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.

 

Breaking News.. Brownsville Levee Near Cooper Nuclear Plant in Nebraska Just Broke! Here We Go !!!!

page: 12
152
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   


"People are getting scared by a lot of the misinformation," Dricks said. "It's primarily coming from Internet bloggers rather than the mainstream media. None of them have bothered to check with us." CNN's Matt Smith contributed to this report."


from CNN.

apparently they think we are scaring people




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 



not one person was killed by the Three Mile Island accident. The amount of radiation released was less than you'd receive from a commercial airline flight or a chest x-ray.


Really? Not one death? Can you explain the high cancer rate? I am assuming that you are not including any of those who have since died from cancer.

www.albionmonitor.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 





And again, like I've said countless times before, not one person was killed by the Three Mile Island accident. The amount of radiation released was less than you'd receive from a commercial airline flight or a chest x-ray.

No danger in a little meltdown, okay.




It was the same age as Chernobyl and Fukushima, so yes, it wasn't a modern nuclear reactor.


TMI-2 went online for the first time in February of 1978.

The accident at TMI-2 occurred in March 1979.

That adds up to 13 months from the time that reactor 2 went online for the first time until the accident occurred.

Darned thing was ancient!

Source
edit on 24-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by lunchmanstan
 



I guess that if I knew that there was some impending diaster comming or even a good chance of diaster.

I would have started to remove the spent fuel from site.

BEFORE all the surrounding roads and bridges are closed.

I guess that would have had a negative effect on profit margins


Where are they going to move it to?

The plants have no choice but to store it locally at the plant. The anti-nuclear crowd has managed to use the government to shut down authorization to build waste storage facilities in mountain ranges.

There's no place to take the nuclear waste. Construction of new reactors is prohibited - so even renovations of existing reactors to bring them up to the new standards are limited in what can be done.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by donlashway
reply to post by Deetermined
 
there's pics of the loading of dry spent fuel storage tubes( 30' long stainless steel) into cement crypts outside of reactor at ground level on Fort Calhoons site. Seems that the feds didn't get a place to store them so in protest they put them out in the parking lot, maybe hoping that the problem would just wash away. www.enterprisepub.com...

Just looking at the picture in your link and then reading statements like this...


"There's really no plausible scenario that could cause the canisters to open up and leak," OPPD's nuclear projects manager at the Fort Calhoun plant, Bernard Van Sant, says confidently.

…really reminds of the way that bad stuff starts.

www.enterprisepub.com...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 


www.medscape.com...

ehp03.niehs.nih.gov...:doi/10.1289/ehp.9710552

www.nytimes.com...

www.ans.org...

news.bbc.co.uk...


There was a slight increase in cancer rates in the area but there was no evidence to suggest that it was a result of Three Mile Island. It's been concluded that the cancer rates were caused by the high levels of natural radon gas found in the area, not by the accident.


"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Water threatens Minuteman III nuclear missile silos ..
abcnews.go.com...
m.dailymail.co.uk...
www.dailymail.co.uk...

More water coming, Minot North Dakota flood live ..
www.ustream.tv...
www.ustream.tv...
www.ustream.tv...
www.ustream.tv...
www.youtube.com...
Minot, N.D., Evacuates as Floodwaters Rise
"By Friday morning, the brownish river water had reached more than two feet above historic 1969 flooding residents had used as a benchmark and just short of a record set 130 years ago."

"A home breaks apart as it is engulfed by Missouri River flood waters on Wednesday in North Dakota"



So sorry for that family house ..
edit on 24-6-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 



Really? Not one death? Can you explain the high cancer rate? I am assuming that you are not including any of those who have since died from cancer.


Can you really attribute such a phenomena as cancer to a single event like that?

You also realize that the amount of exposure due to three-mile island pales in comparison to the exposure one regularly receives from coal combustion?

More radioactive junk is spewed into the atmosphere per one ton of coal than escaped in three-mile island.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Update:

NRC says there is only two feet of water and that the plant is safe,
nebraska.watchdog.org...

The levee was breached not broken like you said in your title. Stop the lying and fear mongering, it just makes things worse.
www.examiner.com...


Edit: It's almost like you people want a disaster, which is kind of sick.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



Anyone else notice the NRC "update" was from June 22, that's 2 days ago yeah?

With regards to Three Mile Island:


Official estimates said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray. But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a single dose can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero.



Some 2400 area residents have long-since filed a class action lawsuit demanding compensation for the plague of death and disease visited upon their families.



TMI's owners did quietly pay out millions in damages to area residents whose children were born with genetic damage, among other things. The payments came in exchange for silence among those receiving them.


Source: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Nuclear energy is like playing russian roulette. We keep spinning the chamber and hope we get a blank. Even with the most modern equipment, you can't make anything 100% fool proof or free from human error. Not to mention the degradation of safety standards to increase profit margins.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

TMI-2 went online for the first time in February of 1978.

The accident at TMI-2 occurred in March 1979.

That adds up to 13 months from the time that reactor 2 went online for the first time until the accident occurred.

Darned thing was ancient!

Source
edit on 24-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


As I've already said, not one person was hurt by the Three Mile Island accident, and the TMI reactor was not a modern reactor. With the current generation of reactors it's incredibly hard to have a meltdown, the odds of a meltdown are around the odds of you getting struck by lightning.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel
Nuclear energy is like playing russian roulette. We keep spinning the chamber and hope we get a blank. Even with the most modern equipment, you can't make anything 100% fool proof or free from human error. Not to mention the degradation of safety standards to increase profit margins.


There has never been an accident with a generation III reactor, making them safer than any other power source. Not one person has ever been injured or killed by one, for comparison hundreds of people have been killed by wind turbines, and wind turbines have been operating for fewer years. How can you look at the facts and tell me these aren't safe?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by butcherguy

TMI-2 went online for the first time in February of 1978.

The accident at TMI-2 occurred in March 1979.

That adds up to 13 months from the time that reactor 2 went online for the first time until the accident occurred.

Darned thing was ancient!

Source
edit on 24-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

As I've already said, not one person was hurt by the Three Mile Island accident, and the TMI reactor was not a modern reactor. With the current generation of reactors it's incredibly hard to have a meltdown, the odds of a meltdown are around the odds of you getting struck by lightning.
I have to tell you that the same things were said of those reactors that were brand new in 1978.

They are fully automatic, there is no chance that a meltdown can occur. What do you think they told us, that the designs were flawed?

The same thing could be true of what you are saying of today's reactor designs.

edit on 24-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by deanGI5
 


we shouldn't stop nuclear power. we should stop building nuclear power near dangerous areas

and we should also look into using Thorium as an alternative

Some benefits of thorium fuel when compared with uranium were summarized as follows:

* Weapons-grade fissionable material is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor;
* Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
* Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable
* Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming, so fission stops by default.

However, unlike uranium-based breeder reactors, thorium requires irradiation and reprocessing before the above-noted advantages of thorium-232 can be realized, which makes thorium fuels more expensive than uranium fuels. But experts note that "the second thorium reactor may activate a third thorium reactor. This could continue in a chain of reactors for a millennium if we so choose." They add that because of thorium's abundance, it will not be exhausted in 1,000 years.

and thorium is everywhere.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Kingbreaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 





wind turbines have been operating for fewer years

I heard the Dutch used to grind grain with them in the 1600's.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Generation III reactors have been operational since 1996 and not one person has ever been injured or hurt by one. Hundreds of people are injured and killed by wind turbines every year, and hundreds of coal miners are killed every year, and countless people die of lung cancer every year from air pollution.

Saying these reactors are more dangerous than current power sources is ignorant when you look at the facts.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Modern wind turbines used to generate power.

Edit: And actually I was wrong, the first wind farm was built in 1980 and the first generation III reactor was built in 1996. That still doesn't change the fact that nobody has been hurt by generation III reactors while hundreds have been hurt by wind turbines.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Is nuclear power really worth this kind of risk?

Cripes I hope this turns out to be nothing.


Yes, actually, it is.

Second Line.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Update:
NRC says there is only two feet of water and that the plant is safe,
nebraska.watchdog.org...

The levee was breached not broken like you said in your title. Stop the lying and fear mongering, it just makes things worse.
www.examiner.com...
Edit: It's almost like you people want a disaster, which is kind of sick.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Your link does nothing to negate the proper respect being given the subject here.

Actually, my reading of the Nebraska Watchdog said the condition report was from Wednesday and they had 2 feet of water on the floor then. Not only that: Notice the cool-down time (4-10 hours) and then the weasley worded “within three seconds if necessary." Surely you don't buy that 3 second bit do ya?


As of Wednesday the river remained two feet from forcing NPPD to declare an “Alert” and shut the reactor down. Earlier this week a Cooper spokesman told Nebraska Watchdog a shutdown would occur over a period of 4-10 hours although it could occur “within three seconds” if necessary. The spokesman insists that there is no fear of a meltdown because Cooper “would be operating with power from off-site sources that would run the pumps and other equipment necessary to keep the reactor and spent fuel storage facility with cooling water.”
nebraska.watchdog.org...


And your other link only seemed to stress the importance of this issue:


"While insisting that Nebraska’s two nuclear power plants remain safe in the face of record flooding from the Missouri River, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on Wednesday issued a statement noting among other things 'two feet of water' onsite in many areas of the Fort Calhounplant which is 19 miles north of Omaha," Jordon reported Wednesday.
The nuclear power watchdog, Beyond Nuclear, has reported that Cooper Nuclear Station is an "atomic reactor -- identical twin to Fukushima Daiichi Units 1 to 4" and that a sludge pond has been uncontrollably releasing contents into river due to flooding.
www.examiner.com...


Conditions have worsened since then have they not?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 



Generation III reactors have been operational since 1996 and not one person has ever been injured or hurt by one.

The same claim could have and was made for all commercial nuclear power plants until Chernobyl, except they could claim the time period from 1956 until 1986, about 30 years.

ETA: I would be willing to bet that the people that formerly lived near Fukushima would rather have had a wind farm next door, if you asked them right about now.


edit on 24-6-2011 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Not to interupt, but this statement bugs the hell out of me:



the odds of a meltdown are around the odds of you getting struck by lightning.

My Dad was struck by lightning.....Twice!

I don't like those odds and it would only take one accident to cause problems much worse than a lightning strike! Bad comparison or bad disinformation here!

ETA: Don't poeple get struck by lightning on a regular basis?
edit on 24-6-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
152
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join