Home | About | Donate

Nuclear Power Plants Are Pre-Deployed Weapons of Mass Destruction


#1

Nuclear Power Plants Are Pre-Deployed Weapons of Mass Destruction

Karl Grossman

Pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction.

That’s what nuclear power plants are. And that’s another very big reason­—demonstrated again in recent days with the disclosure that two of the Brussels terrorists were planning attacks on Belgian nuclear plants—­why they must be eliminated.


#3

It always amazes me that these pundits never mention that a massive attack on a nuclear power station is not needed. An accurate missile or planted bomb in the coolant pumping facility would provide a quick Fukushima plus. Likewise, taking out the control room(s) would pretty well do the trick, but with the pumps down, a core melt down and exposure of the spent fuel in the rapidly boiled away ponds would be catastrophic.
* This would not have to be an attack. A fire in the control room or in the cableways that the wires run in could do it. A corroded pipe bursting in the pump facility might do it. And, of course, there is always a quake, hurricane, or a flood to do the job.
* Nuclear power plants are a disaster a hair trigger away, but never fear, the NRC will protect the plants from public concern and extend their use. That's what the Nuclear Industry pays them for.
;-})


#4

The business model for nuclear power, being the standard "externalized costs" (not to mention nature as 'thing' from which to extract and serve as dumping ground) of predatory capital virtually guarantees that the priorities with be inverted, at the very least. The prime example is that after all this time there is still no safe storage of waste not to mention the cutting of corners in maintenance and plants far exceeding their life expectancy and becoming dangerous.


#5

Boo! Scared yet? Boo scared yet, boo. How have American become so afraid? The media manufacturing consent for greater loss of personal rights.


#6

A male friend of mine had served in the Air Force years ago and when we drove to Crystal River--where one of Florida's major nuclear power plants is situated--he told me a very easy way to render the plant inoperable, and thus a sitting nuclear weapon.

I am not going to say HOW since some maniac could be reading this and use the info.

Reading the other article that C.D. posted on the condition of several U.S. nuclear plants, one wonders if this technology is not the 21st century's version of Pandora's Box or some other phenomenon taken straight out of mythology:

The so-called Peaceful Atom becomes the thing that sets off the extinction event (or series of events) for humankind.


#7

Bernie needs to emphasize that unlike Hillary, he does not support nuclear power plants because they are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction, indefensible primary targets of terrorists.

This will play well in New York where they are having problems with radioactivity leaking into their water supply from a nearby nuke.


#8

"However, as a result of industry pressure, the standards were watered down.”: This is pure criminality. Does anyone need further proof that the capitalists are not "that much into you"--us all? And there is more: The sheer mining of uranium is catastrophic to the ecosystems and here in the USA a racist war against the original peoples.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-world-under-a-nuclear-cloud


#9

Labeled the "most dangerous nuke plant in the US" is the Indian Point facility 32 miles north of mid-town Manhattan, well Within the 50 mile evac zone the US suggested for the Fukushima meltdowns. Leaks into groundwater and Hudson River, numerous safety standards reduced by the NRC, NO workable evacuation plan, almost 20 million living within 50 m radius. There is NO rational (or sane) reason to keep this threat to millions operating! IP should be immediately shut and cleaned-up - Entergy will try to pass the costs of clean-up onto the public via what they call "SafStor" - a criminal con job, also with collusion of the NRC!!

When a nuke plant is known to be dangerous and deadly and at-risk, if something happens it's NOT an "accident", it's criminal negligence and complicity!
SHUT IP AND ALL THE OTHERS DOWN NOW - BEFORE AN "ACCIDENT"!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-called-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/indian-point-free-pass-safety-regulations-decade-feds-delay-evacuation-plan-article-1.121497

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/frances-beinecke/we-can-power-new-york-without-risking-disaster-indian-point-nuclear-plant


#10

And there is even more to this insanity: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30234-doing-the-unthinkable-giant-gas-pipeline-to-flank-a-new-york-nuclear-power-plant


#11

Buy Cancer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., it's set to explode!


#13

Thanks Giovanna, it's insane to site the AIM pipeline so close to IP nuclear control infrastructure - its also criminal that safety data used to gain preliminary approvals were incomplete, manipulated, false and misleading. There's a demonstration against the pipeline Sunday - I'll be there along with many others working to stop it!!


#14

Homer did you take those bolts out and use them on the kid's swing set?


#15

Well, actually, the worst US commercial reactor accident (Three Mile Island, which in fact resulted in a meltdown) did not require a massive attack, an accurate missile or planted bomb, a fire in cable trays or the control room, etc. to occur. It didn't even require significant plant equipment failure. The event at Three Mile Island occurred due to two things: First, operator error, followed by management incompetence, both of which are rampant in the US nuclear energy industry.**


#16

This, nuclear power, will be our demise, in conjunction with climate change.... this of course does not come from me... but, someone who would know.... any way... think of it this way...Nuclear power requires:
Stable Political systems,
Stable Economic systems
Stable Climate systems...
As we go about our daily lives over the next few years, the stability of all these will disappear.


#17

If you drive through Europe, somewhere in the vicinity of the borders of the countries is where the nuclear plants usually live. I thank you for a good article and once again the warnings go out. Since 1980 there has been very little attention paid to the integrity of the containment systems.The reaction to anti nuclear politics was to stop funding safety and structural engineering advances for these containment vessels. Eastern countries did not show up for a conference dedicated to this subject, they were registered (these were Berlin Wall Days) but a few scientists from the Eastern Bloc were already in Europe without knowing they weren't supposed to be there. It was revealed that in a number of places there were no containment systems at all. My point is that I agree with shutting them down, but nuclear tragedies also happen elsewhere and we have no real control over their safety. I do not like to scare people, but this seems like an appropriate forum to tell the story (for the first time) . Thanks again for this timely article.


#18

Except you are wrong and that it is economic which is why two thirds of all new power plant construction last year were of renewables. The world is rapidly switching to solar and wind as fast as is possible. You are very much wrong and should correct your old data!


#19

Oh yeah, you're right. I often worry about those folks sitting in NORAD with their finger figuratively on the launch button. Operator error, followed by management incompetence, or perhaps vice versa, could ruin our whole day.
* And that has been too close, too often.
;-})


#20

Links would help as would quotes from publications about what you say.


#21

Yeeee Gods!
* That link is a must read!
;-})


#22

Sorry, I was asked to be discreet at the time and it was an experience. If I can find a reference to that conference, I will post it. It was strange to deal with Soviet Bloc politics at the time, but the scientists were good.