Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Earthquake-Causing Fracking to Be Allowed within 500 FEET of Nuclear Plants

page: 1
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+28 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Nuclear Plants Vulnerable to Earthquakes

The American government has officially stated that fracking can cause earthquakes. Some fracking companies now admit this fact The scientific community agrees. See this, this, this, this and this.

Earthquakes can – of course – damage nuclear power plants. For example, even the operator of Fukushima and the Japanese government now admit that the nuclear cores might have started melting down before the tsuanmi(sic) ever hit. More here.

Indeed, the fuel pools and rods at Fukushima appear to have “boiled”, caught fire and/or exploded soon after the earthquake knocked out power systems. See this, this, this, this and this. And fuel pools in the United States store an average of ten times more radioactive fuel than stored at Fukushima, have virtually no safety features, and are vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attacks. And see this.

Indeed, American reactors may be even more vulnerable to earthquakes than Fukushima.

But American nuclear “regulators” have allowed numerous nuclear power plants to be built in earthquake zones (represented by black triangles in the following diagram):



Image sourced at Food Freedon
(This site is worth a browse in it's own right)

The article is full of links to other articles in Washingtons blog. The the basic suggestion that fracking, or fraccing or hydraulic fracturing to give it its proper name, or other fluid injection or extraction, is instrumental in causing or triggering earthquakes is well known to seismologists and had been proven beyond any doubt.

The injection of any fluid under pressure, be it for the extraction of gas.oil or for the disposal of 'other fluids' WILL have an effect. Only in the past day a report has come out saying that removal of water in Spain caused, or triggered, the Mag 5+ earthquake that resulted in the death of 9 people and a great deal of destruction.


During this period, the water table dropped by 250 meters (274 yards) as farmers bored ever deeper wells to help produce the fruit, vegetables and meat that are exported from Lorca to the rest of Europe. In other words, the industry that propped up the local economy in southern Spain may have undermined the very ground on which Lorca is built.

The researchers noted that even without the strain caused by water extraction, a quake would likely have occurred at some point.

But the extra stress of pumping vast amounts of water from a nearby aquifer may have been enough to trigger a quake at that particular time and place, said lead researcher Pablo J. Gonzalez of the University of Western Ontario, Canada.


There are many earthquakes in Iceland because of the hydrothermal power plants, the Geysers in California has hundreds of small earthquakes and a project in Basel, Switzerland, was shut down because of it.


A seismic-hazard evaluation was then conducted, resulting in the cancellation of the project in December 2009. Basel, Switzerland sits atop a historically active fault and most of the city was destroyed in a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in 1356. But the Basel project, although it had established an operational approach for addressing induced earthquakes, had not performed a thorough seismic risk assessment before starting geothermal stimulation.


You cannot go drilling holes in the ground and altering the equilibrium without paying the penalty.

Our ATS member Eric Blair has many good theories on fracking and earthquakes and some that are a little on the wild side. (Here is one)

I have said on Quake Watch that if you scrape holes in the ground, in relation to the Louisiana sink-hole, that it causes unbalance and my other half likens it to making holes in a pie crust - an analogy that was very succinctly put by Eric Blair again:


We keep sucking on that long straw in our milkshake. We've damned all the rivers, drained all the swamps and when we ran out of water sources on top of the land, we then bored straight down and found the stuff hidden away in the aquifers. We keeping pricking the pincushion and poking holes in the old apple pie's crust. And if you think we'd stop at sucking, you'd be wrong. Because now we're blowing. We're pushing all our dirty secrets back down those holes. Knowing they'll never come back to haunt us.


The last sentence is of course sarcasm just in case anyone missed it.

Allowing fracking within 500ft of any building, especially a nuclear power station, is madness! It is not stupidity but is the act of the criminally insane. Do these people not realise that a fracking well is drilled horizontally? Do they not realise this can extend up to a mile from the well head? A mile is 5220ft, or was when I went to school, and that is 10 times the permitted distance. Do they think the gas/oil companies will not use the full well area to their advantage?

The effects of another nuclear disaster would be very bad for the world. It is not just the immediate effect but the effects of low levels of radiation thereafter.


“In 2000 alone, civilian reactors produced enough plutonium to make more than 34,000 nuclear bombs,” writes Smith. [1]

This is what the nuclear energy industry is about – producing plutonium, tritium and other ingredients for nuclear bombs. [2]

One isotope of plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. That’s twice as long as the latest interglacial in which Homo sapiens developed agriculture, and thus modern civilization. Another – P-239 – has a 250,000-year half-life. That’s longer than Homo sapiens has been around. But then we have uranium-238 with a 4.5 billion-year half-life, the lifespan of Planet Earth. Tritium has a half life of 12 years; strontium 29 years, cesium – 30 years, and on for the hundreds of hot particles (radioactive isotopes) created by fission.


Source

That article goes on at greater lengths about the effects of low levels of radiation. I do not agree in total with the rejection of nuclear power as I consider Thorium needs to be explored in greater depths, but Uranium based reactors built purely to provide bombs should be shut down.

The establishment and big corporate interests will always attempt to cover up and hide the effects of fracking.

Going back to the link in Eric Blair's post (see link above) the article states:


some may speculate that the quake could have been caused by hydraulic fracturing taking place in western North Dakota’s booming oil patch. Geology experts quickly shot down that theory, noting that Friday’s small quake would have happened at about 2,000 feet below the surface, too shallow to be caused by the fracking taking place much deeper in the ground. There is no proven link between fracking and earthquakes, they said.


There is also no 'exact' depth for an earthquake. You only have to look at the enormous range of depths you get from different sources to realise that the determination of the earthquake hypocentre is NOT a precise science.

Fracking 500ft from a nuke is criminal, madness and may prove to be genocidal.

PM

edit on 23/10/2012 by PuterMan because: Green decoration was required.




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
That is just crazy and agree this should not be happening at ALL.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
An addendum to the comment that the earthquake on September 28th was not caused by fracking. Whilst I said earthquake depths are not easily determined, the statement that this one would have at around 2000ft has a distinct whiff of pork pies about it.

2000ft is about 615m or 2/3rds of a kilometre. If that is th case why does the USGS page about it put the quake at 5km - pretty much fracking depth?

48.048°N 103.350°W depth=5.0km (3.1mi)

Why do they not say 0.5 or 1 km? They do for other quakes.

Note also on the technical page the depth uncertainty ia + or - 0 so they are confident of 5km. (Yeah right!)
edit on 23/10/2012 by PuterMan because: to add more information



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
I certainly am against fracking as it's being done right now. There are far too many questions that the industry just plays turtle when asked and quakes ARE, in fact, happening with a frequency for the locations that are not commonly seen all around the same time. What a coincidence, eh? Fracking happens to be right around many if not the majority of those areas which have had the runs of 4's and occasionally low 5's in such "earthquake prone" areas as Texas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Virginia, Utah, Colorado and Nevada. Now the Nevada one wasn't really out of character except that it has the same general depth as almost all the others.

It seems to me, as States have officially called this practice into question, the idea that questions DO exist to be answered isn't theory. It's simple fact. It's the answers that will determine good or bad, IMO.

I don't know if fracking is good or bad in the end....but that's the problem. Maybe there is a factor involved with the Whole being worth MORE than the sum of it's parts. By that I mean, there may be real real good reasons that rock being fractured so violently wayyyy down where no one quite knows much, NEEDS to be solid rock with no more breaks than it's gotten over 4 billion years of finding a balance.

Well.. bye bye balance if that rock structure they pulverize WAS important. It's sure the ultimate example of irreversible act.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Shale is by its very nature a rock that is easy to fracture and it yields to hydraulic pressure. You would find it pretty much impossible to frack granite!

There will indeed be/have been earthquakes in shale bed areas because of the nature of the areas, and the question is how much more is happening because of hydraulic fracturing. I believe we have seen ample proof that it does not have a beneficial effect.

A very large proportion of the US sits on shale beds at various levels that extend from the Gulf of Mexico right up into Canada.

Gas accumulates in shale beds BECAUSE they are fractured (but not as much as by hydraulic fracturing) and its upward passage is stopped by impervious layers, these same impervious layers that they puncture to get at the gas. Once the impervious layer is broken - for example by a drill hole with a bad casing or even just by leaks up past the casings - the gas/oil can continue its upward journey into the aquifers.

I am sure most of you are aware that much of the problem in the GOM is from oil and gas leaking up past the casings - outside them.

America sits on a huge shale sponge and it is all interconnected in my opinion. What happens in the Gulf affects the salt caverns in Louisiana and possibly/probably the New Madrid area and vice versa. All linked.

We are punching holes in something that should not have holes punched and there is no doubt that eventually we will pay the consequences with destruction and loss of life.

The question that has to be asked is, is the quest for clean renewable energy so urgent that it is worth the potential loss of life and economic damage? The gas company will say yes because there is no risk. The environmentalist will say no because there is a risk. Who is right? Only time will tell, but punching holes under nuclear installations cannot be a good thing.

edit on 23/10/2012 by PuterMan because: Ah, the inevitable speeling erra




posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 

Just when we think that some idiots are running the show, we find out that they really are! I find this most disconcerting. So much for feeling secure ever again if the ground beneath our feet is not granite.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 



Earthquakes can – of course – damage nuclear power plants.


No kidding!!!!
Say it ain't so....

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

That is just plain stupid to even be thinking about fracking any where near a plant.....


[Of course, that is just my unprofessional opinion.]



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 



No kidding!!!!
Say it ain't so....


Oh no in the case of Fukushima it was the tsunami. Nuclear reactors can be built on fault lines in areas prone to Mag 8+ earthquakes without any qualms at all. It is only the tsunami you need to worry about.

/sarc off



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by snarky412
 



No kidding!!!!
Say it ain't so....


Oh no in the case of Fukushima it was the tsunami. Nuclear reactors can be built on fault lines in areas prone to Mag 8+ earthquakes without any qualms at all. It is only the tsunami you need to worry about.

/sarc off


Okay.... just wondering about this statement tho:


Earthquakes can – of course – damage nuclear power plants.For example, even the operator of Fukushima and the Japanese government now admit that the nuclear cores might have started melting down before the tsuanmi(sic) ever hit. More here.



I just hate to take unnecessary chances.

These experts always claim to know whats best, only for them to eat their words later.
Usually after a catastrophe.

And yes, that was an extremely powerful EQ.... but still.



[ETA: Good post by the way.....S&F]
edit on 23-10-2012 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Yes, that part intrigued me not having deeply investigated Fukushima as some have. I did manage to find this:


According to The Chunichi Shinbun and other sources, a few hours after the earthquake extremely high levels of radiation were being measured within the reactor one building. The levels were so high that if you spent a full day exposed to them it would be fatal. The water levels of the reactor were already sinking. After the Japanese government forced TEPCO to release hundreds of pages of documents relating to the accident in May, Bloomberg reported on May 19 that a radiation alarm went off 1.5 kilometers from the number one reactor on March 11 at 3:29 p.m., minutes before the tsunami reached the plant. TEPCO would not deny the possibility that there was significant radiation leakage before the power went out. They did assert that the alarm might have simply malfunctioned. [Source: Jake Adelstein and David McNeill, The Atlantic, July 2, 2011]


Emphasis by me. Source

1.5 kilometres minutes before the tsunami would suggest that it was well under way before the tsunami hit.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Duh, I can't believe I forgot the original link.

Washingtons blog

Mods could you move this to the first post if possible?
edit on 23/10/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
These are two of the many pics that I have to see on FB every day. Honestly, I don't comment any more. I gave up the fight.





www.facebook.com...

Two of the comments


Name removed- Drill baby drill! Hydro frac, is use for oil production as well not just gas.the oilfield is good all the neg comments about are just from people that don't know anything, #roughneck, north Dakota oilfield. October 16 at 5:08pm · Like · 2

Name removed- Yep! Drill it! IDK who these people are but they need to shut up and let the people who know what there doing do there job and get America back in business! Freakin idiots ! October 17 at 9:48am · Like · 1


I am really beginning to hate social media. And this is what we leave behind for our children to clean up?
edit on 23-10-2012 by Doodle19815 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Doodle19815
 


Yes the process of hydraulic fracturing has been around for 60 years BUT IT WAS VERTICAL so they are basically not telling the whole truth. (Or anything like the truth)

Horizontal fracking has not been around anything like that time and it is THIS that causes the quakes. The area fractured is considerably extended by comparison to vertical fracking and the fracturing is vertical whereas in vertical fracking the fractures are horizontal and thus more in line with the natural strata of the rock. At least that is the way I see it.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


And not only that, but there are so many more now. And, they want even more! Yikes!

I am not an environmentalist per-say, but I do know that what they are doing just feels wrong. Mother Earth has her "body" functioning just fine without us sucking all her blood out.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
I've read through all the comments on this thread and wish I could contribute something "scientific" but I can't. I can contribute my opinion though (VERY un-scientific).

I am deeply disturbed that time after time it has been shown of the destructive repercussions of man's impact on the environment. The raping of the rain forests, the polluting of our land and bodies of water, the effects of nuclear plant disasters..... It just goes on and on and on, in spite of cold hard facts.

I have read quite a bit about fracking in the last year. There are just too many coincidences regarding fracking and earthquake activity. And 500 feet???? It doesn't take a rocket scientist here. Also, does anyone else find it ironic that they are fracking for an energy source.....right next to an alternate energy source? Maybe they should also put up some solar panels around the nuclear plants and place windmills on top of them. Just a thought.

Where is our protection? I remember when some nuclear plants were being built and all the protesting that went on. If ever there was a time for protesting and bringing this to the public's attention, it is this and it is NOW
edit on 23-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I lived about 25 miles from nine mile in oswego, ny when it was built. I remember them discovering a faultline underneath where they planned to build... their solution?? they filled in the fault with some kind of foam and declared it safe.
and well, that was back in the 70's I believe, it's still there...
I'd hate to see them fracking around the thing though, it could possibly be the straw that broke that camel's back!!

but well, I don't think they care anyways, not really....as long as they can make their few million before the crap hits the fan, they are happy!! the let future burn and become a radioactive wasteland!!

by what I've read, I not even sure we should be fracking like we are, and I am pretty sure that we don't know enough to do it safely around our nuclear plants!! but what the heck, they are spending our money like there is no tomorrow, they might as wall allow this also and heck with the consequences...because well, maybe there isn't a tomorrow after all??

either that, or we are being led by a bunch of crazies who intend on making sure there is no tomorrow!!!



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Come on now, if its not done half-assed its not American!! I don't get how its even legal, isn't that when they take thousands of gallons of dangerous chemicals,spray it all over the place and mix the crap in the ground with it, heat it up to extreme temperatures and then pipe it down a pipeline somewhere, half the time leaking all over the place. And now they want to build one out west that goes by/through many bird sanctuaries, estuaries, and some reservoirs. How the hell is basically spewing toxic waste down a pipeline legal across borders and state lines.

Oh wait I know how, lobbyists.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
yes but drilling for natural gas (which now costs more money to drill than it makes) is good for the energy industry and create jobs!
Wouldn't you sacrifice a few lives and scar the earth so folks can put McDonald's on their table?
edit on 23-10-2012 by TXRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
I think the "experts" have been selling the people down the river for quite some time. This part from OP's source is particularly "interesting":


“Hydraulic fracturing near a nuclear plant is probably not a concern under normal circumstances,” [Richard Hammack, a scientist at the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory] said. “If there is a pre-stress fault that you happen to lubricate there (with fracking solution), that is the only thing that might result in something that is (seismically) measurable.”

That’s not very reassuring, given that “lubrication” of faults is the main mechanism by which fracking causes earthquakes. (Indeed, the point is illustrated by the analogous fact that leading Japanese seismologists say that the Fukushima earthquake “lubricated” nearby faults, making a giant earthquake more likely than ever.)

And as Akron Beacon Journal notes, fracking is allowed with 500 feet of nuclear plants:

“We’re not aware of any potential impacts and don’t expect any,” said FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young today. “We see no reason to be particularly concerned.”



I think the "experts" have been selling the people down the river for quite some time. This part from OP's source is particularly "interesting":

From OP's source:


“Hydraulic fracturing near a nuclear plant is probably not a concern under normal circumstances,” [Richard Hammack, a scientist at the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory] said. “If there is a pre-stress fault that you happen to lubricate there (with fracking solution), that is the only thing that might result in something that is (seismically) measurable.”

That’s not very reassuring, given that “lubrication” of faults is the main mechanism by which fracking causes earthquakes. (Indeed, the point is illustrated by the analogous fact that leading Japanese seismologists say that the Fukushima earthquake “lubricated” nearby faults, making a giant earthquake more likely than ever.)

And as Akron Beacon Journal notes, fracking is allowed with 500 feet of nuclear plants:

“We’re not aware of any potential impacts and don’t expect any,” said FirstEnergy spokeswoman Jennifer Young today. “We see no reason to be particularly concerned.”


So Jennifer Young is the “go to” expert on this subject…. Here is what she said about the Davis-Bette power plant in Jan 2012:


www.onntv.com...
Residents Oppose Nuclear Plant Re-Opening

If there was any doubt in our mind that it was not safe, it would have not been allowed to resume operations and we came to that conclusion through an independent evaluation of First Energy's review and engineering assessment," explained James Cameron of the NRC.

"The restraint we placed on ourselves meant that we could not restart the plant until we knew that building was safe and we're very confident with that," said Jennifer Young, the First Energy spokeswoman.


And then here in June 2012:


www.northwestohio.com...~%5Cnews%5Clists%5Crecent&id=763169


OAK HARBOR -- A new leak has been found at the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Plant.
Radioactive coolant was spraying out of the pinhole sized leak. The plant's operator, First Energy, says the leaking coolant never got outside the building and posed no threat to the public. Workers discovered the leak Wednesday as they were getting ready to re-start the oak harbor plant after a month long maintenance shutdown.

It's unclear how much coolant was spilled out but operators say it was contained quickly.
Crews found cracks in the outer wall last year but the plant was allowed to re-start.
Outer wall???? But she didn't say THAT!

FirstEnergy is just another Tepco. They are dishonest and care only about the mighty dollar.

edit on 23-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I think the people running this country have gone insane. Where is common sense?





new topics

top topics



 
59
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join