Dozen Nuclear Plants In Hurricane Sandy’s Path, Brace for Impact, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 28-10-2012 @ 11:27 PM by UltraMarine

According to globalresearch.ca , Over ten nuclear reactors and utilities are in Sandy’s potential path and the risk of nuclear accident in the U.S. is actually much greater than it was in Japan before Fukushima. For example, fuel pools in the United States store an average of ten times more radioactive fuel than stored at Fukushima, and have virtually no safety features.

“Because of the size of [Hurricane Sandy], we could see an impact to coastal and inland plants,” Neil Sheehan, a spokesman based in Philadelphia for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said by phone today. “We will station inspectors at the sites if we know they could be directly impacted.”
The NRC met earlier today to discuss the necessary precautions to take for the storm, Sheehan said. Plants must begin to shut if wind speeds exceed certain limits, he said.
As of 2 p.m. New York time, Sandy had winds of 75 miles (121 kilometers) per hour, according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami. It was about 430 miles south-southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, moving north at 7 mph.
The current Hurricane Center track calls for the system to come ashore just south of Delaware Bay on Oct. 30.

LINK

reply posted on 28-10-2012 @ 11:30 PM by UltraMarine

It’s not surprising that there have been problems at all of these nuclear plants. After all, the U.S. has 23 reactors which are virtually identical to Fukushima. The archaic uranium reactor designs developed more than 40 years ago are only good for making bombs.
Most American nuclear reactors are old. They are aging poorly, and are in very real danger of melting down. And yet the NRC is relaxing safety standards at the old plants. And see this.
Indeed, while many of the plants are already past the service life that the engineers built them for, the NRC is considering extending licenses another 80 years, which former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and now senior adviser with Friends of the Earth’s nuclear campaign David Freeman calls “committing suicide”.

MSM never mentioned these risks . They should have learned some lessons from the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster , but sadly , they didn't .

edit on 28-10-2012 by UltraMarine because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-10-2012 @ 11:35 PM by TheKingsVillian

This event is shaping up to be a real game changer is the history of the USA. I can see the elections being cancelled more and more. And without a war, very impressive. Stay safe people.

reply posted on 28-10-2012 @ 11:36 PM by IsawWHATtheyDID

a hurricane would be a great way to cover an existing problem. kinda like how fukushima was blamed on a tsunami. i wonder if nuke reactors are covered by insurance for "natural" disasters?

reply posted on 28-10-2012 @ 11:44 PM by JeZeus

Originally posted by IsawWHATtheyDID
a hurricane would be a great way to cover an existing problem. kinda like how fukushima was blamed on a tsunami. i wonder if nuke reactors are covered by insurance for "natural" disasters?

en.wikipedia.org...

" InsuranceGlobally nuclear liability risks resulting accidents are largely covered by the state, with only a small part of the risk carried by the private insurance industry. Worst case nuclear incident costs are so large that it would be difficult for the private insurance industry to carry the size of the risk, and the premium cost of full insurance would make nuclear energy uneconomic.[47] However these insurance costs for worst case scenarios, are not unusual to Nuclear power, as Hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, were 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large Dam failures in general.[48] As private Insurers base Dam insurance premiums off of worst case scenarios, insurance in this sector, if there is a major disaster, is likewise provided by the state.[48] Furthermore Germany does not operate any Chernobyl type Nuclear reactors,[49] making an insurance calcuation based on the worse case scenario in a reactor it does not use, dubious at best.[50] Also of note is that the Insurance company did not look at the insurance savings if more modern reactors, such as those that operated as designed, and safely shut down in Japan following the Earthquake and Tsunami at the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant, replaced older reactors, such as those used 10 km away in the stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant." ....

Hhhhmmmmm

reply posted on 28-10-2012 @ 11:52 PM by IsawWHATtheyDID

Originally posted by JeZeus

Originally posted by IsawWHATtheyDID
a hurricane would be a great way to cover an existing problem. kinda like how fukushima was blamed on a tsunami. i wonder if nuke reactors are covered by insurance for "natural" disasters?

en.wikipedia.org...

" InsuranceGlobally nuclear liability risks resulting accidents are largely covered by the state, with only a small part of the risk carried by the private insurance industry. Worst case nuclear incident costs are so large that it would be difficult for the private insurance industry to carry the size of the risk, and the premium cost of full insurance would make nuclear energy uneconomic.[47] However these insurance costs for worst case scenarios, are not unusual to Nuclear power, as Hydroelectric power plants are similarly not fully insured against a catastrophic event such as the Banqiao Dam disaster, were 11 million people lost their homes and from 30,000 to 200,000 people died, or large Dam failures in general.[48] As private Insurers base Dam insurance premiums off of worst case scenarios, insurance in this sector, if there is a major disaster, is likewise provided by the state.[48] Furthermore Germany does not operate any Chernobyl type Nuclear reactors,[49] making an insurance calcuation based on the worse case scenario in a reactor it does not use, dubious at best.[50] Also of note is that the Insurance company did not look at the insurance savings if more modern reactors, such as those that operated as designed, and safely shut down in Japan following the Earthquake and Tsunami at the Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Plant, replaced older reactors, such as those used 10 km away in the stricken Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant." ....

Hhhhmmmmm

thanks, so does this mean that the state would have to pay out any damages to the nuke plants? ive read your post a couple of times and that is my take. thanks again

Pages: ^^TOP^^