Home | About | Donate

As 1.5 Million Flee Hurricane Florence, Worries Grow Over Half Dozen Nuclear Power Plants in Storm's Path


#62

True, sadly true –

The only explanation I heard for it here (if you can call it that) was that the MIC was
trying to take the FEAR factor out of nuclear weapons - and told the lies of cheap
electricity – think “too cheap to even meter” was the propaganda.

But, then, there’s Japan – an earthquake prone island - which had had TWO atomic
weapons dropped on its cities – how did they ever get agreement from government
there for nuclear weapons? The people didn’t want it and still don’t.
Most likely is that Japan was so under the influence/control of the US.

Even at the time of Fukushima, a fellow poster had told us that he had an aunt in
Fukushima who told him that some years before the Fukushima event, Japanese
scientists had been warning of more frequent and more severe earthquakes and the
government in Fukushima had decided to shut down their nuclear reactors. Before
that could happen, “W” sent a team to Fukushima and when they left the government
was changed, but the reactors were still operating.


#63

It seems the insanities which gave us nuclear reactors is still working.


#64

Just to clarify what in my comment you were referring to, are you suggesting it is insane to develop safer reactors, or insane to dispose of spent fuel by consuming it in fast reactors?


#65

Trog –

The very concept of nuclear reactors is insanity from Chernobyl to Fukushima.


#66

Chernobyl was far worse than a typical meltdown in today’s reactors would be. There was no containment, the core was open to the air, and a graphite fire in the core launched plumes of radionuclides which would have had poor mobility otherwise. The environmental impact from Chernobyl was that it killed about 10 square kilometers of pine forest. (Forest fires in CA last year wiped out around 5,590 square kilometers) But with man mostly gone from the area, nature rebounded and thrived. Do an image search on ‘Chernobyl wildlife today’ to get a sense of how it’s doing now. Even the reactor cooling ponds have huge healthy fish in them. The environmental harm from the reactor was trivial compared to the environmental harm that had already been done by man.

And the likelihood that we are going to disappear abruptly enough that we won’t be there to get today’s reactors to cold shutdown is vanishingly small–barring some Earth shattering cataclysm that would far outweigh any effect from the reactors anyway.


#67

Was it insane for humans to harness fire? Are trains insane just because some of the early locomotives occasionally had lethal boiler explosions? Is the very concept of air travel insanity just because it has had some notable disasters? Is hydropower insane? Is medicine insane? Is it insane that we use electricity?

When we gain new powers, it sometimes takes a while to get the hang of them. We make mistakes, we learn, and we get better. I see nothing inherently insane about that. But I’d certainly be willing to consider arguments to the contrary–if you have any.


#68

Where have nuclear reactors been "harnessed?

And where have any of these things you’ve mentioned created anything equal to
Chernobyl of Fukushima?

And there are more than 600 of these potential Chernobyl’s and Fukushima’s out there –

And, btw, what exactly is your solution for Fukushima and how long will it take?
Including the WASTE?

Let’s remind everyone what these things actually do –
they HEAT water to create steam.

And, yeah, I’d say our very intrusive medicine is insane, especially considering
the medical waste – and also considering that the knowledge of plants as our
medicines/drugs was destroyed when women were removed from medicine –
and most especially in putting men in charge of gynecology/childbirth.
Sadly, sadly humorous.
And basically, we don’t have “medicine” we have INSURANCE companies which
dictate what medicine you can have based on costs they’re willing or not to pay for -
which results often in no medical care – and lately questions such as whether
they’ll pay for the reattachment of one finger – or both of the fingers that have been lost.

Let me remind you also of Tesla vs Edison – AC/DC –

And, the reality of any of these systems being in the hands of males is dangerous to begin with.

Today is also the anniversary of the fakery of 9/11 –
when aluminum brought down steel which has never before happened and never since happened.


#69

If this plays out as usual, the most affected plants will submit an after-event evaluation to gauge preparedness and response, and chances are good something on the plant grounds got damaged, and that will be reported along with an assessment of whether it had any safety implications. And then the standard responses will be “how can we believe anything the lying nukers say? Remember “too cheap to meter”?” or “If they are admitting to this much, there must have been a really horrible disaster they are trying to cover up.” or “Whew, looks like we just barely dodged a bullet this time. But eventually our luck is going to run out. Shut them all down immediately!”


#70

The reactors are how we harness atomic energy. Just like how hearths, furnaces, and kilns were some of the many ways we harnessed fire.

“Let’s remind everyone what these things actually do – they HEAT water to create steam.”

That’s one of the best established parts of the whole system. We’ve been doing steam generation for a very long time. There’s nothing inherently evil about steam. It’s also not the only way we could get power from reactors. We could have generators driven by recirculating CO2, or helium, or other working gases.

“And, yeah, I’d say our very intrusive medicine is insane,”

So if there is an example of medicine which you deem insane, do you think that means that any possible kind of medicine, no matter how different, would also have to be insane?


#71

Where have nuclear reactors been "harnessed?

For any thinking individual, your response makes clear you missed the point …

The reactors are how we harness atomic energy

Obviously, my response was intended to make clear to you that nuclear reactors are not under CONTROL as we see in Chernobly and Fukushima.

And, you’re very boldly suggesting that we needed nuclear reactors to create steam?

While ignoring also the threats of nuclear reactors that seem very clear from Fukushima and Chernobyl.

And now, compounded by Global Warming events now more frequent and more severe and which will only
continue to do so.

So if there is an example of medicine which you deem insane, do you think that means that any possible kind of medicine, no matter how different, would also have to be insane?

Quite clearly, medicine based in prevention is what is required. We don’t have it.
Medicine based in “cures” is a system based in profit and is immoral and corrupt.


#72

The nuclear fallout returns with the rain – every time it rains.


#73

Subject is, of course, complications of Global Warming and its possible impact on nuclear reactors –

But, thought I’d post this which I received today from 350.org. to ask …
Other than what might have appeared on Common Dreams, how much coverage of this rising up did anyone see by media? Does anyone know if C-span covered any of it? I’ll try to see if I can catch
anything there.

Friends,

We just witnessed one of the largest climate mobilizations in human history.

Hundreds of thousands of people rallied, marched, and mobilized from San Francisco to the South Pole (yes, we were really in Antarctica!) as part of Rise for Climate, Jobs & Justice. All in all, over 900 events in 95 countries joined the call to demand real climate leadership from elected officials around the world.

Starting tomorrow, many of those same officials will meet in San Francisco, California for the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS). They’ll discuss the future of climate policy and what can be done now to avert further climate disaster. This is a key moment for us to intervene in. As African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will.” We must be the demand.

It’s up to all of us to make sure decision makers at GCAS don’t waste this opportunity. Can you tweet tomorrow, September 12th, as well to make sure they get the message?


#74

Entire cities have been wiped out by fire. The Banqiao dam disaster all by itself killed far more people than have ever died in all nuclear power accidents. Major aircraft accidents (ie. more than 50 fatalities) have killed nearly 60,000 people, and that’s not counting the far more numerous smaller accidents. There have been more electrocution deaths than aircraft deaths, and that doesn’t include deaths from fires started by electricity. And I’ve seen various estimates that medical mistakes in the U.S. alone kill around a quarter million people per year.

“And, btw, what exactly is your solution for Fukushima and how long will it take?
Including the WASTE?”

First, I consider Fukushima to be the result of nuclear power having taken a wrong turn back at the beginning–or more accurately, having been set on the wrong course by military and government decisions. We could have had reactors for which something like Fukushima was impossible, but research in that direction was quashed. But just because we wound up on an inferior path, there’s no reason we can’t develop and take the better path now.

Having said that, the main problem at Fukushima is the buildup of water in the storage tanks. The ALPS system removes every kind of contaminant except tritium, but the amount of tritium on site is trivial (about 10 grams) compared to prior releases (around 650 kilograms from bombs), current levels (between 25 and 30 kilograms) or natural equilibrium levels (around 7 kilograms). The sensible thing to do with it is disperse it, the only trick being how to disperse it so that there aren’t serious point-of-release concentrations. One option I’d like to see investigated is the possibility of loading up a tanker (should hold about a quarter of the water on site) taking it down to Antarctica, and dispersing it onto the ground to freeze. In its frozen state, tritium decay within the ice would be a threat to nothing, and as the ice evaporated, the tritium would slowly disperse at very low concentrations, and would be negligible against the background tritium rates.

Second biggest problem at Fukushima is plugging the leaks in the containment vessels (which is the reason water is accumulating in the storage tanks in the first place), but the urgency of getting that done would be greatly reduced by freeing up a lot of storage with one or two tanker trips. Finding the leaks to plug them from the inside will require better robots, but they’ve been improving and we should have a lot more information to work with in another few years.

Once the leaks are plugged, the pace of work could slow down. There would be nothing time-critical that would need to be dealt with, and working slower would actually give radiation levels more time to subside.

As for the spent fuel on site, all spent fuel becomes roughly 95% fuel in a fast reactor, so we could consume it that way while also generating enormous amounts of energy. Fast reactors could also eat depleted uranium, bomb fuel, and even the destroyed cores from Fukushima, if we wanted to get rid of them that way. And if these are molten salt fast reactors, that also means they would not be able to melt down or explode.


#75

“And there are more than 600 of these potential Chernobyl’s and Fukushima’s out there”
How are there 600 potential Chernobyl’s when there are ZERO RMBK nuclear reactors with very high positive void coefficients with no containment buildings?

The fact is you have no idea what even caused Chernobyl even though ive explained it to you multiple times.
The fact is you are completely ignorant of nuclear science as it relates to nuclear reactors, and have no idea how the working parts of a reactor relate to one another.
The fact is you would rather be ignorant of a technology than actually educate yourself about potential innovation or potential solutions.


#76

Some nuclear reactors have gotten out of control, and most of our present reactors could have serious consequences if there is a loss of control. Neither of those is a problem inherent to all forms of nuclear power. We could have reactors which would be very easy to control, even if they were run very flexibly, ramping the power up and down as needed, and which could also avoid all the dire consequences today’s reactors are vulnerable to.

“And, you’re very boldly suggesting that we needed nuclear reactors to create steam?”

No, we have other ways of making steam, and there are other ways we could use nuclear heat. There is no necessary linkage between nuclear energy and steam.

“While ignoring also the threats of nuclear reactors that seem very clear from Fukushima and Chernobyl.”

I’m in favor of the development of reactors which would pose no such threats. No loss of coolant accidents. No core meltdowns. No hydrogen explosions. No pressure ruptures. No chance of spent fuel fires. No mechanism for aerosol dispersal of problem isotopes like radio-cesium and strontium. I also think developing such reactors would make it easier to retire the old reactors sooner.

“And now, compounded by Global Warming events now more frequent and more severe and which will only continue to do so.”

And with the right kind of reactors, this would not be a problem either.

“Quite clearly, medicine based in prevention is what is required.”

So you understand how just because medicine can be done badly, that doesn’t mean it can’t be done well. Guess what else that principle applies to.


#77

NONE of what you mentioned has the potential to do what a nuclear reactor can
do to health and in regard to death, long and short term – especially when we are
talking about Global Warming and 600 nuclear reactors.

You also seem to be suggesting that the same insanities by military and government
decisions which “quashed research in the direction of safer reactors which would
have prevented something like Fukushima” won’t be as insane in future?

Our government/MIC/CIA are only more insane than they were when the first decisions
were made to use nuclear power to boil water –

First I don’t think California would be any happier with your throwing more radiated water/
waste into the Pacific to reach them – and everything in between by marine life which is
developing a nasty habit of washing up dead –

And, this is the very thing they’ve been trying to prevent for the sake of us all – i.e., dumping it into the ocean and you not only call it “sensible” …

you follow up with an option to pollute Antarctica –

or If they do a remake of “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” . . .

The sensible thing to do with it is disperse it, the only trick being how to disperse it so that there aren’t serious point-of-release concentrations. One option I’d like to see investigated is the possibility of loading up a tanker (should hold about a quarter of the water on site) taking it down to Antarctica, and dispersing it onto the ground to freeze. In its frozen state, tritium decay within the ice would be a threat to nothing, and as the ice evaporated, the tritium would slowly disperse at very low concentrations, and would be negligible against the background tritium rates.

And, evidently, the government nor the owners of the nuclear reactor haven’t thought of this next one…

Once the leaks are plugged, the pace of work could slow down. There would be nothing time-critical that would need to be dealt with, and working slower would actually give radiation levels more time to subside.

And, I’m sure your suggestions come with the same guarantees our Congress and government gave us in regard to the existing nuclear reactors – NONE

Meanwhile, Global Warming is only now about to reflect back to us in increasing events and increasing severity of events the damage done to Nature AFTER 1969 – and again there is no way to say how all of the harm done will compound in these events. Nor, of course, any way to guess what to prepare for.


#78

The book “the world without us” by alan weisman gives good analysis of what will happen.


#79

Good news…at least for me. It appears Florance is going to turn South just enough to really take the pressure off. I was out this morning early shopping…the stores are picked clean and lines at the gas stations. But I think we just dodged a bullet…which is now heading for someone else.


#80

Be careful, please.

This is a slow-mover.

That means much rain. Much flooding.

To put it in perspective, that famous New Orleans flooding from Katrina? It didn’t come from the Gulf. It wasn’t storm surge. The seaward levees did not fail. The flooding came from the Lake Pontchartrain side. The slow moving storm dumped so much rain the decades old infrastructure could not handle it.

I saw nearly the entirety of eastern NC from Raleigh to the coast under water in… '99? (maybe '98, can’t remember exactly). From a slow moving storm over an already saturated region. The rain couldn’t soak in and couldn’t run off fast enough. Pretty much the scenario you are looking at now.


#81

The hog waste thing sounds as if it could be a real issue. But the “worries” about nuclear power plants are fake. It’s all just natural gas money talking.