels of radionuclides above the detection limit for I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137.

This implies that there was no I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137, which simply is not the case.


Food Restrictions
On 1 May restrictions were lifted on the distribution of raw unprocessed milk in Fukushima prefecture from the city of Minamisouma (limited to Kashima-ku and excluding Karasuzaki, Ouchi, Kawago and Shionosaki areas) and Kawamata town (excluding Yamakiya area).

That's great news, right? After all, only on 19 March did this news come out regarding the contamination of milk in Japan.


Japan Finds Radiation in Milk, Drinking Water
www.komonews.com...
FUKUSHIMA, Japan (AP) - In the first sign that contamination from Japan's stricken nuclear complex had seeped into the food chain, officials said Saturday that radiation levels in spinach and milk from farms near the tsunami-crippled facility exceeded government safety limits.
...
Six workers trying to bring the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant back under control were exposed to more than 100 millisieverts of radiation - Japan's normal limit for those involved in emergency operations, according to Tokyo Electric Power Co., which operates the complex. The [color=limegreen]government raised that limit to 250 millisieverts on Tuesday as the crisis escalated.

Officials said the crisis at the plant appeared to be stabilizing, with near-constant dousing of dangerously overheated reactors and uranium fuel, but the situation was still far from resolved.

And, perhaps , the quote of the day from 19 March 2011:


We more or less do not expect to see anything worse than what we are seeing now,
said Hidehiko Nishiyama of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.

Not to be outdone with this gem:


Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano, meanwhile, insisted
the contaminated foods pose no immediate health risk.


3. Marine Monitoring
The marine monitoring programme is carried out both near the discharge areas of the Fukushima Daiichi plant by TEPCO and at off-shore stations by MEXT. (The locations of the sampling positions have been provided in previous briefings.)

Increased radioactivity in the marine environment occurred by aerial deposition and by discharges and outflow of contaminated water with a high radioactivity level.

Really?


Marine Discharges
In a news release issued on 25 April, NISA communicated its evaluation of a report submitted by TEPCO on 21 April in relation to contaminated water with a high radioactivity level that flowed out from Unit 2 of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

The outflow rate is estimated to have been approximately 4.3 m3/h. The concentrations of the relevant radionuclides, estimated from measurements, were 5400 MBq/L of I-131, 1800 MBq/L of Cs-134 and 1800 MBq/L of Cs-137.


The outflow rate is estimated to have been approximately 4.3 m3/h.

Exactly what amount of contaminated water with a high radioactivity level are we talking about?

(Another instance where the water database comes in handy.)

4.3 cubic meters/hour is 4.3 tonnes/h, right?

How many hours are we speaking of, or is this an on-going situation?


Seawater Monitoring
The activity concentrations of I-131, Cs-134 and Cs-137 in sea water at the screen of Unit 2 were measured every day from 2 April to 30 April. The [color=limegreen]concentrations fell by several orders of magnitude from initial values of more than 100 MBq/L at the beginning of April to less than 10 kBq/L for Cs-134 and Cs-137 on 30 April, with a continuing decreasing trend.


These figures also seem to be incorrect in both the numbers quoted and the inference that all are on a "continuing decreasing trend."

Newspeak.


However, levels of I-131 remained at around 100 kBq/L from 26 April to 30 April at this sampling position. The sandbags containing Zeolite® absorbers that were placed at several locations between Unit 2 and Unit 4 to reduce the concentrations of Cs-134 and Cs-137 seem to be effective.

The concentrations of the relevant radionuclides at the other TEPCO sampling positions show a [color=limegreen]general decreasing trend up to 30 April.

Monitoring performed by MEXT at off-shore sampling positions consists of:

Measurement of ambient dose rate in air above the sea;
Analysis of ambient dust above the sea;
Analysis of surface samples of seawater; and
Analysis of samples of seawater collected at 10 m above the sea bottom.

The analysis for almost all sampling positions has shown a general decreasing trend in concentrations of the relevant radionuclides over time.

Samples were taken at stations 1 - 10 every four days after 2 April. Activity concentrations at MEXT sampling points 30 km off-shore are significantly lower than those at TEPCO sampling points 15 km off-shore. None of the activity concentrations of I-131 and Cs-137 in surface samples taken from points 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and S-3 on 27 April and from points 2, 6 and S-4 on 25 April were above the detection limits. Samples taken from points 4, 8 and 10 showed concentrations of Cs-137 between of 10.5 Bq/L and 40 Bq/L. Only the sample from point 10 had an I-131 activity concentration, at 21.5 Bq/L, that was above the detection limit.

Samples were taken at the recently added off-shore stations at the Ibaraki prefecture on 25 April. There were no activity concentrations of I-131 and Cs-137 in the surface layer of sea water that were above the detection limits.



Radiation Monitoring in Ports
On 22 April the Japanese Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) issued guidelines for radiation measurements in ports in Japan in order to provide foreign port authorities with accurate data. The guidelines cover gamma dose rate measurements for export shipping containers and shipping as well as radiation monitoring of the atmosphere and of sea water in ports.

And this is an "official" report issued to the public.

No wonder the cover-up is so complete... disinformation everywhere.

Will we stand for much more of this?

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Following completion of Watts Bar unit 2 TVA is going to idle several super-size coal boilers - the 175 gigawatts of which i the United States kill over 10,000 americans each year. Chernobyl killed between 9,000 or 60,000 depending on which report you listen to and we have only had one of those in the history of nuclear power and one smaller event, neither of which have anything to do with Watts Bar 2.


Why are they receiving the fuel assemblies so many months in advance of actually loading the fuel?

Because fuel does not spontaneously appear. It takes a while to enrich, fabricate, and ship. It is easier to do this over time rather than in one short burst as soon as the reactor is almost complete.


120 cubic meters... why this statistic in different terms than tonnes?

A cubic meter of water weighs one metric tonne. So, 120 c/m = 120 tonnes.

Why confuse the issue?

How much more high-level radioactivity water is there to transfer?

It has always been our contention that the information so vitally necessary to our survival as a species is intentionally garbled by utilization of a myriad of terms - much like radiation readings - to confuse the reader.

It was not confusing - after all - water can be measured in metric tons, cubic meters, as well as many other units. If they did say ton I bet you would complain about how confusing it is because you don't know whether they meant metric ton or the imperial ton.



We would like that comment expanded upon. Why is it critical to have loaded fuel during construction?

He didn't say that.
He said it was critical to have fuel ready to load (so when it is nearly completion it can be loaded with fuel and operated). Having multi-billion dollar assets idle is a waste of money.

reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Nuclear power is not economically feasible, you're missing the point with your talk about safety, though that's an issue also.

Is this some form of joke? Clearly nuclear power is economically feasible if TVA and SCE&G decided to complete a partially complete nuclear power plant and two new reactors respectively, without significant subsidies, without loan guarantees. Have you ever considered that if nuclear power was not economical then TVA would not decide to complete watts bar unit 2 and SCE&G would not decide to build VC Summer units 2 & 3? And that maybe France would not be 80% nuclear?

Nuclear is more expensive than coal, hydro and gas. It has similar economics to wind when integration issues are not taken into consideration, and is several times cheaper than solar. Perhaps the only reason nuclear is more expensive than coal or gas is because coal and gas do not pay for the damage they cause as shown here. The possibility for off-site consequences for nuclear power can be mitigated using passive safety - which solves the insurance issue in some ways. The external costs of coal and gas are inherit to the technology and are essentially unsolvable.

If the insurance requirement on nuclear power was increased, while this may stop existing nuclear plants from being re-licensed, they would not stop reactors with passive safety from being licensed as the risk to the public from those are several orders of magnitude smaller than current reactors. Furthermore, the only significant incidents with nuclear power have involved dangerous reactors designs (Chernobyl) and tusnamis, so this is probably won't even apply to reactors that do not have these weak points.



Nobody knows the cost of disposing of the waste because nobody's figured out how to dispose of it yet. Obama's administration killed the Yucca mountain waste disposal site.

There are plenty of ways to dispose of nuclear waste that we have figured out, it's just that nobody has bothered to actually implement them.

reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Nuclear power stations are extremely large industrial facilities - incidents will inevitably happen. However of the accidents you listed none of which caused significant off-site consequences and only one of which had the possibility for causing large off-site consequences.

reply to post by CoincidenceX
 



Its not about stopping nuclear power, its about investing in more-efficient, safer thorium reactors.

The impossible standards placed on existing nuclear power can and are placed on more safer iterations of nuclear power like Thorium. If you allow anti-nuke propaganda to be spread then you are only shooting yourself in the foot, because this will bubble over to Thorium - which is already occuring.
edit on 20/7/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/7/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/7/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/7/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
It's a shame that the newest US plant to go online is a design nearly 40 years old. Shows just how badly innovation has been stifled by the political, regulatory, and social components of US nuclear policy. The benefits and risks of nuclear energy are definitely deserved of debate, but what else is capable of producing the base load that nuclear power generators can?

I do think the Thorium Salt Reactors show some promise, and would love to see R&D directed toward that and other Generation IV + designs.

No matter if you are pro-nuke or anti-nuke we must at some point have the discussion on what to do with all the waste we have already. I would prefer that we reprocessed such waste in some manner to both get the potential energy out of it as well as hopefully getting the waste in to a more manageable level of toxicity (centuries instead of millenia ). I have zero faith in the anti-nuke crowd in accomplishing this. Most I have seen would gladly shut all nuclear power down without even a thought about what to do with all the waste we already have. The nuclear industry however will choose the most economically rewarding as opposed to the most sustainable if not forced to.



posted on Jul, 20 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Hmmm, so how many people have been killed by the flooding near the Fort Calhoun power plant in Nebraska so far? You guys were saying it was going to be the next big disaster and calling me an idiot for believing the experts, I sure feel stupid now with all those heavy casualties.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Greetings:

Meanwhile, back to the Fukushima World-Killer Nuke Meltdowns and the [color=limegreen]continuing radiation poising of our land, food and children - 24/7/365.

zorgon, what is your take on this?


Well, I spent three weeks following that Fukushima story doggedly... then in the end I found out three things...

1) Except for a handful of people and those that live in the area... NO ONE CARES...

2) We are still here... 1000's of nuke tests (especially near my home town) medical radiation, space radiation, CME's, cell tower radiation, microwave radiation... etc etc.. and we are STILL HERE.. and world population is increasing exponentially

3) Radiation is good for you


Greetings:

Thank you for your insightful and timely response.

1) We have been attempting to sound the alarm in the many nuke-related threads in our signature, and have come to the same conclusion: NO ONE CARES...

However, having spent the last six weeks on the road in the Hurricane Irene-ravaged areas of North Carolina, we were amazed - no, dumfounded - that [color=limegreen]NOT ONE PERSON we spoke with (including fellow First Responder Volunteer Firepersons) had any clue about Fukushima 24/7/365.

The Captain of the local department said that "there is no problem, or the USGOV/EPA would alert us, and it would be on television, right? (!???!)

Revised Conclusion: The people have been denied the basic information to make informed decisions as to how best "handle" the radiation poisoning nightmare.

2) Never thought that you would not be (there) "here" - after all, who would want to leave that pool? And whatever happens in "here" (there) stays in "here," (there), right mate?

3) You and Ann Coulter make such a great pair...

Glad to be back.

As we have been attempting to bring to light for over six months (!), there exists a world-wide conspiracy in the MSM to deprive the public of the facts regarding the dire consequences of the melt-throughs of the nuclear reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi.

Please listen up, people.

Your life and the lives of your loved ones may very well depend on your access to and use thereof of potentially life-saving information being kept from you by the EPA/USGOV.

The total number of days between Friday, March 11th, 2011 and Tuesday, October 11th, 2011 is 214 days.

The radiation poisoning of our people, food and land has continued unabated - 24/7/365 - for exactly 7 months.

For your edification and enjoyment (bewilderment), a few 'notable' stories that seemed to miss mass circulation and perhaps a peek at what might have been missed on the 6:00 o'clock news...:

Three days into the disaster, this FOR EYES ONLY memo circulated at the NRC.

14 March 2011
NRC ONLY Update – All 3 Reactor Cores Likely Damaged

15 March 2011
Fukushima Daiichi Units Degrading – Zirconium Fire at Reactor 4 SFP – Reactor 2 Possible Reactor Vessel Breach & Ex-Vessel Core Reaction

My goodness gracious! And we thought they (TEPCO/JAPGOV) said they had this "stabilized..." and presumably under control...

At least, that is what they (and the EPA/USGOV) would have you believe.

Fast-forward about six months to more headlines you may have missed in your local media:

21 August 2011
Fukushima Officials Worry New Discovery of Radioactive Beef Will Harm Reputation More After Farmer Confirms Cattle Not Fed Contaminated Rice Straw


21 August 2011
4,000 Potentially Radioactive Cows Without Radioactive Rice Hay May Have Been Shipped from One Farm in Namie-Machi, Fukushima

29 August 2011
Why the Fukushima Disaster Is Worse Than Chernobyl

31 August 2011
France Releases Map of Cesium-137 Deposition Across the Pacific – Shows the US More Contaminated Than Western Japan



[color=limegreen]Will this insanity ever end?


In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Greetings:

Just catching up on the news...

... and the wayback machine:

31 March 2011
Radioactive Iodine-131 in rainwater sample near San Francisco was 18,100% above federal drinking water standard


Iodine-131 was measured in a rainwater sample taken on the roof of Etcheverry Hall on UC Berkeley campus, March 23, 2011 from 9:06-18:00 PDT. The 3 Liters of rainwater collected contained 134 Becquerels of Iodine for an average of 20.1 Becquerel per liter, which equates to 543 Picocuries per liter.

The federal drinking water limit for Iodine-131 is 3 Picocuries per liter, putting the rainwater sample at 18,100% above the federal drinking water limit.

20.1 Becquerel per liter (Bq/L) = 543 Picocuries per liter (pCi/L)

Conversion calculator here.

The federal drinking water standard for Iodine-131 is 3 pCi/L. source

6 April 2011
True Horrors of Japan Nuclear Disaster Revealed In Confidential Leaked Government Document


(...)
[color=limegreen]]Perhaps the worse news is confirmation that radioactive fragments and particles, including the deadly Plutonium “MOX” fuel, has been shot high into the atmosphere during the hydrogen explosions.
more

3 July 2011
Guardian: Leaked Emails Reveal Government Conspiracy To Downplay Fukushima Nuclear Disaster

Photograph: AP

8 August 2011
Japan Witheld Nuclear Meltdown Simulation Showing 18,000 Deaths And 55 Mile Dead Zone

31 August 2011
Feds Allowing Tritium Radiation Catastrophe Cover Up At
North Anna, VA Nuclear Plant?


There may be a tritium radiation leak at the North Anna nuclear plant following the Virginia Earthquake.

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.

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.

Something is seriously amiss when a supposedly free media and government agencies in the U.S. downplay the threat.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 


Oh goodie here comes the spam!



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 

Oh goodie here comes the spam!


Greetings:

Our thread... if you don't like it, don't participate.

At least we have coherent thoughts and are to present our case in our quest to sound the alarm of the continuing world-wide radiation cover-up instead of taking cheap, inane, one-liner pot-shots.

Can you actually refute ANY ONE of the points we have shared?

SirMike, please respond to any of the questions that have been presented to you in previous posts where you displayed the same vulgar stupidity.

Or just go away so as not to waste bandwidth.

We look forward to further intelligent, coherent conversation.

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join