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: 13
152
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
For those of you who just don't understand that nuclear power is the safest power source, here's some numbers.

Deaths per TWh by energy source -


Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


nextbigfuture.com...

And I'll admit I was wrong, solar power is more dangerous than nuclear power.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: The graph is clearer in the link, so go ahead and look at it on that page.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by canselmi
 


Read my other thread "Obama Orders Media Black Out". That kind of spells it all out. Be Safe



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Ok so, did it BREAK or OVERFLOW?

There is slight difference between these two.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Oh #! Let's wish for the best. I'm hoping they'll get this under control in a small amount of time.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Fukushima was a fluke guys. It shouldn't have happened but it was a result of poor planning and somewhat outdated technology. The chances of a nuclear accident in a modern facility are so monumentally low that it's stupid. America is forced to upkeep their facilities more than most other countries. We have the safest nuclear power plants in the world, or very close to it. Remember three mile isle? Remember how may people died? Oh yeah, none. Remember how much of a widespread lasting effect the meltdown had on the area surrounding it? Oh, that's right, little to none.

If it even gets to the meltdown point, which it wont, it's all going to be ok.

Fukushima sucked because it was hit with an earthquake *which it was fine from* and then a tsunami. Not a flood.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


What I think you're missing is the potential that Nuke power has being outright world-ending and catostrophic! I have never hear of a wind turbine spewing out radiation if something goes wrong.

Just because it has not happened yet doesn't mean that it can't happen and I believe your information, while true, is disingenious towards the possible implications that may ensue.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by koperniguz
 


It's didn't break it only breached. I guess the "OMG WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!1" thread title gets more attention.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


It's impossible to tell how many people die of lung cancer every year from pollutants put into the air by fossil fuels, with nuclear power the deaths are a result of extreme accidents and flukes and not part of standard operation. Stop and think a minute about what you're arguing for here, think about the wars in the Middle East that could have been averted if we'd switched from fossil fuels to nuclear.

Edit: And please stop calling it "nuke power" that's a misleading name for scaremongering, there's quite a bit of difference between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear warhead.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
The levee broke on the Missouri side so its not going to threaten the nuclear plant. If anything it should help with the flood waters going on that side. Lets hope that is the case anyway. I went to WOWT.com which is the Omaha news website. It says it on there. I have family and friends that live in Nebraska City and Omaha so I hope both nuclear plants do not meltdown! Plus my dad also works for OPPD which gives me an inside scoop on what is going on.
The OP makes it sound like this is more serious than what it is. We are not at that critical level YET.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Could we stick to the OP's topic of conversation? I would like to see facts of what is happening in NE versus a discussion on Nuclear power as a whole.

The thread appears to be derailing.

Just a thought.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 





For those of you who just don't understand that nuclear power is the safest power source, here's some numbers.


Forget your numbers, they mean nothing. You don't need to be a phyisist to understand a REAL simple fact: Once the power is gone the plant is uncontrollable. What a great idea it is to generate power with a source you cannot control by simply flipping a switch. You can spout any amount of safety numbers you want, but the simple fact remains that you can't just turn these things off. If you have no means to provide electricity, your done. Kind of ironic that we use it to produce electricity in mass quantities, but the system relies on the very thing it produces to keep it from becoming a disaster. Wow what a great idea this nuclear power is...



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



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


The answer to that question is YES!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nucleardoom
 


The current generation of nuclear reactors have never had an accident.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cloudsinthesky
reply to post by Aim64C
 



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


The answer to that question is YES!




Scientists think it had more to do with the high levels of natural radon gas in the area.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ReverendPritchett
 


Exactly what my gut was saying too, good luck to you and your family.


Fear mongering? or common sense?, I know which one I'd choose.
Our state (QLD) went through worst floods in 70 years and 2 cyclones within 2 weeks of each other...people will be broken by this disaster.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AussieAmandaC
 


And yet a disaster hasn't happened yet, even though the fearmongerers were saying this was going to be the next Chernobyl weeks ago. All the most recent news I've seen says that everything's under control and that the power plants were prepared for this.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
To say that the power plants were prepared for this? If you dig deeper you'll find that the USNRC told the Nebraska nuclear stations to update their facilities for flooding back in 2003 and current reports showed that they just completed these requests in May 2011???? And even so, I'm reading that the USNRC isn't even sure that they followed the guidelines for completing the work? The USNRC isn't scheduled to review the work that was done until August of this year!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
For those of you who just don't understand that nuclear power is the safest power source, here's some numbers.

Deaths per TWh by energy source -


Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)


nextbigfuture.com...

And I'll admit I was wrong, solar power is more dangerous than nuclear power.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


Edit: The graph is clearer in the link, so go ahead and look at it on that page.
edit on 24-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)


You'll rarely hear of anyone ever dying directly from radiation.......their deaths will generally be from some form of cancer, stillbirth, birth defect, etc. It's almost impossible to make a direct connection.

There have been well over two thousand nuclear bomb tests around the globe and, countless cases of cancer. I strongly suspect some of the cancers are connected to radiation somehow......perhaps even some related to nuclear power generation.....but no one can prove it.
edit on 24-6-2011 by 3dman7 because: added reply text



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


B I N G O! Plus add in the 15 nuclear plants on the Mississippi for good measure! Stay Safe



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by canselmi
Just curious as to what people believe the reason is for the MSM not reporting this? Don't they live for shock value, breaking news alerts or any other terms that would result in "stay tuned, do not change the channel, listen to everything we have to say, and our commercials of course".


Maybe




EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.


link




top topics



 
152
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join