THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING THAT CLOSE PROXIMITY TO NUCLEAR 'FACILITIES' INCREASES THE RISK OF SEVERAL TYPES OF CANCER, ESPECIALLY IN NEWBORNS, CHILDREN, AND THE ELDERLY.
BIRTH DEFECTS, CHRONIC DISEASE, THYROID AND DERMATOLOGICAL ANOMALIES, STERILITY, AND STILLBIRTHS ALSO OCCUR MORE FREQUENTLY NEAR SUCH SITES.
NO, THIS IS NOT A "BE SCARED" BLOG, IT'S NOT AT ALL ABOUT FEAR, AS I KNOW FEAR ROBS US OF TOO MANY THINGS TO ALLOW IT, BUT IT IS JUST GOOD COMMON SENSE TO BE AWARE, TO KNOW, TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT OPTIONS TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS WE ENCOUNTER.
KNOWLEDGE EMPOWERS US, FACTS CAN FOREWARN US.
WE LEARN SO THAT WE DO NOT PERISH!
NO ONE WANTS TO THINK ABOUT SUCH POSSIBILITIES, SUCH FACTS, BUT WE MUST, BECAUSE, I BELIEVE, WE ALL WANT TO LIVE!
THIS WILL BE A LENGTHY READ, OFTEN, PERHAPS, DULL WITH STATISTICS, CITATIONS, LINKS, A LOT OF READING.
I VERY MUCH HOPE YOU DO READ IT ALL.
THOUGH THE NAMES OF THE WORST NUCLEAR ACCIDENT SITES MAY NOT BE ANYWHERE NEAR YOU, YOU CAN LEARN FROM THEM WHAT TO WATCH FOR, WHAT THE FIRST WARNING SIGNS ARE, SO THAT IF THESE THINGS BEGIN TO HAPPEN WHERE YOU ARE, OR WHERE LOVED ONES ARE, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MUST TAKE ACTION QUICKLY, NOT SIT BACK AND WATCH THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT TAKING ACTION UNFOLD.
I ADMIT THAT I AM ANGRY, VERY ANGRY, AS I WRITE THIS BECAUSE OF THE DISREGARD FOR THE MILLIONS OF LIVES OF FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS, FRIENDS, FAMILY, CHILDREN, ALL WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN NOT ONLY JEOPARDIZED BY BUT DESTROYED BY THE FAILURE OF OUR "REGULATORY AGENCIES" AND THE OPERATORS OF THESE NUCLEAR FACILITIES TO DO THEIR JOBS AS THEY SHOULD.
I ADMIT THAT MANY TIMES I HAD TO STOP AND JUST LET MYSELF WEEP, GRIEVE FOR THE SEEMINGLY HOPELESS SITUATIONS OF GOOD PEOPLE, INNOCENT VICTIMS ALL, SOME WHO FACE HORRORS EVEN TODAY THAT NO ONE SHOULD HAVE HAD TO FACE.
I OFFER YOU SOME OF THEIR STORIES, AND ENOUGH INFORMATION, I SINCERELY HOPE, TO EMPOWER YOU WITH TRUTH SO YOU WON'T BE BLINDED BY THE LIES THESE PEOPLE WERE TOLD, LIES THEY BELIEVED BECAUSE THEY TRUSTED THOSE WHO TOLD THEM.
FEAR NOTHING BUT THE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH.
QUESTION EVERYTHING, AND ALWAYS GO AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES.
It is often said that more people die in car accidents than die of radiation from accidents at nuclear power plants.
FEW, however, go on to say that a single car accident can affect perhaps a few families,
BUT THAT AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY CAN DESTROY AN ENTIRE CITY AND ALL ITS FAMILIES, CONTAMINATE AN ENTIRE COUNTRY (like Belarus), AND EVEN AFFECT HUGE PORTIONS OF A CONTINENT, CAN CIRCLE THE GLOBE, CAN REMAIN AS RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT IN THE STRATOSPHERE FOR YEARS BEFORE IT FALLS BACK TO EARTH IN PRECIPITATION.
THE VERY LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF JUST A "SMALL" NUCLEAR ACCIDENT CAN HAUNT THOSE WHO WERE WITHIN REACH OF IT FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, THEIR CHILDREN'S LIVES, AND SO ON FOR GENERATIONS!
SO NO ONE SHOULD COMPARE A NUCLEAR CONTAMINATION TO A FATAL CAR WRECK!
THAT WRECKED CAR WILL NOT KEEP ON KILLING!
WE KNOW THE RISKS OF VEHICLE ACCIDENTS.
WE MAY NEVER KNOW THE FULL EXTENT OF HOW NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS AFFECT ALL LIVING THINGS!
WHAT QUALIFIES AS A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT?
A nuclear/radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility."
SOME examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt."
Worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009 (defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 of property damage, the amount the US federal government uses to define major energy accidents that must be reported), totaling $20.5 billion in property damages.
Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and almost two-thirds (56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the US.
The United States General Accountability Office reported more than 150 incidents from 2001 to 2006 alone of nuclear plants not performing within acceptable safety guidelines.
According to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States
FOR A LIST OF U.S. NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS LIST, CLICK HERE, FROM WHICH YOU MAY ACCESS LINKS TO ACTUAL DATA ON THESE EVENTS, AS WELL AS TO SEVERAL "SCHOLARLY ARTICLES" SO MANY JUST MUST HAVE TO BE CONVINCED OF JUST ABOUT ANYTHING (LIKE "SCHOLARLY ARTICLES" HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FALSIFIED...THEY HAVE!).
RANKING ACCIDENTS...IT'S A "CRAP-SHOOT"
The International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) was introduced in 1990 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "in order to enable prompt communication of safety-significant information in case of nuclear accidents".
THERE'S A MAJOR FLAW WITH THIS REPORTING SYSTEM:
As INES ratings are NOT assigned by a central body, high-profile nuclear incidents are sometimes assigned INES ratings BY THE OPERATOR, by the formal body of the country, but also by scientific institutes, international authorities or other experts which may lead to confusion as to the actual severity.
LET US THINK ON THAT A MOMENT.
KNOWING THE IMMENSE COST OF A MAJOR ACCIDENT IN PAY-OUTS TO AFFECTED CITIZENS, IN EMERGENCY REPAIRS COST, IN MEDIA ATTENTION, ETC, HOW MANY "OPERATORS", ETC, WILL DOWNPLAY AN ACCIDENT, RATE IT LOWER THAN THEY SHOULD, PERHAPS?
Because of the difficulty (OR UNWILLINGNESS?) of "interpreting" an event level, the INES level of any incident is assigned WELL AFTER THE EVENT OCCURS!
Therefore, the scale has a very limited ability to assist in disaster-aid deployment.
Deficiencies in the existing INES have emerged through comparisons between the 1986 Chernobyl disaster and 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster.
(FUKUSHIMA WAS INITIALLY RANKED A "5", AND NOW...WELL, THEY SAY WE NEED AN 8 OR A 10 FOR FUKUSHIMA.)
Firstly, the scale is essentially a discrete qualitative ranking, not defined beyond event level 7.
Secondly, it was designed AS A PUBLIC RELATIONS TOOL, NOT AN OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC SCALE.
Thirdly, its most serious shortcoming is that it conflates magnitude with intensity.
Nuclear experts say that the "INES emergency scale is very likely to be revisited" given the confusing way in which it was used in the 2011 Japanese nuclear accidents.
TRANSLATION: IN SHORT, NO ONE TRUSTS THIS REPORTING SYSTEM, BUT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY LOVES IT!
LEFT OUT OF THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS LISTS...BECAUSE THESE WERE INTENTIONAL, BUT ARE STILL KILLING PEOPLE :
"Between 16 July 1945 and 23 September 1992, the United States maintained a program of vigorous nuclear testing, with the exception of a moratorium between November 1958 and September 1961.
By official count, a total of 1,054 nuclear tests and two nuclear attacks were conducted, with over 100 of them taking place at sites in the Pacific Ocean, over 900 of them at the Nevada Test Site, and ten on miscellaneous sites in the United States (Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, and New Mexico). "
[ "Gallery of U.S. Nuclear Tests". The Nuclear Weapon Archive. 6 August 2001.]
I REGRET TO INFORM YOU THAT, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, NEITHER OUR GOVERNMENT NOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA GIVES ONE FLAT DAMN IF YOU LIVE INSIDE THE "TOXIC CIRCLES" OF THOSE TEST SITES.
YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN TO EITHER MOVE AWAY FROM THEM OR GET NO HELP IF YOU SUCCUMB TO THE LEFTOVER RADIATION THAT PERMEATES SUCH SITES.
YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN TO EITHER MOVE AWAY FROM THEM OR GET NO HELP IF YOU SUCCUMB TO THE LEFTOVER RADIATION THAT PERMEATES SUCH SITES.
DON'T GET DISCOURAGED IF YOUR NEARBY NUCLEAR "POWER PLANT" ISN'T IMMEDIATELY LISTED.
JUST KEEP READING, AS I AM SURE YOU'LL FIND A LOCAL FACILITY NEAR YOU IS IN THE LIST.
I'M BEGINNING WITH THE WORST 2 AND WORKING DOWN THE LIST.
PLEASE HEED THE PEOPLE'S WARNINGS FROM THESE SITES!
THREE MILE ISLAND, PENNSYLVANIA, USA
THE LIE IS OFTEN TOLD THAT "NO ONE DIED FROM THREE MILE ISLAND".
YES, PEOPLE DID DIE FROM EXPOSURE TO THE NUCLEAR CONTAMINANTS RELEASED BY THE ACCIDENT OF THAT FACILITY!
PEOPLE ARE STILL DYING FROM IT!
JUST BECAUSE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE DEATHS WILL NOT ADMIT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT PEOPLE DID DIE AND ARE DYING TODAY WHO WERE EXPOSED TO THE RADIOACTIVITY ON THAT DAY, AND WHO WERE EXPOSED EVEN BEFORE AND AFTER THE ACCIDENT!
JUST AS AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANIES TELL THEIR CLIENTS TO NEVER ADMIT RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCIDENTS, THOSE WHO FACE PAYING FOR FATALITIES, CANCERS, ILLNESSES CAUSED BY NUCLEAR RADIATION, WHETHER "LEAKED" OR PURPOSELY RELEASED, ALSO KNOW NOT TO ADMIT GUILT.
THE REALLY SAD AND REALLY TERRIBLE THING ABOUT THOSE WHO KEEP QUIET ABOUT THE DANGERS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO THE CELLS OF EVERY LIVING THING IS THAT THEIR SILENCE MEANS THOUSANDS HAVE DIED WITHOUT SO MUCH AS AN APOLOGY!
AND THOUSANDS, IF NOT MILLIONS MORE WILL DIE AS WELL... ON AND ON FOR MANY GENERATIONS...AS SOME RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, SUCH AS
URANIUM-238, HAS A HALF-LIFE OF OVER 4.5 BILLION YEARS!
THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY AND ITS "PARTNERS IN CRIME" CONTINUE TO TELL US NO ONE DIED AT THREE MILE ISLAND (TMI) , BUT YET IT REFUSES TO ALLOW OPEN JUDICIAL HEARINGS ON THE HUNDREDS OF CASES PENDING BY SURVIVORS OR FAMILIES OF THE DECEASED WHO ARE ALL LIVING TESTIMONY TO THE PLAGUE OF DEATH AND CANCERS AND ILLNESS THAT FOLLOWED THE 'ACCIDENT' ON MARCH 28, 1979.
Much of the death and suffering of Three Mile was documented by a three-person investigative team from the Baltimore News-American, which made it clear that the problems could only have been caused by radiation.
Death and disease among the area's wild animals and farm livestock was documented on film in 1980.
Entire bee hives expired immediately after the accident, along with a disappearance of birds, many of whom were found scattered dead on the ground.
A rash of malformed pets were born and stillborn, including kittens that could not walk and a dog with no eyes.
Reproductive rates among the entire region's cows and horses plummeted.
Statistics from Pennsylvania's own Department of Agriculture CONFIRMED the plague among animals that ensued, but the STATE denied its existence, and said that if it did exist, it could NOT have been caused by TMI.
In the mid-1980s the citizens of the three counties surrounding Three Mile Island voted by a margin of 3:1 to permanently retire TMI's Unit One, which had been shut down when Unit Two melted.
The Reagan Administration trashed the vote and RE-OPENED the reactor, which still operates.
Its owners now seek a license renewal.
"Large numbers of central Pennsylvanians suffered skin sores and lesions that erupted while they were out of doors as the fallout rained down on them.
Many quickly developed LARGE, VISIBLE tumors, breathing problems, and a metallic taste in their mouths that matched what was experienced by some of the men who dropped the bombs on Japan, and who were exposed to nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Nevada.
A series of interviews conducted by Robbie Leppzer and compiled in a a two-hour public radio documentary, VOICES FROM THREE MILE ISLAND (http://www.turningtide.com/voicesfromtmi.htm ) , gives some indication of the horrors experienced by the people of central Pennsylvania.
Then-CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite warned that "the world has never known a day quite like today. It faced the considerable uncertainties and dangers of the worst nuclear power plant accident of the atomic age.
And the horror tonight is that it could get much worse."
IT DID GET WORSE.
BUT WHY IT GOT WORSE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE BIGGEST COVER-UPS OF THE 20th CENTURY!
Data unearthed by radiologist Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh, and by statisticians Jay Gould (now deceased) and Joe Mangano of New York have led to strong assertions of major public health impacts.
According to Mangano, one extensive study "found that the number of cancers within 10 miles of TMI rose from 1731 to 2847 between 1975-79 and 1981-85.
A 64% increase.
Investigations by epidemiologist Dr. Stephen Wing of the University of North Carolina, and others, led Wing to warn that the official studies on the health impacts of the accident suffered from "logical and methodological problems."
He was just being nice.
Fact is, they outright lied and covered their own behinds.
Unable to get federal or state officials to conduct surveys, to come out and see the results of the 'accident' , concerned survivors went door-to-door, interviewing people in neighborhoods where the fallout was thought to be worst, neighborhoods that clearly showed a very substantial RISE of cancer, leukemia, birth defects, respiratory problems, hair loss, rashes, lesions and much more.
The public was assured the government would follow up with meticulous studies of the health impacts of the accident.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
THEY LIED.
In fact, the state of Pennsylvania HID the health impacts, including their deletion of new cases of various cancers from the public record, the sudden abolition of the state's tumor registry, and the state misrepresented the impacts it could not hide (including an apparent tripling of the infant death rate in nearby Harrisburg).
THERE SEEMED TO BE NO LENGTHS THE STATE WOULD NOT GO TO IN ORDER TO HIDE HOW MANY DIED AND WERE DYING FROM 'THE THREE MILE DISASTER'.
Neither the federal nor state government did anything to track the health histories of the region's residents.
NO ONE in the nuclear energy circle ever admitted Three Mile could be to blame for so much as a skin lesion.
Approximately 2,400 area residents have long-since filed a class action lawsuit demanding compensation for the plague of death and disease visited upon their families.
For the past quarter-century they have been denied access to the federal court system, which claims there was not enough radiation released to do such harm.
TMI's owners did quietly pay out millions in damages to area residents whose children were born with genetic damage, among other things. The payments came in exchange for silence among those receiving them. For the past quarter-century they have been denied access to the federal court system, which claims there was not enough radiation released to do such harm.
AS TO HOW MUCH RADIATION WAS RELEASED, OFFICIALS HAD TO ADMIT TO A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING THAT THERE WAS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS RELEASED AT THREE MILE ISLAND AND NO WAY TO TELL HOW MUCH NOR IN WHICH DIRECTIONS. THEY ADMITTED THEIR ORIGINAL FIGURES WERE ESTIMATES ONLY.
SINCE 1978, THESE ARE A FEW FACTS WE HAVE FINALLY BEEN TOLD, FACTS KEPT OUT OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA, FOR THE MOST PART:
~As news of the accident poured into the global media, the public was assured there were no radiation releases.
That quickly proved to be false.
~The public was then told the releases were controlled and done purposely to alleviate pressure on the core.
Both those assertions ALSO turned out to be false...false.
~The public was told the releases were "insignificant."
But stack monitors were saturated and unusable, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later told Congress it did not know---and STILL does not know---how much radiation was released at Three Mile Island, or where it went.
~ Using unsubstantiated estimates of how much radiation was released, the government issued average doses allegedly received by people in the region, which it assured the public were safe. But the estimates were utterly meaningless, among other things ignoring the likelihood that high doses of concentrated fallout could come down heavily on specific areas.
~ Official ESTIMATES said a uniform dose to all persons in the region was equivalent to a single chest x-ray.
But pregnant women are no longer x-rayed because it has long been known a SINGLE dose of RADIATION from JUST ONE x-ray can do catastrophic damage to an embryo or fetus in utero.
~ The public was told there was no melting of fuel inside the core.
But robotic cameras later showed a very substantial portion of the fuel did melt.
~ The public was told there was no danger of an explosion.
But there was, as there had been at Michigan's Fermi reactor in 1966. In 1986, Chernobyl Unit Four did explode.
~ The public was told there was no need to evacuate anyone from the area.
But Pennsylvania Governor Richard Thornburgh then evacuated pregnant women and small children.
Unfortunately, many were sent to nearby Hershey, which was showered with fallout.
In fact, the entire region SHOULD have been immediately evacuated.
It is standard wisdom in the health physics community that---due in part to the extreme vulnerability of human embryos, fetuses and small children, as well as the weaknesses of old age---
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE DOSES OF RADIATION AND THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION HAS STATED NO SAFE DOSES WILL EVER BE FOUND!
IF YOU HAVE NEVER VISITED THREE MILE ISLAND, NEVER SEEN FIRST-HAND THE RESULTS OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT AND RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, I SUGGEST STRONGLY THAT YOU DO SO.
SIMPLY GO SEE FOR YOURSELF, AS I HAVE, AND TALK TO SURVIVORS, AS I HAVE, AND JUST LISTEN, LOOK, LEARN!
THREE MILE ISLAND WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE A NIGHTMARE FOR ALL FAMILIES EXPOSED TO THAT "INSIGNIFICANT, HARMLESS LEAK" OF UNKNOWN RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES.
IMAGINE YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONES SUFFERING FOR 25 YEARS WITH FEW BELIEVING YOUR STORY, FEW CARING EOUGH TO DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.
IMAGINE VISITING THE GRAVE OF A CHILD, A MOTHER, A SPOUSE AND KNOWING THAT THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR REACTOR KILLED THEM, BUT NO ONE HAS EVER SO MUCH AS APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR LOSS.
JUST TRY TO IMAGINE!
HANFORD NUCLEAR SITE'S MANY HUMAN "EXPERIMENTS"
HANFORD SHOULDBE LISTED FIRST, BUT I HAVE WRITTEN SO MUCH ON HANFORD ALREADY...
[ NOTE: FOR AN INCREDIBLE, IN-DEPTH HISTORICAL AND FACTUAL LOOK AT THE HANFORD FACILITY, ITS TIMELINE, RADIOACTIVE RELEASES, ETC, PLEASE VISIT THIS WEBSITE: http://www.angelfire.com/art2/downwinder/page1.html ]
I'VE WRITTEN QUITE A BIT ABOUT HANFORD BECAUSE IT TOUCHES MY HEART AND, ALSO, DEAR FRIENDS LIVE IN THAT AREA.
THE ENTIRE FAMILY OF A BEST FRIEND'S HUSBAND HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY THE CONTAMINATION THAT DRIFTED AND CONTINUES TO DRIFT DOWNWIND FROM HANFORD.
HE LOST HIS MOTHER TO CANCER A FEW YEARS BACK AFTER A LONG, GRUELING BATTLE WITH THAT HORRIBLE DISEASE, AND HIS FATHER WAS RECENTLY DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER, AS HAVE BEEN TOO MANY OTHERS.
STILL OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS SUFFER FROM EVERYTHING FROM THYROIDAL ANOMALIES TO STERILITY TO INCURABLE SKIN RASHES.
PREGNANT FEMALES HAVE SEEN MALFORMED OR STILLBORN BABIES, AND CHILDREN OFTEN PRESENT WITH LEUKEMIA, GENETIC DEFECTS, CLEFT PALATES, ETC.
HANFORD HAS BEEN DECLARED THE MOST TOXIC PLACE IN THE AMERICAS.
AS RECENTLY AS 2014, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT CLEANUP AT HANFORD IS IMPOSSIBLE.
THE DILAPIDATED STORAGE TANKS, THE SHEER VOLUME OF NUCLEAR WASTE STORED THERE WOULD BE "IMPOSSIBLE TO SEND ELSEWHERE", ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WIPP IN NEW MEXICO MAY BE PERMANENTLY CLOSED.
THERE IS SIMPLY NO WAY TO SCRAPE THE EARTH DEEPLY ENOUGH OR FILTER THE COLUMBIA RIVER TO REMOVE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL, OR CLEAN THE AIR WITHIN EVEN A 50-MILE RADIUS OF THAT KILLING WASTE SITE.
Potential chain reactions, hydrogen explosions and leaks from metal corrosion due to the facility having outlived its design specifications, its time limit for failure of both building materials and storage tanks due to incessant high radiation, are all hazards residents in Washington state and Oregon face every single day.
Groundwater is contaminated, rivers, ponds, lakes and creeks are contaminated, soil is contaminated, and so are the people, the animals, the plants, everything!
The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) started building the “Vit Plant” at Hanford in 2000. It’s intended to sequester the waste in stainless steel–encased glass logs, a process known as vitrification (hence “Vit”), so it cannot escape into the environment, barring natural disasters like earthquakes or catastrophic fires.
"BARRING EARTHQUAKES", WHICH DO OCCUR THERE FAIRLY REGULARLY, THOUGH NOT OF MORE THAN 5.0 OR SO MAGNITUDE... SO FAR, AND "BARRING FIRES", FOR WHICH THE REGION IS RENOWN...SO, WHY BOTHER WITH A "VIT PLANT"?
LAST YEAR, THERE WERE 210 EARTHQUAKES IN THE HANFORD AREA, 210.
WE CAM HOPE THERE IS NEVER A "BIG ONE".
THE HANFORD FACILITY IS NOT THAT FAR FROM YELLOWSTONE, A SUPER-VOLCANIC NIGHTMARE WAITING TO HAPPEN, AND IS ALSO CLOSE TO MOUNT ST. HELEN'S VOLCANO AND AT LEAST A DOZEN OTHER VOLCANIC SITES.
ANY ERUPTION NEARBY THAT SHAKES THE FACILITY, COULD MAKE ANYTHING STORED UNDERGROUND SUSCEPTIBLE TO POSSIBLE FRACTURE, AND THEN LEAKAGE.
NOT ONLY THIS, BUT FALLING VOLCANIC ASH CAN QUICKLY SHUT DOWN A NUCLEAR FACILITY WITH BUILT UP SEDIMENT CLOGGING DELIVERY OF COOLANT WATER, SETTLING ATOP VENTS CAUSING VENTING OR PROPER FILTRATION PROBLEMS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) WAS AWARE OF THIS BEFORE THE FACILITY WAS EVEN PLANNED!
THERE ARE OTHER WARNINGS:
"More clearly imminent are the risks of dam failures upstream from nuclear facilities which could cause a TSUNAMI-like situation, which should be brought home by the recent 65 foot crack in the Wanapum Dam upriver from both Hanford and the Columbia Nuclear Power Station, and the more recent sinkhole-leakage of the Boone Reservoir dam, which is upstream from 3 TVA Nuclear Power Stations."
SO MANY RISKS, SO MANY WARNINGS NOT TO PUT SUCH A HUGE NUCLEAR FACILITY THERE!
BUT, LIKE TEPCO DID AT THE FUKUSHIMA SITE, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IGNORED ALL WARNINGS, ALL FACTS.
AND YET, LOOK AT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED TO "STORE" AT HANFORD!
"Overall, the tanks hold every element in the periodic table, including half a ton of plutonium, various uranium isotopes and at least 44 other radionuclides—containing a total of about 176 million curies of radioactivity.
This is almost twice the radioactivity released at Chernobyl."
DEVELOPING THE ATOM BOMB TOOK PRIORITY OVER HUMAN SAFETY, AND HANFORD WAS ESSENTIAL TO THAT BOMB!
Established in 1943 as part of THE MANHATTAN PROJECT in the town of Hanford in south-central Washington, the site was home to the B Reactor, the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world.
Plutonium manufactured at the site was used in the first nuclear bomb, tested at the Trinity site, and in Fat Man, the bomb detonated over Nagasaki, Japan.
During the Cold War, the project expanded to include NINE nuclear reactors and FIVE large plutonium processing complexes, which produced plutonium for most of the more than 60,000 weapons in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were simply inadequate and government documents have confirmed that Hanford's operations released "SIGNIFICANT amounts" of radioactive materials into the air, onto the land, and into the Columbia River "ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS" .
At the end of the Cold War, after decades of manufacturing, what was left behind was 53 MILLION US gallons (200,000 m3) of high-level radioactive waste, stored within 177 storage tanks, an additional 25 MILLION cubic feet (710,000 m3) of solid radioactive waste, 200 SQUARE MILES (520 km2) of contaminated groundwater beneath the site.
In 2011, DOE emptied 149 single-shell tanks by pumping nearly all of the liquid waste out into 28 newer double-shell tanks.
DOE later found water intruding into at least 14 single-shell tanks and that one of them had been leaking about 640 gallons per year into the ground since about 2010.
In 2012, DOE discovered a leak also from a double-shell tank caused by construction flaws and corrosion in the bottom, and that 12 double-shell tanks have similar construction flaws.
Since then, DOE changed to monthly single-shell tank monitoring and double-shell tank's every 3 years, and changed monitoring methods.
AND WHAT GOOD HAS "MONITORING" DONE?
IT DAMNED SURE HAS NOT STOPPED THE LEAKS!
In March 2014, DOE announced further delays in the construction of the Waste Treatment Plant, which will affect the schedule for removing waste from the tanks.
Intermittent discoveries of undocumented contamination have slowed the pace and raised the cost of cleanup.
NO, COST HAS BEEN THE MAIN FACTOR IN REFUSAL TO CLEAN UP THE SITE...REFUSAL...CALL IT WHAT IT IS!
Hanford is STILL home to a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station, and various centers for scientific research and development, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the LIGO Hanford Observatory.
WHAT GOES ON IN THAT LABORATORY IS ANOTHER STORY ENTIRELY!
HANFORD KNOWINGLY CONTAMINATED....EVERYTHING!
A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to cool Hanford's nuclear reactors.
From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river.
Before its release into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours.
Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river EVERY SINGLE DAY.
THE FEDS NEVER WARNED PEOPLE ALONG THAT RIVER!
PEOPLE LIKE MY FRIENDS' FAMILIES WHO FISHED THERE, SWAM THERE, CAMPED THERE, OR LIVED NEAR THE RIVER ALL THEIR LIVES BUT WERE NEVER WARNED HOW TERRIBLE THE RESULTS WOULD BE!
The federal government kept knowledge about these radioactive releases secret.
Radiation was later measured 200 miles downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.
WHAT WAS NOT MEASURED WAS HOW MUCH RADIATION HUMAN BODIES HAD BEEN EXPOSED TO, OR HOW MUCH RADIATION WAS IN CROPS, FOOD ANIMALS, WELL WATER, HOMES, OR THE CORPSES OF THE THOUSANDS WHO DIED WITHIN A 200-MILE RADIUS OF GOOD OLD HANFORD!
AND THEN, THE EXPERIMENT!
Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's ROUTINE operations, while a FEW of the LARGER releases occurred in isolated incidents.
THE "ISOLATED INCIDENT" KNOWN AS THE 'GREEN RUN', MASS MURDER BY EXPERIMENT!
In 1949, an INTENTIONAL release known as the "GREEN RUN" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days, December 2–3, 1949.
YES, THEY INTENTIONALLY RELEASED FOR TWO FULL DAYS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF!
Radioisotopes released at that time, WE ARE TOLD, were SUPPOSED to be detected by U.S. Air Force reconnaissance IN A SORT OF TRAINING EXERCISE TO ENABLE THEM TO DETECT SOVIET RADIATION RELEASES.
IT WASN'T THE RUSSIANS WHOM RESIDENTS OF WASHINGTON AND OREGON HAD TO FEAR!
IT WAS HANFORD, AND THE U.S. AND STATE GOVERNMENTS!
It took Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the U.S. Government to reveal only SOME of the details of the "BIG EXPERIMENT" carried out on unsuspecting human beings.
Sources cite 5,500 to 12,000 curies (200 to 440 TBq) of iodine-131 released, and an even "greater amount" of xenon-133.
The unfiltered exhaust from the production facility DURING this "experiment" was much more radioactive than during a normal batch "run".
HOW MUCH MORE RADIOACTIVE WE MAY NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH OF.
The radiation was distributed over LARGE populated areas, and, THE GOVERNMENT CLAIMS, the Green Run marked the cessation of INTENTIONAL radioactive releases at Hanford until 1962 WHEN MORE SUCH "EXPERIMENTS" BEGAN AGAIN!
ONCE WAS NOT ENOUGH?
TWICE?
HOW MANY TIMES DID HANFORD INTENTIONALLY CONTAMINATE PEOPLE ALL OVER THAT AREA?
HOW LONG WILL THOSE CONTAMINANTS REMAIN?
35,000 YEARS?
FOUR BILLION YEARS, LIKE URANIUM-238?
Even 60 years after the Green Run, the U.S. government refuses to make public the name of the person who authorized the experiment, the agency he was attached to, his position within that agency, or the REAL reason for the two-day secret test.
A few documents uncovered by FOIA concerning planning for the Green Run suggest that personnel from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) may also have been involved.
Only people with top-level security clearances AND the “need to know” have access to the MISSING information.
AFTER 60 YEARS, anyone would conclude that the release of ALL of this information would NOT pose a "threat national security".
What it appears is that refusal to release documents constitutes an intentional misuse of the classification system.
Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.
A U.S. government report released in 1992 estimated that 685,000 curies of radioactive iodine-131 had been released into the river and air from the Hanford site between 1944 and 1947.
NO ONE IS COUNTING!
NO ONE WILL LINK BUT A FEW "DOWNWINDER" CASES TO THE EXPOSURE TO RADIATION FROM THE HANFORD SITE!
AS IS THE CASE FOR ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES, DENIAL AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR THEIR ATTORNEYS WHEN ANYONE FILES SUIT, HANFORD OFFICIALS ARE NOT ABOUT TO TAKE THE WRAP.
AS WE'VE SEEN, THE GOVERNMENT WON'T EVEN RELEASE THE NAME OF THE ONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FIRST(?) GREEN MILE.
FIRST?
YES, THERE WERE OTHERS!
NEW EXPERIMENT AT HANFORD, 1962
The lambs were born without eyes or mouths.
Some had legs that had grotesquely grown together; others had no legs at all.
Many were stillborn.
Thirty-one were lost in a single night.
On a pasture nearby, a cow was found dead, stiff and with its hooves bizarrely stretched up into the wind.
Down by the river, men of the Yakama tribe pulled three-eyed salmon from the Columbia River.
Trout were covered in cancerous ulcers.
And then the babies started getting sick.
The Allisons have long since passed away.
Back in the 1960s, Juanita Andrewjewski, a farmer's wife, created a "death map" of the area near her house -- with crosses for heart disease and circles for cancer.
Soon, the map was strewn with crosses and circles; at one point, there were 67 of them.
The farmers in the area and people in Richland and the two neighboring towns, Pasco and Kennewick -- known collectively as the Tri-Cities -- are among the most highly radiated humans on earth."
It is a horrifying legacy but one those people must awaken to evry day they live.
Will TODAY be the day cancer shows up in a CT or MRI scan?
Is TODAY the day someone's child is diagnosed with leukemia or thyroid cancer, or will be born with genetic deformity?
Is TODAY the day some young woman or man learns they are sterile?
Studies would eventually show that some babies at Hanford were radiated TWICE as much as the children of CHERNOBYL.
"Before the "Green Run," Tom Bailie, then a 2-year-old son of a farmer, loved to play in the fields. But then he suffered an inexplicable paralysis; later, he wouldn't be able to father children.
His ENTIRE FAMILY died of cancer."
Will the Hanford owners or federal or state agencies help these people move AWAY from the daily radioactive onslaught?
NO!!!
MAYBE THEY'RE STILL CONDUCTING AN "EXPERIMENT"?
In 2008, after two decades of so-called cleanup, barely half the tons of lethal waste had been removed.
Only four of the nine reactors have been entombed.
The outer zone is SUPPOSED to be fully decontaminated by 2020, the tanks by the end of 2047.
NOW, RESIDENTS ARE BEING TOLD THAT PROBABLY WON'T HAPPEN FOR EVEN MORE DECADES!
DECADES MORE OF THE LEAKS, THE DEADLY POISON ALL AROUND THEM, THOSE AT THE MERCY OF HANFORD ARE LOSING ALL HOPE.
In one area, discharges of more than 216 million liters of radioactive, liquid waste and cooling water have flowed out of leaky tanks. More than 100,000 spent fuel rods -- 2,300 tons of them -- still sit in leaky basins close to the Columbia River.
But still, there is no help for those near Hanford.
Recently, mainstream media very BRIEFLY reported on the wild upswing in a certain type of genetic deformity in far too many babies being born near Hanford.
The cluster of these affected babies all lay within three Washington counties, all near Hanford.
Anencephaly is a rare birth defect caused when the neural tube, which forms the brain and spinal cord, fails to close properly during early pregnancy, causing fatal deformities in the brain and skull.
Many such pregnancies end in abortion or miscarriage, but some are carried to term, with the babies either stillborn or surviving for hours or, at most, days.
As the Seattle Times reported:
"As a mysterious cluster of rare birth defects grows in Yakima, Benton and Franklin counties, state health officials are conducting first interviews with women who lost babies to the devastating disorder known as anencephaly.
Nearly three years (THREE YEARS? WHY SO LONG TO RESPOND?) after nurse Sara Barron first sounded the alarm about a spike in rare birth defects in Central Washington, state health officials have BEGUN interviewing area women who lost babies to the devastating condition known as anencephaly.
“I have found it very, very frustrating,” said Barron, 59, a registered nurse who first reported an increase in anencephaly cases at tiny Prosser Memorial Hospital in August 2012.
“These are babies, for god’s sake,” she added.
Eventually (EVENTUALLY? WHEN, IF NOT NOW? WHY WAIT?), officials plan to speak to more of the nearly 40 women included so far in the mysterious cluster of birth defects, with rates at least five times higher than the national average.
(FIVE TIMES HIGHER SHOULD RAISE SERIOUS ALARMS! MORE WAS DONE BY STATE HEALTH OFFICIALS DURING THE RECENT MEASLES SCARE!)
So far the problem has stumped local, regional and national experts, who say they can find no cause for the increase. "
"NO CAUSE? TRY RADIATION!
GO LOOK UP THE CORRELATION BETWEEN RADIATION EXPOSURE AND THIS PARTICULAR BIRTH DEFECT!
IT IS SEEN ALL OVER BELARUS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT! IT'S BEING SEEN IN BABIES BORN NEAR FUKUSHIMA RIGHT NOW! WHY DENY IT? WHY?)
Since Jan. 1, investigators have talked to 10 mothers who have carried babies with anencephaly, which causes infants to be delivered missing parts of the brain and skull.
And the problem might date back further.
A Department of Health analysis of state vital statistics data between 2003 and 2013 found rates of anencephaly and spina bifida, another neural tube defect, at five cases per 10,000 in the SAME three-county region, compared to 2.4 cases per 10,000 for Washington state as a whole.
Critics say state officials and the CDC have failed to follow up promptly enough to collect crucial clues.
The initial investigation reviewed only medical records.
NO patients were interviewed — and no one notified ANY of the families that they were part of a growing cluster of devastating birth defects.
Allison Ashley-Koch, a professor at the Duke University Center for Human Genetics, an expert on anencephaly has stated: "In-person interviews would be crucial for uncovering vital factors not apparent in medical record.".
“My concern is we aren’t saying to the community loud enough and big enough: ‘Here’s what anencephaly looks like and there’s no reason your community should have a rate four times, five times, six times higher than the national rate,’ ” said Dr. Jennie McLaurin, a bioethicist and specialist in child and migration health for the Migrant Clinicians Network, a nonprofit agency with an office in Ferndale, Whatcom County.
“It has been very slow. I’ll just say that,” she added.
INITIALLY, CDC et al SAID THIS WAS ALL LIKELY TO HAVE HAPPENED DUE TO FOLIC ACID DEFICIENCY IN ALL THE MOTHERS.
THEN, SURPRISE!
ALL THE MOTHERS' LAB WORK SHOWED THAT THEY ALL HAD FAIRLY HIGH LEVELS OF FOLIC ACID, SO CANCEL THAT THEORY!
Dr. Kathy Lofy, Washington Dept.of Health :
"Hanford nuclear facility has been one concern of the community.
We worked really closely with our radiation experts… who work closely with… Hanford.
There have been no recent releases [note how she rephrases this] — no recent CHANGE in radiation releases.
We can’t really determine any pathway by which radiation could affect all the women in the 3-county area [note all 3 counties surround Hanford]…
WRONG, KATHY!
WHY NOT TELL THE TRUTH?
THE 'PATHWAY" IS IN THE RADIOACTIVE FOOD AND WATER THEY INGEST, IN THE CONTAMINATION ALL AROUND THEM!
AND WE'VE KNOWN FOR MANY YEARS THAT EXPOSURE TO RADIATION MOST ASSUREDLY DOES CAUSE NEURAL TUBE DEFECTS, IN HUMANS AND ALL OTHER CREATURES!
Expert, Dr. Wladimir Wertelecki, MD, (Chair of Medical Genetics at University of S. Alabama): No birth defect is more extreme; It’s (ANENCEPHALY) the most significant impact of radiation on developing embryos .
HIS ARTICLE DETAILING THIS DEFECT IN IRRADIATED FETUSES CAN BE SEEN HERE: 2010 article in "Pediatrics," the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/125/4/e836).
Clinical Neuropathology by R. O. Weller, Michael Swash, D. L. McLellan - Page 185
IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN BOTH THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY THAT NEURAL TUBE DISORDERS AND THEREFORE ANENCEPHALY ARE SOMETIMES SEEN IN BABIES OF PREGNANT WOMEN EXPOSED TO RADIATION DURING THEIR GESTATIONAL PERIOD.
WHY WON'T THOSE LOOKING INTO THIS JUST ADVISE ALL WOMEN OF CHILD-BEARING AGE, ALL WHO HOPE TO BE PREGNANT, TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS DISASTER?
WHY NOT JUST EVACUATE EVERYONE?
MORE WAS DONE BY STATE HEALTH OFFICIALS DURING THE RECENT MEASLES SCARE THAN HAS EVER BEEN DONE TO HELP VICTIMS OF HANFORD OR ANY OTHER NUCLEAR DISASTER SITE!
WE PAID MORE ATTENTION TO EBOLA THAN HAS EVER BEEN PAID TO THE FATES OF THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS OF "DOWNWINDERS" !
IT'S A NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE!
GET THEM OUT!
NEVER-ENDING STORY
Fifty-two buildings at Hanford are contaminated, and 240 square miles are uninhabitable due to the radioactivity that has seeped into the soil and ground water: uranium, cesium, strontium, plutonium and other deadly radionuclides.
Stewart Udall, who served as secretary of the interior under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, called Hanford the "most tragic chapter in American Cold War history."
IN MY BLOG, AMERICA'S DYING NUCLEAR PLANTS : RECIPE FOR DISASTER,
I WROTE THAT "of the 100 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all of them in 1977 or earlier.
[I ASK YOU TO REMEMBER THAT DATE...1977 OR EARLIER...AND RECALL IT WHEN YOU READ ABOUT THE ST. LUCIE FACILITY.]
There has been no ground-breaking on new nuclear plants in the United States since 1974.
Up until 2013, there had also been no ground-breaking on new nuclear reactors at existing power plants since 1977.
Then in 2012, the NRC approved construction of four new reactors at existing nuclear plants.
Construction of the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 began on March 9, 2013.
A few days later, on March 12, construction began on the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4.
In addition, TVA's new reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Generating Station is at an advanced stage, after construction was resumed after being halted in 1988.
[ NOTE: WATTS BAR IS "SPECIAL" AND HAS HAD NUMEROUS PROBLEMS AND IS HAZARDOUS TO HUMAN HEALTH, BUT WE'LL LOOK AT THOSE PROBLEMS A BIT LATER.]
SHUTTING DOWN
By the late 1990s, 28 reactors had permanently closed BEFORE their 40-year operating licenses expired.
In 2013, four aging reactors were permanently closed BEFORE their licenses expired.
(1) Duke Energy’s Crystal River reactor in Florida. Although the plant was licensed to run until 2016, Duke decided to close it rather than pay for needed repairs.
(2)Dominion Energy’s 39-year-old Kewaunee reactor in Wisconsin closed, citing competition from low gas prices. It had recently been approved to operate through 2033.
(3) AND (4) June,2013 , Southern California Edison shuttered its TWO San Onofre reactors after 18 months of being offline due to a leak in a BRAND NEW steam generator.
These retirements leave the United States with 100 AGING, LEAKY reactors, averaging 32 years in operation. (France is second, with 58 reactors.)
SHUTTING DOWN
By the late 1990s, 28 reactors had permanently closed BEFORE their 40-year operating licenses expired.
[PLEASE NOTE: SOME OF THESE, THOUGH LISTED AS HAVING BEEN SHUT DOWN ARE STILL LEAKING RADIOACTIVITY INTO THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
THE GAO HAS REPORTED THIS TO THE PUBLIC: A US General Accounting Office (GAO) report has found SEVERE RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION at NINE civilian nuclear sites, all of which had been declared decommissioned or decontaminated.
Contamination levels were discovered to range between 2 up to 730 times above federal standards.
7 of the sites were (1)Westinghouse Fuel Fabrication Plant in Cheswick, Pennsylvania, (2)The Combination Engineering Site in Hematight, Missouri, (3)The Texas Instruments Plant, South of Boston, Mass., (4)The Gulf United Nuclear Corporation Fabrication Plant near Pawling, New York and (5)the KERR McGEE in Cushing, Oklahoma.
All five sites have ground water contamination higher than the Federal drinking water standards allow.
Additionally, (6) the KERR McGEE Cimarron Uranium Enrichment Facility in Crescent, Oklahoma, has ground water contamination 400 times the EPA's drinking water standards and (7) the Nuclear Fuel Services site in Erwin Tennessee has contamination levels 730 times above drinking water standards. ("The Nuclear Monitor" 21/8/89. WISE-319 20/10/89)]
(1) Duke Energy’s Crystal River reactor in Florida. Although the plant was licensed to run until 2016, Duke decided to close it rather than pay for needed repairs.
(2)Dominion Energy’s 39-year-old Kewaunee reactor in Wisconsin closed, citing competition from low gas prices. It had recently been approved to operate through 2033.
(3) AND (4) June,2013 , Southern California Edison shuttered its TWO San Onofre reactors after 18 months of being offline due to a leak in a BRAND NEW steam generator.
These retirements leave the United States with 100 AGING, LEAKY reactors, averaging 32 years in operation. (France is second, with 58 reactors.)
HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER "ACCIDENTS" BESIDES HANFORD, THREE MILE, WIPP?
IS SNOW WHITE?
IS SNOW WHITE?
YES, SEVERAL.
THE NUCLEAR REACTOR SITES ARE OLD, FAILING, SO WHAT CAN WE EXPECT BESIDES "ACCIDENTS"?
Just because thousands don't immediately fall down dead from a nuclear accident, it does NOT mean people will not DIE from radiation exposure.
SOME CANCERS CAUSED BY RADIATION TAKE YEARS TO DEVELOP!
IF CONTAMINANTS LINGER IN WATER, SOIL, ATMOSPHERE, HUMAN BODIES, FOOD ANIMALS, FISH, ETC, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE BIRTH DEFECTS, CANCERS IN YOUNG CHILDREN AND BABIES, AND MANY TYPES OF CHRONIC ILLNESS BROUGHT ABOUT BY RADIATION AND NOTHING BUT RADIATION.
[ BEFORE FURTHER DISCUSSION OF OTHER ACCIDENTS, PLEASE BE AWARE THAT SEVERAL TERMS ARE USED TO REFER TO RADIATION LEVELS AND DOSES, BOTH HERE AND ABROAD, BUT ONE THING IS CERTAIN...
CALL IT A RAD OR A SIEVERT, JUST ONE SIEVERT WILL CAUSE ILLNESS, AND 8 SIEVERTS WILL CAUSE DEATH, NO "CURE", NO MATTER WHAT.]
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, California, 2012
The plant between San Diego and Los Angeles hasn't produced electricity since January 2012, after a "SMALL" radiation leak led to the discovery of UNUSUAL damage to HUNDREDS of tubes that carry radioactive water.
The twin nuclear reactors that had been sitting there on the beach for over 40 years shut down.
HAVE CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS GONE UP NEAR SAN ONOFRE?
YES.
BUT CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA CASES ALWAYS INCREASE NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!
CLICK HERE TO READ JUST ONE OF SEVERAL STUDIES THAT HAVE PROVEN THIS.
PLEASE, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THESE WARNINGS FROM THE SAN ONOFRE SAFETY WEBSITE:
--There is no safe emergency plan currently in place for San Onofre. Over 8.7 million people living in a 50 mile radius need to evacuate if there is an emergency at San Onofre. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not require a current safe emergency plan for San Onofre (NRC Reg. 50.47).
-- Radiation from San Onofre will blow inland due to prevailing on-shore wind, so the safest evacuation location is upwind in the Pacific Ocean.
-- San Onofre is not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.
The NRC value of a human life is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the value used by other federal agencies ($3 million vs. $5-9 million).
-- San Onofre was redesigned for a 7.0 earthquake, but sits next to a fault capable of an 8.0 earthquake — 10 times more powerful and long overdue.
-- San Onofre unsafely stores tons of toxic radioactive waste and continues to produce over 600 pounds every day. The waste remains radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
-- San Onofre’s “30 foot tsunami wall” is only 14 feet above high tide.
-- The NRC does not require seismic or tsunami studies for license renewal. San Onofre was originally licensed to shut down in 2013, but was extended to 2022. Next year they plan to ask for an extension to 2042. The plant was designed in 1973 for a 40-year lifespan.
-- Onofre has 10 times more safety violations than the industry average making it the most dangerous nuclear plant of all 64 plants (and 104 reactors) in the nation.
-- The NRC says San Onofre continues to have serious safety culture problems, including poor decision making and employees reluctant to report safety problems for fear of retaliation from their management.
-- In the event of a severe accident at San Onofre, radiation leaks could create a permanent “dead zone” beyond Los Angeles, San Diego, Catalina, and Riverside.
-- Children and pregnant women are most vulnerable to radiation. Cancer and genetic damage go undetected for years.
--Your home and property cannot be insured against a nuclear disaster and reactor owners have limited liability.
-- San Onofre kills millions of fish and other marine life every year, due to it’s once-through cooling system.
[Sources cited by the San Onofre web page:
~CA Energy Commission www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.htm
~Nuclear Information & Resource Service www.nirs.org
~US Geological Survey www.usgs.gov
~Nuclear Regulatory Commission www.nrc.gov
~CA Public Utilities Commission www.cpuc.ca.gov ]
READ THE FACTS, DECIDE HOW SAFE YOU THINK SAN ONOFRE IS AFTER SEEING HOW UNSAFE IT HAS BEEN.
FLORIDA'S ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT, 2014
ST. LUCIE WOULD BE A JOKE IF IT WASN'T SO DEADLY.
FROM TAMPA BAY TIMES
Yet another Florida nuclear plant may be in trouble.
"Magnitude of what’s going on at St. Lucie is off the charts”; 100 times worse than average.
More than 3,700 tubes (OF ABOUT 9000 TOTAL) that help cool a nuclear reactor at Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie facility exhibit wear. Most other similar plants have between zero and a few hundred.
Worst case: A tube bursts and spews radioactive fluid. That's what happened at the San Onofre plant in California two years ago. The plant shut down forever because it would have cost too much to fix.
WEAR IN 3,700 TUBES?
AND THEY KEEP USING THAT LEAKY PLANT?
Critics say that's like pressing hard on the accelerator, even when you know the car has worn brakes.
OFFICIALS AT ST. LUCIE TAKE GREAT OFFENSE TO BEING COMPARED TO SAN ONOFRE, AND YET THE SIMILARITIES ARE MOST EVIDENT!
WHAT SHUT DOWN SAN ONOFRE SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN ST. LUCIE WHEN THE LEAKY TUBES WERE FIRST DISCOVERED.
THE PLACE IS A TICKING TIME BOMB AND ABSOLUTELY RIDDLED WITH OPERATIONAL MISMANAGEMENT, SLOPPINESS, AND HUMAN ERROR AGAIN AND AGAIN.
EXAMPLE:
1989 June 5
St. Lucie, Florida, USA - A diver was sucked into the nuclear reactor cooling water uptake system at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida.
The diver was dragged a quarter mile through a 16 foot diameter pipe, ending up in one of the reactor cooling ponds.
He was fortunate to have lived through it.
(SEE: "Radiation and Alternatives Bulletin" (RadBull) USA Aug. 1989, WISE-319 20/10/89)
IF A DIVER CAN GET SUCKED IN AT ST. LUCIE, WHAT ELSE COULD GET IN TO CAUSE A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE?
WHAT ALL IS FLOWING THROUGH THOSE HUGE PIPES?
MANATEES, DOLPHIN, SEA TURTLES?
HOW LONG UNTIL DISASTER?
AND THE 'HITS' JUST KEEP ON COMING AT ST. LUCIE
Three incidents at FPL’s St. Lucie Unit 1 plant, which went online in 1976, warranted an extra NRC inspection.
First, on Aug. 22, 2011, jellyfish clogged screens on cooling water intakes, causing a drop in water circulating in the plant and triggering a surprise shutdown.
A second unplanned shutdown happened Oct. 19, 2011, after a water pump failed in the non-nuclear side of the plant.
Third 'strike' (and St. Lucie SHOULD have been called "OUT!") happened on March 31, 2013 when a steam valve opened during a test.
The FPL fellows, all on a first-name basis with the NRC guys, assured the feds that new screens, better crew training and revised operating procedures will stop future jellyfish problems, despite the fact that jellyfish invasions shut down the plant in 1984 and 1993.
In the future, FPL hopes to see the invaders in time to shut down the plant before the jellyfish force them to do it.
This doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
Better water pumps, overhauled pump motors, new steam valves and upgraded tests, FPL officials say, will prevent the other problems from recurring.
[i'll bet the farm it does not stop anything!]
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOTES FROM A MEETING FOR RESIDENTS NEAR THE FACILITY, A MEETING THAT WAS MOVED SORT OF AT THE LAST MOMENT.
"Ex-journalist Teresa Oster of Jensen Beach pointed out that the St. Lucie plant is “one of the worst seven in the country” for unplanned shutdowns, and asked if old equipment on old reactors is a problem.
The NRC’s Rick Croteau doesn't like the “worst seven” description, instead calling it a need “for higher oversight.”
And old equipment isn't a problem, he adds.
Some new equipment fails too.
[WE SAW THAT AT SAN ONOFRE, RIGHT, RICK?]
Ms. Oster persists with questions about the “culture of safety” at the nukes facilities and new plans after the Fukushima disaster.
FPL and the NRC have assessed flooding potential at the plant and said equipment in Memphis and Arizona could be moved in “if an unforeseen event occurs.”
[MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE AND ARIZONA? REALLY? WHY?]
“Why not have the equipment HERE?” Ms. Oster asks.
Having equipment on site, Mr. Croteau said, would do no good if the unforeseen event, such as flooding, damages it.
But diesel-driven pumps, electric generators and other equipment to cool the reactor cores could be brought in within 24 hours.
[AND IN THAT 24-HOURS TIMEFRAME, HOW MANY WILL BE FATALLY EXPOSED TO RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES? ]
The buddy-buddy nature of this longtime relationship between the inspector and the inspected seem designed to foster getting by rather than excellence.
As long as there is no U.S. version of Fukushima to FORCE a change in the system, the FPL-NRC Good Ol’ Boy Club continues.
Fortunately, even moving the meeting can’t stop area residents from asking questions.
FPL has been neglecting its operations for years.
They have cut back on all repairs, the grid is falling apart.
FPL whistleblowers are threatened regularly.
I have been told that when they see 30 items wrong with a reactor they will fix 3 with duct tape and paperclips rather than spend for the needed repairs.
Also if anyone thinks we do not have a FAULT LINE in Florida they are sadly misinformed.
Right off the coast, and I mean within 1 to 3 miles off of Florida's shore, is a fault line.
Look it up.
Its called the Blue Ridge Fault .
We could, and probably will in our lifetimes, have an earthquake off of Florida.
if the idiots continue dredging and running gas pipelines the explosion will trigger a nightmare that the residents will be holding their heads saying 'What Happened?'
We are the reason Big Corporate scum continue to screw everyone in this country.
FPL is the biggest ponzi scheme in Florida.
They pay 21% returns 10 years running.
Isn’t that why Bernie Madoff went to prison?
Only the PSC gives the okay. Just like the NRC turns a blind eye with well greased palms and paid off politicos."
WELL, NOT EXACTLY STELLAR REPORTING, BUT SHE WAS 'RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY'...WHO WOULDN'T BE IF THEY WERE FACING A MONSTER LIKE ST. LUCIE AND HAD NO WAY TO FIGHT IT?
HAT TIP TO MS. SALLY SWARTZ FOR GOING TO THAT MEETING AND TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS.
April 2nd, 2013
Unit 1 of FPL St. Lucie Nuke Plant experienced another “auto trip” earlier this month.
"Supposedly the automatic response turned off electricity to non-nuclear equipment, which occurs when signals indicate equipment is not operating properly.
But “the generators are operating safely.”
Or so says FPL communications supervisor Doug Andrews.
Everything is fine and dandy.
How do they know? FPL said so.
The next inspection is scheduled for spring 2014."
WHY BOTHER?
JUST KEEP LOOKING THE OTHER WAY UNTIL MILLIONS DIE FROM THE INEPTITUDE OF THOSE RUNNING THAT ASYLUM!
HUGE INCREASE IN RARE BRAIN TUMORS IN CHILDREN DOWNWIND FROM ST. LUCIE
"When I sat down for breakfast with the local newspaper on November 17 of last year, the news was not very appetizing. The lead story, reprinted from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, told of a campaign by mothers from Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County, Florida, to expose an alarmingly high rate of rare childhood brain cancers there.
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, told of a campaign by mothers from Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County, Florida, to expose an alarmingly high rate of rare childhood brain cancers there.
November 17, 1997
"For families, it has been a devastating ordeal. The diagnoses came after lengthy illnesses that were first labeled flus, ulcers and other less dire ailments. The children go blind, experience chronic vomiting, suffer strokes and, in many cases die. Those who survive face brain damage, stunted growth, and secondary cancers later in life, usually as a result of radiation and chemical therapies".
[RADIATION...CHEMICAL THERAPIES...BUT RADIATION IS LISTED FIRST, AS IT SHOULD BE!]
When I looked up the statistics for St. Lucie I almost lost my lunch.
The St. Lucie 1 reactor, operating commercially since 1976, had released nearly 283,000 curies of airborne radiation into the environment through 1991.
The St. Lucie 2 reactor, operating since 1983, reported airborne emissions through 1991 of almost 50,000 curies.
Thus the reactors, through 1991, had released over 333,000 curies of radiation into the air, much of it probably drifting towards Port St. Lucie.
The NRC records also indicated that over these years the St. Lucie reactors had released over 6800 Curies of liquid tritium—radioactive hydrogen—into local waters.
Community groups in western Massachusetts have implicated liquid tritium releases from the now defunct Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor as the cause of abnormally high rates of five kinds of cancer and Down's Syndrome.
And in Suffolk County on New York's eastern Long Island, residents have filed a $2 billion lawsuit against the operators of a research reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, contending that its leaks of tritium and other radioactive substances into the groundwater have contaminated their community water supply.
Dr. Jay Gould and his associates in 1996, in the New York City based Radiation and Public Health Project, showed that US counties within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor had statistically significant higher rates of age-adjusted white female breast cancer deaths than counties located more than 100 miles from a nuclear reactor. Their study breaks down this information into specific counties, in relation to specific reactors, as well.
Gould's numbers, based upon US Vital Statistics, showed that in St. Lucie County, the age-adjusted white female breast cancer mortality rate from 1950-54 was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 women. But the rate jumped to 20.7 for the years 1980-84, and 23.5 for 1985-89. Thus the rate of increase in these deaths, comparing 1950-54 to 1980-84, was 221%! And comparing 1950-54 to 1985-89, the increase was 263%.
Comparing the earlier five-year period to the latter two five-year ones showed identical 24% increases for the state of Florida as a whole for these breast cancer deaths. And nationally this mortality increased 2% from 1950-54 to 1980-84, and 1% from 1950-54 to 1985-89."
THE STORY WAS PICKED UP BY THE BALTIMORE SUN, WHICH ADDED:
"In fact, the rate of cancer among children nationwide has been rising steadily since the early 1970s. About 8,000 new cases of cancer, the most common form of fatal childhood disease, are being diagnosed every year.
Put another way, a newborn child in the United States faces about a 1 in 600 risk of having cancer by age 10.
FIRED FOR PREVENTING CATASTROPHE AT ST. LUCIE!
September 18, 2012
Florida Power & Light fired a safety officer for shutting down a dangerously leaking nuclear reactor, because it cost $6 million to repair, the man claims in court.
Mark W. Hicks sued Florida Power & Light Co. in Port St. Lucie County Court, alleging whistleblower violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel and fraud.
After 20 years in the "Nuclear [U.S.] Navy Program," Hicks says, he had been a safety compliance officer for two FP&L's nuclear power plants for less than a year when he discovered coolant leaking from a reactor's "code safety relief valve."
Hicks says that under the Code of Federal Regulations, the leak "mandated the immediate shutdown of the reactor."
"It was clear to Hicks that there was great potential peril, as a reactor which loses too much nuclear reactor coolant has a potential of causing core damage, which could ultimately lead to a nuclear meltdown at the power plant, putting the entire civilian population, which would be in proximity to the reactor, in danger," the complaint states.
"In fact, the same type of coolant leak that Hicks observed at the St. Lucie power plant was what caused the partial nuclear core meltdown on March 28, 1979, known as the Three Mile Island Accident, in Middletown, Pennsylvania, which was the worst nuclear accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history ...
"Due to the need to protect the public and FPL employees, Hicks immediately directed his operations shift manager to cease startup of the reactor, and to shut it down, and to begin a cool down of the reactor, so that his team could repair the leaky valve.
"At the time of the incident, Hicks was following the plant safety procedures outlined in FPL's Technical Specification § 6.8, and from his own general safety knowledge regarding the procedures required to reduce the safety concern."
"Following protocol, Hicks reported to the head of the Nuclear Power Division of FPL and the Executive Vice President of FPL Manoochehr Nazar, who then shockingly and recklessly insisted that Hicks start up the reactor.
"Despite Hicks' evaluation of the situation, the obvious safety concerns, and the clear legal requirements which dictated that Hicks and FPL shut down the reactor, Nazar ordered Hicks to sign off on starting up the reactor without repairing the valves.
"Nazar took the position he did, to startup the reactor, strictly from a position of greed. The bottom line is that he was willing to risk the health, well being, and even the lives of the citizens of Florida to avoid the loss of revenue, while the reactor was being repaired.
"That was why Hicks was ordered to start up the reactor and to ignore the clear safety risk. At all times, Nazar and the other senior management of FPL were made fully aware of the safety concern, and despite this knowledge, in an effort to save money, ordered the reactor started.
"In an act of defiance, and at risk of losing his job at FPL, Hicks went against his superior's instructions, and refused to start up the reactor."
Hicks says his actions "saved the company from the potential ruin that would have followed a Florida version of the Three Mile Island accident".
"In fact, after shutting down the reactor, it was discovered that Hicks was correct in requiring that the reactor be shut down, as the valve was incorrectly installed, the piping was out of alignment placing stresses on the valve body which caused the leak. Not only on the valve in question, but two other similar valves, and piping was sprung out of place from the misalignment. The piping had to be cut and re-welded to properly install the valves. On returning the reactor to service, the valves no longer leaked and they functioned perfectly as designed. ...
"Not only because of the loss of approximately $6 million, but more to assure that no one would dare defy Nazar and to assure that the rest of the employees would yield to the demands of Nazar no matter how dangerous those demands might be, Nazar and his crony officers began to take actions to punish Hicks.
"Without warning, Hicks' supervisors started to take retaliatory actions against him. Where he should have been lauded for doing his job and protecting the public, FPL, and the environment from a potential nuclear disaster, Hicks started to suffer the harm of being targeted by an irate employer."
Hicks say FPL put him on probation, cut his pay, lowered his performance rating level and eventually fired him, claiming his position was only temporary.
WORST OF THE BAD.
The Most Dangerous Nuclear Power Plants in America
December 18, 2013
This data was not easy to obtain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission collects all the data, but does not publish them together in a single report. It does not rank or rate plants and does not look kindly on efforts of others to compare and evaluate plants. It prefers not to see its data used for any purpose that might detract from its fundamental message that “all nuclear plants are safe.”
The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), DOES make these types of comparisons, but keeps a tight lid on its reports. Members agree not to share the reports, photocopy them or distribute copies to non-INPO members.
The minutes of a meeting of the Energy Northwest board of directors in December 2005 say that INPO rates plants on a scale of 1 (the best) to 4 (the worst). “Of the 65 sites that are assessed every 24 months, the INPO score breakdown is: 21 INPO 1s (11 of those 21 have not been assessed in the past year); 32 INPO 2s; 11 INPO 3s and 1 INPO 4. Energy Northwest has an INPO 3 rating.” The reader should note that there are 100 nuclear reactors at 65 different sites in the US.
According to this INPO scorecard, only one nuclear plant is rated lower than Columbia, although 10 others are rated equally bad.
No other INPO ratings have been released at Energy Northwest board meetings since 2000, although the discussions clearly indicate that the group has repeatedly given Columbia low marks. “Continuous significant improvement during 2010 will be needed in order for the plant to only slip one grade,” W. Scott Oxenford, Energy Northwest’s chief nuclear officer who was on loan from INPO, told the board in March 2010.
With the aim of providing a more complete comparison of the nation’s nuclear plants, Cascadia Times reviewed thousands of pages of inspection reports and other NRC data, and has ranked each plant in six different categories:
1. AIR EMISSIONS. The amount of airborne radioactive effluent reported by each plant in 2010, the most recent year a full set of such reports was available at the NRC web site www.nrc.gov;
2. LIQUID EMISSIONS. Liquid radioactive releases, based on data provided by the NRC in its report, “Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2009;”
3. SAFETY VIOLATIONS. The number of violations of NRC safety regulations from 2010–2012, as reported by the US General Accounting Office in its report, “Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight;”
4. EMERGENCY SHUTDOWNS. The number of “scrams” or emergency shutdowns, based on an examination of NRC inspection reports on the Columbia Generation Station from 2000 to 2013, and data provided by the NRC to US Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in a May 13, 2011 letter;
5. DOSAGE RECEIVED BY THE PUBLIC. The dosage of radioactivity received by a hypothetical member of the public at the site boundary, based on each plant’s annual effluent report for 2010; and
6. DOSAGE RECEIVED BY THE WORKFORCE. The dosage of radioactivity received by its workforce, based on data reported by the NRC in its report, “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2011 Forty-Fourth Annual Report.
The plants are rated on a scale from 1 to 100, with 1 being the worst possible score. At the end each plant is given a composite score based on its average ranking in each of the six categories.
RESULTS
The 14 plants with the greatest amount of air emissions are GE-designed boiling water reactors.
The top 2 are:
1~ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, located in Monticello, Minn., 35 miles northwest of Minneapolis. This plant, a single Mark I boiling water reactor designed by General Electric, is owned and operated by Northern States Power Company. The plant has been operating since 1970, and received a 20-year license extension in 2006.
In 2010, it released 1,484 curies of noble gases.
2~ The multi-reactor plant with the greatest air effluent releases in 2010 was the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station in Northern Illinois. LaSalle’s two Mark II boiling water reactors released a combined 1,915 curies of noble gases in 2010, or an average of 957 curies from each unit.
Most radioactive liquid effluent.
Radioactive liquid emissions seep into the soil and groundwater beneath or adjacent to the plant.
The NRC reports that all but 14 plants released radioactive liquids in 2009.
The top 2 in this category:
1~ Leading the nation in liquid releases was Alabama’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant with THREE reactors which released 34,821 curies.
EACH reactor at Brown’s Ferry, owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, has released 11,607 curies on average.
2~The reactor with the next most liquid release was the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, with a release 217 curies.
Most safety violations.
Every three months, the NRC reports on recent inspections at each nuclear power plant. Each report lists the number of violations of federal safety regulations that the inspectors found, and provides some details about each violation.
The NRC itself doesn’t keep a tally on the number of citations. But an analysis of NRC records was done in 2013 by the US General Accounting Office.
Here are top 2 in violations, according to the GAO:
1~ The Cooper Nuclear Station, a boiling water reactor located at Brownville, Neb.‚ 23 miles south of Nebraska City, led the nation with 105 violation from 2010 to 2012.
The plant is owned and operated by the Nebraska Public Power District.
2~ The Wolf Creek Generating Station in Burlington, Kans., finished a close second with 100 violations.
Most “scrams” or emergency shutdowns
If the plant faces an emergency due to
human error or a malfunction, the plant’s operators or computer will “scram” the reactor or shut it down.
This list shows the plants with the most scrams or emergency shutdowns from 2000–2011, based on inspection reports and a letter from the NRC to Congress.
Top 3
1~ The Columbia Generating Station near Richland, WA, with 23.
2~The Millstone Power Station Unit 2 in Waterford, Conn., had 20.
3~Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 had 19.
Highest radiation dose received by the public
Each nuclear power plant is required to calculate the dosage of radiation that would be received by a hypothetical person living at its site boundary. This calculation offers an insight into the potential damage its radioactive emissions can cause to people.
This measurement of airborne gamma radiation is given in millirads.
TOP
1~ Neighbors of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port
Gibson, Miss., received the highest dosage of airborne gamma radiation in 2010.
2~ Those near Oyster Creek near Lacey Township, Ocean County, New Jersey emitted 2nd highest levels.
Highest dosages received by the workforce.
When a worker receives greater than a certain threshold dosage, the worker is transferred to non-contaminated areas. This chart shows the total dosage received by each plant’s total workforce over the three year period, 209 2011. Source: Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors, NRC, April 2013.
1~ PERRY IN OHIO
2~ COLUMBIA, AGAIN, IN WA
Worst overall safety and environmental performance.
1~ Columbia Generating Station, AGAIN.
2~ Oyster Creek, NJ, AGAIN.
3~ Grand Gulf, MS, AGAIN
4~ Calloway in MO
5~ River Bend in Louisiana
6~ Palisades, Michigan, AGAIN
7~ Hope Creek in Delaware
8 AND 9~ Peach Bottom 2 & 1 in PA
10~ Perry in Ohio, AGAIN.
THE DAILY BEAST REPORTED DIFFERENT RESULTS, BUT USED A DIFFERENT SET OF VALUES.
Nearly half of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States are close to major fault lines, including the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants located near California's San Andreas Fault.
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is less than two miles from the Pampano fault line, and sits within 50 miles of more than 17 million people.
Based on the input of more than a half-dozen experts in nuclear energy, nuclear engineering and risk assessment, The Daily Beast ranked the country's power plant sites based on three, equally weighted metrics: risk of natural disaster, safety performance assessments, and surrounding population.
In other words, which nuclear power plants are located in the most dangerous physical locations, have the weakest relative operating conditions, and would affect the greatest number of people should an unforeseeable emergency occur?
1. Indian Point
Location: Buchanan, NY (24 miles north of New York City)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 1020; Unit 3: 1025
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1973; Unit 3: 1975
Population within 50 Miles: 17,452,585
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
2. WAS SAN ONOFRE, BUT IT'S BEEN TAKEN OFFLINE.
3. Limerick
Location: Limerick, PA (21 miles northwest of Philadelphia)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1134; Unit 2: 1134
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1985; Unit 2: 1989
Population within 50 Miles: 7,923,148
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 10
4. Dresden
Location: Morris, IL (25 miles southwest of Joliet, IL)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 867; Unit 3: 867
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1991; Unit 3: 1971
Population within 50 Miles: 7,806,437
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 25
5. Diablo Canyon
Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles west-southwest of San Luis Obispo, CA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1151; Unit 2: 1149
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1984; Unit 2: 1985
Population within 50 Miles: 437,333
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 5
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: approx. 250 miles
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
6. Salem
Location: Hancock Bridge, NJ (18 miles southeast of Wilmington, DE)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1174; Unit 2: 1130
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1976; Unit 2: 1981
Population within 50 Miles: 5,666,258
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
7. Watts Bar
Location: Spring City, TN (60 miles southwest of Knoxville, TN)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1123
Year Operating License Issued: 1996
Population within 50 Miles: 1,041,466
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 20
8. Peach Bottom
Location: Delta, PA (17.9 miles south of Lancaster, PA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 1112; Unit 3: 1112
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1973; Unit 3: 1974
Population within 50 Miles: 5,446,128
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 10
9. Virgil C. Summer
Location: Jenkinsville, SC (26 miles northwest of Columbia, SC)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 966
Year Operating License Issued: 1982
Population within 50 Miles: 1,138,816
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
10. Sequoyah
Location: Soddy-Daisy, TN (16 miles northeast of Chattanooga, TN)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1148; Unit 2: 1126
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1980; Unit 2: 1981
Population within 50 Miles: 1,048,818
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 25
11. Seabrook
Location: Seabrook, NH (13 miles south of Portsmouth, NH)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1295
Year Operating License Issued: 1990
Population within 50 Miles: 4,187,095
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
12. Braidwood
Location: Braceville, IL (20 miles south-southwest of Joilet, IL)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1178; Unit 2: 1152
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1987; Unit 2: 1988
Population within 50 Miles: 6,845,106
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 1
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 20
13. Hope Creek
Location: Hancock Bridge, NJ (18 miles southeast of Wilmington, DE)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1061
Year Operating License Issued: 1986
Population within 50 Miles: 5,667,344
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
14. Columbia
Location: Richland, WA (20 miles north-northeast of Pasco, WA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1190
Year Operating License Issued: 1984
Population within 50 Miles: 404,163
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: approx. 140 miles
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
15. Waterford
Location: Killona, LA (25 miles west of New Orleans, LA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1250
Year Operating License Issued: 1985
Population within 50 Miles: 2,113,087
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 1
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 20
16. Arkansas Nuclear One
Location: London, AR (6 miles west-northwest of Russellville, AR)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 843; Unit 2: 995
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1974; Unit 2: 1978
Population within 50 Miles: 295,832
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 25 to 35
17. Vogtle
Location: Waynesboro, GA (26 miles southeast of Augusta, GA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1109; Unit 2: 1127
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1987; Unit 2: 1989
Population within 50 Miles: 712,672
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
18. Edwin I. Hatch
Location: Baxley, GA (20 miles south of Vidalia, GA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 876; Unit 2: 883
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1974; Unit 2: 1978
Population within 50 Miles: 426,725
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 15
19. Catawba
Location: York, SC (18 miles south of Charlotte, NC)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1129 ; Unit 2: 1129
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1985; Unit 2: 1986
Population within 50 Miles: 2,461,326
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
20. Pilgrim
Location: Plymouth, MA (38 miles southeast of Boston, MA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 685
Year Operating License Issued: 1972
Population within 50 Miles: 4,610,713
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
21. McGuire
Location: Huntersville, NC (17 miles north of Charlotte, NC)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1100; Unit 2: 1100
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1981; Unit 2: 1983
Population within 50 Miles: 2,647,599
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 15
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN THOUGHT
May 22, 2012
Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.
[Journal Reference:
J. Lelieveld, D. Kunkel, M. G. Lawrence. Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2012; 12 (9): 4245 DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012]
WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE COME FORWARD, BUT NOT AS MANY AS PERHAPS MIGHT IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR HONESTY WEREN'T RUINATION.
WHISTLEBLOWERS RISK IT ALL, FACE RETALIATION
AN EX-FBI AGENT
Edmonds translated other materials that involved the selling of U.S. nuclear information to foreigners and spotted a connection to a previous case involving the purchase of such information. The FBI, under pressure from the State Department, Edmonds writes, prevented her from notifying the FBI field offices involved. Edmonds has testified in a court deposition, naming as part of a broad criminal conspiracy Representatives Dennis Hastert, Dan Burton, Roy Blunt, Bob Livingston, Stephen Solarz, and Tom Lantos, and the following high-ranking U.S. government officials: Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Marc Grossman.
NO SAFETY FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS
November 22, 2011
The agency hasn’t strengthened the safety culture at the department’s Hanford Site, Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a seven-page letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
“My understanding is that despite the emergence of new, serious complaints,” including punishment of employees raising safety issues, “and its own studies that show the project is seriously troubled,” the department “continues to assert that the technical matters raised by these individuals are inaccurate,” Markey said in the letter.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent organization in the executive branch that advises the president and the Energy secretary, issued a June 9 report criticizing the handling of the case by the Energy Department and its contractors, Markey said in the letter.
The agency “seems to be more interested in paying contractor fees than in paying attention to safety concerns or to those who are disciplined for raising them,” Markey said today in a statement.
MAKING IT ALL SEEM LIKE NOTHING TO THE GULLIBLE PUBLIC
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROPONENTS OFTEN LIKE TO USE SECONDS TO TELL US HOW LONG THE HALF-LIFE IS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL USED IN NUCLEAR REACTORS.
IS IT BECAUSE IT MAKES IT SEEM SO MUCH LESS HARMFUL IF THEY SAY "SECONDS" INSTEAD OF BILLIONS OF YEARS?
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW, A HALF-LIFE GIVEN AS 10 TO THE 12th POWER MEANS IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF OVER 31,600 YEARS.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A FAILURE
"The nuclear power industry has gone to Congress demanding loan guarantees for one basic reason: atomic reactors are not economically sound. Nobody will finance new ones without the taxpayer being forced to take the ultimate risk.
Nuclear power is not a new technology.
What Forbes Magazine has called "the largest managerial disaster in business history" is a proven economic failure.
NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE A TERRORIST'S DREAM
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001, made it clear that every atomic reactor is a pre-deployed potential weapon of radioactive mass destruction.
The first jet that flew into the World Trade Center passed one minute earlier over the Indian Point reactor complex, 45 miles to the north. There are three reactors there---two active and one inactive---plus thousands of tons of high level radioactive fuel. Thankfully, humankind has never experienced the horrifying event of a jet plane flying into the containment dome of an active atomic reactor.
The industry likes to claim that there would be no penetration.
But that's wishful thinking. It has no hard data---and let's hope it never does."
RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND STORAGE
Fifty years ago, the nuclear power industry promised there would be a solution to the problem of high level radioactive waste.
Today, we are no closer to managing these uniquely lethal materials than we were in 1957, when the first reactor opened."
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT ALL OUR NUCLEAR FACILITIES ARE OUTLIVING THEIR 40-YEARS DESIGN LIMITS, projects are being developed and implemented to allow reactors to operate for potentially up to 60 years.
"The NRC is currently considering plant life extension applications for 19 nuclear reactors (one more than a year ago), beyond the 72 license extensions already granted.
No final decision on the new applications can be granted until the NRC completes a new “waste confidence rule”, which relates to long term management of nuclear waste, including commercial reactor spent fuel. This follows a decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2012, which invalidated the NRC's then “waste confidence rule”. The court ruled that the NRC had failed to consider the environmental effects of not securing a permanent waste disposal facility in the United States, or the environmental risks from storage of spent fuel stored at reactor sites for six decades. "
IT'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
EVER WONDER WHY THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN VERY WEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS?
EVER WONDER WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FREELY ALLOWS NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AS WELL AS URANIUM MINING ON AMERICAN INDIAN LANDS?
EVER ASK YOURSELF, "WHAT IF IT WAS ME? WHAT WOULD I HOPE FOR?"
WE SHOULD ALL ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND THEN DO ALL WE CAN FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN PLACES WE WOULD NEVER WANT TO BE!
OTHER SOURCES NOT CITED OR LINKED ABO
~ People Died at Three Mile Island
~ “Review of Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) Assessments for the DOE Hanford Site” Snow, Robert L.; Ross, Steven B., 2011-09-15, PNNL-20684 Rev.1 830403000; TRN: US1105781, DOE contract no. AC05-76RL01830, Research Org: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US), Sponsoring Org: USDOE
~http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1025685/
~http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2014.html#_Toc268768717
~ http://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/health/children/
~ https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/three_sisters/
CALL IT A RAD OR A SIEVERT, JUST ONE SIEVERT WILL CAUSE ILLNESS, AND 8 SIEVERTS WILL CAUSE DEATH, NO "CURE", NO MATTER WHAT.]
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, California, 2012
The plant between San Diego and Los Angeles hasn't produced electricity since January 2012, after a "SMALL" radiation leak led to the discovery of UNUSUAL damage to HUNDREDS of tubes that carry radioactive water.
The twin nuclear reactors that had been sitting there on the beach for over 40 years shut down.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer of California, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said she's also relieved.
"This nuclear plant had a DEFECTIVE REDESIGN and could no longer operate as intended. Modifications to the San Onofre nuclear plant were unsafe and posed a danger to the eight million people living within 50 miles of the plant," she said in a statement.
"Now that the San Onofre nuclear plant will be permanently shut down, it is essential that this nuclear plant be safely decommissioned and does not become a continuing liability for the community."
The Unit 1 reactor operated from 1968 to 1992, when it was shut down, replaced and dismantled.HAVE CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIAS GONE UP NEAR SAN ONOFRE?
YES.
BUT CHILDHOOD LEUKEMIA CASES ALWAYS INCREASE NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!
CLICK HERE TO READ JUST ONE OF SEVERAL STUDIES THAT HAVE PROVEN THIS.
PLEASE, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THESE WARNINGS FROM THE SAN ONOFRE SAFETY WEBSITE:
--There is no safe emergency plan currently in place for San Onofre. Over 8.7 million people living in a 50 mile radius need to evacuate if there is an emergency at San Onofre. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not require a current safe emergency plan for San Onofre (NRC Reg. 50.47).
-- Radiation from San Onofre will blow inland due to prevailing on-shore wind, so the safest evacuation location is upwind in the Pacific Ocean.
-- San Onofre is not required to add safety systems that the NRC deems too expensive for the value of the lives they could save.
The NRC value of a human life is roughly 1/3 to 1/2 the value used by other federal agencies ($3 million vs. $5-9 million).
-- San Onofre was redesigned for a 7.0 earthquake, but sits next to a fault capable of an 8.0 earthquake — 10 times more powerful and long overdue.
-- San Onofre unsafely stores tons of toxic radioactive waste and continues to produce over 600 pounds every day. The waste remains radioactive and dangerous to human health for thousands of years.
-- San Onofre’s “30 foot tsunami wall” is only 14 feet above high tide.
-- The NRC does not require seismic or tsunami studies for license renewal. San Onofre was originally licensed to shut down in 2013, but was extended to 2022. Next year they plan to ask for an extension to 2042. The plant was designed in 1973 for a 40-year lifespan.
-- Onofre has 10 times more safety violations than the industry average making it the most dangerous nuclear plant of all 64 plants (and 104 reactors) in the nation.
-- The NRC says San Onofre continues to have serious safety culture problems, including poor decision making and employees reluctant to report safety problems for fear of retaliation from their management.
-- In the event of a severe accident at San Onofre, radiation leaks could create a permanent “dead zone” beyond Los Angeles, San Diego, Catalina, and Riverside.
-- Children and pregnant women are most vulnerable to radiation. Cancer and genetic damage go undetected for years.
--Your home and property cannot be insured against a nuclear disaster and reactor owners have limited liability.
-- San Onofre kills millions of fish and other marine life every year, due to it’s once-through cooling system.
[Sources cited by the San Onofre web page:
~CA Energy Commission www.energy.ca.gov/nuclear/california.htm
~Nuclear Information & Resource Service www.nirs.org
~US Geological Survey www.usgs.gov
~Nuclear Regulatory Commission www.nrc.gov
~CA Public Utilities Commission www.cpuc.ca.gov ]
READ THE FACTS, DECIDE HOW SAFE YOU THINK SAN ONOFRE IS AFTER SEEING HOW UNSAFE IT HAS BEEN.
FLORIDA'S ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR PLANT, 2014
ST. LUCIE WOULD BE A JOKE IF IT WASN'T SO DEADLY.
FROM TAMPA BAY TIMES
Yet another Florida nuclear plant may be in trouble.
"Magnitude of what’s going on at St. Lucie is off the charts”; 100 times worse than average.
More than 3,700 tubes (OF ABOUT 9000 TOTAL) that help cool a nuclear reactor at Florida Power & Light's St. Lucie facility exhibit wear. Most other similar plants have between zero and a few hundred.
Worst case: A tube bursts and spews radioactive fluid. That's what happened at the San Onofre plant in California two years ago. The plant shut down forever because it would have cost too much to fix.
WEAR IN 3,700 TUBES?
AND THEY KEEP USING THAT LEAKY PLANT?
Critics say that's like pressing hard on the accelerator, even when you know the car has worn brakes.
OFFICIALS AT ST. LUCIE TAKE GREAT OFFENSE TO BEING COMPARED TO SAN ONOFRE, AND YET THE SIMILARITIES ARE MOST EVIDENT!
WHAT SHUT DOWN SAN ONOFRE SHOULD HAVE SHUT DOWN ST. LUCIE WHEN THE LEAKY TUBES WERE FIRST DISCOVERED.
THE PLACE IS A TICKING TIME BOMB AND ABSOLUTELY RIDDLED WITH OPERATIONAL MISMANAGEMENT, SLOPPINESS, AND HUMAN ERROR AGAIN AND AGAIN.
EXAMPLE:
1989 June 5
St. Lucie, Florida, USA - A diver was sucked into the nuclear reactor cooling water uptake system at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida.
The diver was dragged a quarter mile through a 16 foot diameter pipe, ending up in one of the reactor cooling ponds.
He was fortunate to have lived through it.
(SEE: "Radiation and Alternatives Bulletin" (RadBull) USA Aug. 1989, WISE-319 20/10/89)
IF A DIVER CAN GET SUCKED IN AT ST. LUCIE, WHAT ELSE COULD GET IN TO CAUSE A NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE?
WHAT ALL IS FLOWING THROUGH THOSE HUGE PIPES?
MANATEES, DOLPHIN, SEA TURTLES?
HOW LONG UNTIL DISASTER?
AND THE 'HITS' JUST KEEP ON COMING AT ST. LUCIE
Three incidents at FPL’s St. Lucie Unit 1 plant, which went online in 1976, warranted an extra NRC inspection.
First, on Aug. 22, 2011, jellyfish clogged screens on cooling water intakes, causing a drop in water circulating in the plant and triggering a surprise shutdown.
A second unplanned shutdown happened Oct. 19, 2011, after a water pump failed in the non-nuclear side of the plant.
Third 'strike' (and St. Lucie SHOULD have been called "OUT!") happened on March 31, 2013 when a steam valve opened during a test.
The FPL fellows, all on a first-name basis with the NRC guys, assured the feds that new screens, better crew training and revised operating procedures will stop future jellyfish problems, despite the fact that jellyfish invasions shut down the plant in 1984 and 1993.
In the future, FPL hopes to see the invaders in time to shut down the plant before the jellyfish force them to do it.
This doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
Better water pumps, overhauled pump motors, new steam valves and upgraded tests, FPL officials say, will prevent the other problems from recurring.
[i'll bet the farm it does not stop anything!]
THE FOLLOWING ARE NOTES FROM A MEETING FOR RESIDENTS NEAR THE FACILITY, A MEETING THAT WAS MOVED SORT OF AT THE LAST MOMENT.
"Ex-journalist Teresa Oster of Jensen Beach pointed out that the St. Lucie plant is “one of the worst seven in the country” for unplanned shutdowns, and asked if old equipment on old reactors is a problem.
The NRC’s Rick Croteau doesn't like the “worst seven” description, instead calling it a need “for higher oversight.”
And old equipment isn't a problem, he adds.
Some new equipment fails too.
[WE SAW THAT AT SAN ONOFRE, RIGHT, RICK?]
Ms. Oster persists with questions about the “culture of safety” at the nukes facilities and new plans after the Fukushima disaster.
FPL and the NRC have assessed flooding potential at the plant and said equipment in Memphis and Arizona could be moved in “if an unforeseen event occurs.”
[MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE AND ARIZONA? REALLY? WHY?]
“Why not have the equipment HERE?” Ms. Oster asks.
Having equipment on site, Mr. Croteau said, would do no good if the unforeseen event, such as flooding, damages it.
But diesel-driven pumps, electric generators and other equipment to cool the reactor cores could be brought in within 24 hours.
[AND IN THAT 24-HOURS TIMEFRAME, HOW MANY WILL BE FATALLY EXPOSED TO RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES? ]
The buddy-buddy nature of this longtime relationship between the inspector and the inspected seem designed to foster getting by rather than excellence.
As long as there is no U.S. version of Fukushima to FORCE a change in the system, the FPL-NRC Good Ol’ Boy Club continues.
Fortunately, even moving the meeting can’t stop area residents from asking questions.
FPL has been neglecting its operations for years.
They have cut back on all repairs, the grid is falling apart.
FPL whistleblowers are threatened regularly.
I have been told that when they see 30 items wrong with a reactor they will fix 3 with duct tape and paperclips rather than spend for the needed repairs.
Also if anyone thinks we do not have a FAULT LINE in Florida they are sadly misinformed.
Right off the coast, and I mean within 1 to 3 miles off of Florida's shore, is a fault line.
Look it up.
Its called the Blue Ridge Fault .
We could, and probably will in our lifetimes, have an earthquake off of Florida.
if the idiots continue dredging and running gas pipelines the explosion will trigger a nightmare that the residents will be holding their heads saying 'What Happened?'
We are the reason Big Corporate scum continue to screw everyone in this country.
FPL is the biggest ponzi scheme in Florida.
They pay 21% returns 10 years running.
Isn’t that why Bernie Madoff went to prison?
Only the PSC gives the okay. Just like the NRC turns a blind eye with well greased palms and paid off politicos."
WELL, NOT EXACTLY STELLAR REPORTING, BUT SHE WAS 'RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY'...WHO WOULDN'T BE IF THEY WERE FACING A MONSTER LIKE ST. LUCIE AND HAD NO WAY TO FIGHT IT?
HAT TIP TO MS. SALLY SWARTZ FOR GOING TO THAT MEETING AND TELLING IT LIKE IT WAS.
April 2nd, 2013
Unit 1 of FPL St. Lucie Nuke Plant experienced another “auto trip” earlier this month.
"Supposedly the automatic response turned off electricity to non-nuclear equipment, which occurs when signals indicate equipment is not operating properly.
But “the generators are operating safely.”
Or so says FPL communications supervisor Doug Andrews.
Everything is fine and dandy.
How do they know? FPL said so.
The next inspection is scheduled for spring 2014."
WHY BOTHER?
JUST KEEP LOOKING THE OTHER WAY UNTIL MILLIONS DIE FROM THE INEPTITUDE OF THOSE RUNNING THAT ASYLUM!
HUGE INCREASE IN RARE BRAIN TUMORS IN CHILDREN DOWNWIND FROM ST. LUCIE
"When I sat down for breakfast with the local newspaper on November 17 of last year, the news was not very appetizing. The lead story, reprinted from the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, told of a campaign by mothers from Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County, Florida, to expose an alarmingly high rate of rare childhood brain cancers there.
Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, told of a campaign by mothers from Port St. Lucie in St. Lucie County, Florida, to expose an alarmingly high rate of rare childhood brain cancers there.
November 17, 1997
"For families, it has been a devastating ordeal. The diagnoses came after lengthy illnesses that were first labeled flus, ulcers and other less dire ailments. The children go blind, experience chronic vomiting, suffer strokes and, in many cases die. Those who survive face brain damage, stunted growth, and secondary cancers later in life, usually as a result of radiation and chemical therapies".
[RADIATION...CHEMICAL THERAPIES...BUT RADIATION IS LISTED FIRST, AS IT SHOULD BE!]
When I looked up the statistics for St. Lucie I almost lost my lunch.
The St. Lucie 1 reactor, operating commercially since 1976, had released nearly 283,000 curies of airborne radiation into the environment through 1991.
The St. Lucie 2 reactor, operating since 1983, reported airborne emissions through 1991 of almost 50,000 curies.
Thus the reactors, through 1991, had released over 333,000 curies of radiation into the air, much of it probably drifting towards Port St. Lucie.
The NRC records also indicated that over these years the St. Lucie reactors had released over 6800 Curies of liquid tritium—radioactive hydrogen—into local waters.
Community groups in western Massachusetts have implicated liquid tritium releases from the now defunct Yankee Rowe nuclear reactor as the cause of abnormally high rates of five kinds of cancer and Down's Syndrome.
And in Suffolk County on New York's eastern Long Island, residents have filed a $2 billion lawsuit against the operators of a research reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, contending that its leaks of tritium and other radioactive substances into the groundwater have contaminated their community water supply.
Dr. Jay Gould and his associates in 1996, in the New York City based Radiation and Public Health Project, showed that US counties within 100 miles of a nuclear reactor had statistically significant higher rates of age-adjusted white female breast cancer deaths than counties located more than 100 miles from a nuclear reactor. Their study breaks down this information into specific counties, in relation to specific reactors, as well.
Gould's numbers, based upon US Vital Statistics, showed that in St. Lucie County, the age-adjusted white female breast cancer mortality rate from 1950-54 was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 women. But the rate jumped to 20.7 for the years 1980-84, and 23.5 for 1985-89. Thus the rate of increase in these deaths, comparing 1950-54 to 1980-84, was 221%! And comparing 1950-54 to 1985-89, the increase was 263%.
Comparing the earlier five-year period to the latter two five-year ones showed identical 24% increases for the state of Florida as a whole for these breast cancer deaths. And nationally this mortality increased 2% from 1950-54 to 1980-84, and 1% from 1950-54 to 1985-89."
THE STORY WAS PICKED UP BY THE BALTIMORE SUN, WHICH ADDED:
"In fact, the rate of cancer among children nationwide has been rising steadily since the early 1970s. About 8,000 new cases of cancer, the most common form of fatal childhood disease, are being diagnosed every year.
Put another way, a newborn child in the United States faces about a 1 in 600 risk of having cancer by age 10.
September 18, 2012
Florida Power & Light fired a safety officer for shutting down a dangerously leaking nuclear reactor, because it cost $6 million to repair, the man claims in court.
Mark W. Hicks sued Florida Power & Light Co. in Port St. Lucie County Court, alleging whistleblower violations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, libel and fraud.
After 20 years in the "Nuclear [U.S.] Navy Program," Hicks says, he had been a safety compliance officer for two FP&L's nuclear power plants for less than a year when he discovered coolant leaking from a reactor's "code safety relief valve."
Hicks says that under the Code of Federal Regulations, the leak "mandated the immediate shutdown of the reactor."
"It was clear to Hicks that there was great potential peril, as a reactor which loses too much nuclear reactor coolant has a potential of causing core damage, which could ultimately lead to a nuclear meltdown at the power plant, putting the entire civilian population, which would be in proximity to the reactor, in danger," the complaint states.
"In fact, the same type of coolant leak that Hicks observed at the St. Lucie power plant was what caused the partial nuclear core meltdown on March 28, 1979, known as the Three Mile Island Accident, in Middletown, Pennsylvania, which was the worst nuclear accident in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant history ...
"Due to the need to protect the public and FPL employees, Hicks immediately directed his operations shift manager to cease startup of the reactor, and to shut it down, and to begin a cool down of the reactor, so that his team could repair the leaky valve.
"At the time of the incident, Hicks was following the plant safety procedures outlined in FPL's Technical Specification § 6.8, and from his own general safety knowledge regarding the procedures required to reduce the safety concern."
"Following protocol, Hicks reported to the head of the Nuclear Power Division of FPL and the Executive Vice President of FPL Manoochehr Nazar, who then shockingly and recklessly insisted that Hicks start up the reactor.
"Despite Hicks' evaluation of the situation, the obvious safety concerns, and the clear legal requirements which dictated that Hicks and FPL shut down the reactor, Nazar ordered Hicks to sign off on starting up the reactor without repairing the valves.
"Nazar took the position he did, to startup the reactor, strictly from a position of greed. The bottom line is that he was willing to risk the health, well being, and even the lives of the citizens of Florida to avoid the loss of revenue, while the reactor was being repaired.
"That was why Hicks was ordered to start up the reactor and to ignore the clear safety risk. At all times, Nazar and the other senior management of FPL were made fully aware of the safety concern, and despite this knowledge, in an effort to save money, ordered the reactor started.
"In an act of defiance, and at risk of losing his job at FPL, Hicks went against his superior's instructions, and refused to start up the reactor."
Hicks says his actions "saved the company from the potential ruin that would have followed a Florida version of the Three Mile Island accident".
"In fact, after shutting down the reactor, it was discovered that Hicks was correct in requiring that the reactor be shut down, as the valve was incorrectly installed, the piping was out of alignment placing stresses on the valve body which caused the leak. Not only on the valve in question, but two other similar valves, and piping was sprung out of place from the misalignment. The piping had to be cut and re-welded to properly install the valves. On returning the reactor to service, the valves no longer leaked and they functioned perfectly as designed. ...
"Not only because of the loss of approximately $6 million, but more to assure that no one would dare defy Nazar and to assure that the rest of the employees would yield to the demands of Nazar no matter how dangerous those demands might be, Nazar and his crony officers began to take actions to punish Hicks.
"Without warning, Hicks' supervisors started to take retaliatory actions against him. Where he should have been lauded for doing his job and protecting the public, FPL, and the environment from a potential nuclear disaster, Hicks started to suffer the harm of being targeted by an irate employer."
Hicks say FPL put him on probation, cut his pay, lowered his performance rating level and eventually fired him, claiming his position was only temporary.
The St. Lucie plant was built in 1976 and contains two nuclear reactors in separate containment buildings.
PLEASE, REMEMBER ST. LUCIE
WORST OF THE BAD.
The Most Dangerous Nuclear Power Plants in America
December 18, 2013
This data was not easy to obtain. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission collects all the data, but does not publish them together in a single report. It does not rank or rate plants and does not look kindly on efforts of others to compare and evaluate plants. It prefers not to see its data used for any purpose that might detract from its fundamental message that “all nuclear plants are safe.”
The Institute for Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), DOES make these types of comparisons, but keeps a tight lid on its reports. Members agree not to share the reports, photocopy them or distribute copies to non-INPO members.
The minutes of a meeting of the Energy Northwest board of directors in December 2005 say that INPO rates plants on a scale of 1 (the best) to 4 (the worst). “Of the 65 sites that are assessed every 24 months, the INPO score breakdown is: 21 INPO 1s (11 of those 21 have not been assessed in the past year); 32 INPO 2s; 11 INPO 3s and 1 INPO 4. Energy Northwest has an INPO 3 rating.” The reader should note that there are 100 nuclear reactors at 65 different sites in the US.
According to this INPO scorecard, only one nuclear plant is rated lower than Columbia, although 10 others are rated equally bad.
No other INPO ratings have been released at Energy Northwest board meetings since 2000, although the discussions clearly indicate that the group has repeatedly given Columbia low marks. “Continuous significant improvement during 2010 will be needed in order for the plant to only slip one grade,” W. Scott Oxenford, Energy Northwest’s chief nuclear officer who was on loan from INPO, told the board in March 2010.
With the aim of providing a more complete comparison of the nation’s nuclear plants, Cascadia Times reviewed thousands of pages of inspection reports and other NRC data, and has ranked each plant in six different categories:
1. AIR EMISSIONS. The amount of airborne radioactive effluent reported by each plant in 2010, the most recent year a full set of such reports was available at the NRC web site www.nrc.gov;
2. LIQUID EMISSIONS. Liquid radioactive releases, based on data provided by the NRC in its report, “Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear Power Plants Annual Report 2009;”
3. SAFETY VIOLATIONS. The number of violations of NRC safety regulations from 2010–2012, as reported by the US General Accounting Office in its report, “Analysis of Regional Differences and Improved Access to Information Could Strengthen NRC Oversight;”
4. EMERGENCY SHUTDOWNS. The number of “scrams” or emergency shutdowns, based on an examination of NRC inspection reports on the Columbia Generation Station from 2000 to 2013, and data provided by the NRC to US Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., in a May 13, 2011 letter;
5. DOSAGE RECEIVED BY THE PUBLIC. The dosage of radioactivity received by a hypothetical member of the public at the site boundary, based on each plant’s annual effluent report for 2010; and
6. DOSAGE RECEIVED BY THE WORKFORCE. The dosage of radioactivity received by its workforce, based on data reported by the NRC in its report, “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2011 Forty-Fourth Annual Report.
The plants are rated on a scale from 1 to 100, with 1 being the worst possible score. At the end each plant is given a composite score based on its average ranking in each of the six categories.
RESULTS
The 14 plants with the greatest amount of air emissions are GE-designed boiling water reactors.
The top 2 are:
1~ Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant, located in Monticello, Minn., 35 miles northwest of Minneapolis. This plant, a single Mark I boiling water reactor designed by General Electric, is owned and operated by Northern States Power Company. The plant has been operating since 1970, and received a 20-year license extension in 2006.
In 2010, it released 1,484 curies of noble gases.
2~ The multi-reactor plant with the greatest air effluent releases in 2010 was the LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Station in Northern Illinois. LaSalle’s two Mark II boiling water reactors released a combined 1,915 curies of noble gases in 2010, or an average of 957 curies from each unit.
Most radioactive liquid effluent.
Radioactive liquid emissions seep into the soil and groundwater beneath or adjacent to the plant.
The NRC reports that all but 14 plants released radioactive liquids in 2009.
The top 2 in this category:
1~ Leading the nation in liquid releases was Alabama’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant with THREE reactors which released 34,821 curies.
EACH reactor at Brown’s Ferry, owned and operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, has released 11,607 curies on average.
2~The reactor with the next most liquid release was the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan, with a release 217 curies.
Most safety violations.
Every three months, the NRC reports on recent inspections at each nuclear power plant. Each report lists the number of violations of federal safety regulations that the inspectors found, and provides some details about each violation.
The NRC itself doesn’t keep a tally on the number of citations. But an analysis of NRC records was done in 2013 by the US General Accounting Office.
Here are top 2 in violations, according to the GAO:
1~ The Cooper Nuclear Station, a boiling water reactor located at Brownville, Neb.‚ 23 miles south of Nebraska City, led the nation with 105 violation from 2010 to 2012.
The plant is owned and operated by the Nebraska Public Power District.
2~ The Wolf Creek Generating Station in Burlington, Kans., finished a close second with 100 violations.
Most “scrams” or emergency shutdowns
If the plant faces an emergency due to
human error or a malfunction, the plant’s operators or computer will “scram” the reactor or shut it down.
This list shows the plants with the most scrams or emergency shutdowns from 2000–2011, based on inspection reports and a letter from the NRC to Congress.
Top 3
1~ The Columbia Generating Station near Richland, WA, with 23.
2~The Millstone Power Station Unit 2 in Waterford, Conn., had 20.
3~Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit 2 had 19.
Highest radiation dose received by the public
Each nuclear power plant is required to calculate the dosage of radiation that would be received by a hypothetical person living at its site boundary. This calculation offers an insight into the potential damage its radioactive emissions can cause to people.
This measurement of airborne gamma radiation is given in millirads.
TOP
1~ Neighbors of the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Port
Gibson, Miss., received the highest dosage of airborne gamma radiation in 2010.
2~ Those near Oyster Creek near Lacey Township, Ocean County, New Jersey emitted 2nd highest levels.
Highest dosages received by the workforce.
When a worker receives greater than a certain threshold dosage, the worker is transferred to non-contaminated areas. This chart shows the total dosage received by each plant’s total workforce over the three year period, 209 2011. Source: Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors, NRC, April 2013.
1~ PERRY IN OHIO
2~ COLUMBIA, AGAIN, IN WA
Worst overall safety and environmental performance.
1~ Columbia Generating Station, AGAIN.
2~ Oyster Creek, NJ, AGAIN.
3~ Grand Gulf, MS, AGAIN
4~ Calloway in MO
5~ River Bend in Louisiana
6~ Palisades, Michigan, AGAIN
7~ Hope Creek in Delaware
8 AND 9~ Peach Bottom 2 & 1 in PA
10~ Perry in Ohio, AGAIN.
THE DAILY BEAST REPORTED DIFFERENT RESULTS, BUT USED A DIFFERENT SET OF VALUES.
Nearly half of the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States are close to major fault lines, including the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants located near California's San Andreas Fault.
The Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York is less than two miles from the Pampano fault line, and sits within 50 miles of more than 17 million people.
Based on the input of more than a half-dozen experts in nuclear energy, nuclear engineering and risk assessment, The Daily Beast ranked the country's power plant sites based on three, equally weighted metrics: risk of natural disaster, safety performance assessments, and surrounding population.
In other words, which nuclear power plants are located in the most dangerous physical locations, have the weakest relative operating conditions, and would affect the greatest number of people should an unforeseeable emergency occur?
1. Indian Point
Location: Buchanan, NY (24 miles north of New York City)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 1020; Unit 3: 1025
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1973; Unit 3: 1975
Population within 50 Miles: 17,452,585
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
2. WAS SAN ONOFRE, BUT IT'S BEEN TAKEN OFFLINE.
3. Limerick
Location: Limerick, PA (21 miles northwest of Philadelphia)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1134; Unit 2: 1134
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1985; Unit 2: 1989
Population within 50 Miles: 7,923,148
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 10
4. Dresden
Location: Morris, IL (25 miles southwest of Joliet, IL)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 867; Unit 3: 867
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1991; Unit 3: 1971
Population within 50 Miles: 7,806,437
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 25
5. Diablo Canyon
Location: Avila Beach, CA (12 miles west-southwest of San Luis Obispo, CA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1151; Unit 2: 1149
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1984; Unit 2: 1985
Population within 50 Miles: 437,333
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 5
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: approx. 250 miles
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
6. Salem
Location: Hancock Bridge, NJ (18 miles southeast of Wilmington, DE)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1174; Unit 2: 1130
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1976; Unit 2: 1981
Population within 50 Miles: 5,666,258
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
7. Watts Bar
Location: Spring City, TN (60 miles southwest of Knoxville, TN)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1123
Year Operating License Issued: 1996
Population within 50 Miles: 1,041,466
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 20
8. Peach Bottom
Location: Delta, PA (17.9 miles south of Lancaster, PA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 2: 1112; Unit 3: 1112
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 2: 1973; Unit 3: 1974
Population within 50 Miles: 5,446,128
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 10
9. Virgil C. Summer
Location: Jenkinsville, SC (26 miles northwest of Columbia, SC)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 966
Year Operating License Issued: 1982
Population within 50 Miles: 1,138,816
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
10. Sequoyah
Location: Soddy-Daisy, TN (16 miles northeast of Chattanooga, TN)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1148; Unit 2: 1126
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1980; Unit 2: 1981
Population within 50 Miles: 1,048,818
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 25
11. Seabrook
Location: Seabrook, NH (13 miles south of Portsmouth, NH)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1295
Year Operating License Issued: 1990
Population within 50 Miles: 4,187,095
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
12. Braidwood
Location: Braceville, IL (20 miles south-southwest of Joilet, IL)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1178; Unit 2: 1152
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1987; Unit 2: 1988
Population within 50 Miles: 6,845,106
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 1
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 15 to 20
13. Hope Creek
Location: Hancock Bridge, NJ (18 miles southeast of Wilmington, DE)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1061
Year Operating License Issued: 1986
Population within 50 Miles: 5,667,344
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
14. Columbia
Location: Richland, WA (20 miles north-northeast of Pasco, WA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1190
Year Operating License Issued: 1984
Population within 50 Miles: 404,163
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 3
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: approx. 140 miles
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
15. Waterford
Location: Killona, LA (25 miles west of New Orleans, LA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1250
Year Operating License Issued: 1985
Population within 50 Miles: 2,113,087
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 1
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 20
16. Arkansas Nuclear One
Location: London, AR (6 miles west-northwest of Russellville, AR)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 843; Unit 2: 995
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1974; Unit 2: 1978
Population within 50 Miles: 295,832
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 0
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 25 to 35
17. Vogtle
Location: Waynesboro, GA (26 miles southeast of Augusta, GA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): 1109; Unit 2: 1127
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1987; Unit 2: 1989
Population within 50 Miles: 712,672
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
18. Edwin I. Hatch
Location: Baxley, GA (20 miles south of Vidalia, GA)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 876; Unit 2: 883
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1974; Unit 2: 1978
Population within 50 Miles: 426,725
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 40 - 60
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 15
19. Catawba
Location: York, SC (18 miles south of Charlotte, NC)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1129 ; Unit 2: 1129
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1985; Unit 2: 1986
Population within 50 Miles: 2,461,326
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 10 to 15
20. Pilgrim
Location: Plymouth, MA (38 miles southeast of Boston, MA)
Reactors: 1
Electrical Output (megawatts): 685
Year Operating License Issued: 1972
Population within 50 Miles: 4,610,713
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 0 to 5
21. McGuire
Location: Huntersville, NC (17 miles north of Charlotte, NC)
Reactors: 2
Electrical Output (megawatts): Unit 1: 1100; Unit 2: 1100
Year Operating License Issued: Unit 1: 1981; Unit 2: 1983
Population within 50 Miles: 2,647,599
Relative Safety Rating: bottom third
Risk of Natural Disasters:
Likelihood of Earthquake (scale 0-6): 2
Expected Number of Hurricanes in Next Century: 20 - 40
Miles to Potentially Active Volcano: not a factor
Significant Tornadoes (1921-1995): 5 to 15
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS WILL HAPPEN MORE OFTEN THAN THOUGHT
May 22, 2012
Source: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.
[Journal Reference:
J. Lelieveld, D. Kunkel, M. G. Lawrence. Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2012; 12 (9): 4245 DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012]
WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE COME FORWARD, BUT NOT AS MANY AS PERHAPS MIGHT IF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR HONESTY WEREN'T RUINATION.
WHISTLEBLOWERS RISK IT ALL, FACE RETALIATION
AN EX-FBI AGENT
"Once described by the ACLU as the "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America", the Iranian-born former FBI translator,SIBEL EDMONDS fought to blow the whistle on traitorous deception and cover-up inside the FBI, blackmail inside the U.S. Congress and startling allegations of espionage and nuclear secrets sold to U.S. enemies on the foreign black market by some of our nation's highest ranking officials.
In 2007, after the Supreme Court had refused to hear her case thanks to the Bush Administration's persistent use of the so-called "State Secrets Privilege," legendary "Pentagon Papers" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg told us that her allegations were "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers" on the heels of her exclusive announcement on these pages that she would break her gag order to tell all to any major U.S. media outlet who would allow her a platform to do so.
Even though CBS' 60 Minutes had covered her story in 2002 when she was not allowed to speak, they showed no interest once she promised to do so anyway, leading Ellsberg to guest blog here decrying the American media as "complicit in cover-up". It took the UK's Sunday Times (a Rupert Murdoch property!) to finallybreak some of her most explosive allegations publicly in 2008, which outed CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson would describe as "stunning".
NO SAFETY FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS
November 22, 2011
The agency hasn’t strengthened the safety culture at the department’s Hanford Site, Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a seven-page letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
“My understanding is that despite the emergence of new, serious complaints,” including punishment of employees raising safety issues, “and its own studies that show the project is seriously troubled,” the department “continues to assert that the technical matters raised by these individuals are inaccurate,” Markey said in the letter.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent organization in the executive branch that advises the president and the Energy secretary, issued a June 9 report criticizing the handling of the case by the Energy Department and its contractors, Markey said in the letter.
The agency “seems to be more interested in paying contractor fees than in paying attention to safety concerns or to those who are disciplined for raising them,” Markey said today in a statement.
MAKING IT ALL SEEM LIKE NOTHING TO THE GULLIBLE PUBLIC
NUCLEAR ENERGY PROPONENTS OFTEN LIKE TO USE SECONDS TO TELL US HOW LONG THE HALF-LIFE IS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL USED IN NUCLEAR REACTORS.
IS IT BECAUSE IT MAKES IT SEEM SO MUCH LESS HARMFUL IF THEY SAY "SECONDS" INSTEAD OF BILLIONS OF YEARS?
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T KNOW, A HALF-LIFE GIVEN AS 10 TO THE 12th POWER MEANS IT HAS A HALF-LIFE OF OVER 31,600 YEARS.
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS A FAILURE
"The nuclear power industry has gone to Congress demanding loan guarantees for one basic reason: atomic reactors are not economically sound. Nobody will finance new ones without the taxpayer being forced to take the ultimate risk.
Nuclear power is not a new technology.
What Forbes Magazine has called "the largest managerial disaster in business history" is a proven economic failure.
NUCLEAR REACTORS ARE A TERRORIST'S DREAM
The terror attacks of September 11, 2001, made it clear that every atomic reactor is a pre-deployed potential weapon of radioactive mass destruction.
The first jet that flew into the World Trade Center passed one minute earlier over the Indian Point reactor complex, 45 miles to the north. There are three reactors there---two active and one inactive---plus thousands of tons of high level radioactive fuel. Thankfully, humankind has never experienced the horrifying event of a jet plane flying into the containment dome of an active atomic reactor.
The industry likes to claim that there would be no penetration.
But that's wishful thinking. It has no hard data---and let's hope it never does."
RUNNING OUT OF TIME AND STORAGE
Fifty years ago, the nuclear power industry promised there would be a solution to the problem of high level radioactive waste.
Today, we are no closer to managing these uniquely lethal materials than we were in 1957, when the first reactor opened."
KNOWING FULL WELL THAT ALL OUR NUCLEAR FACILITIES ARE OUTLIVING THEIR 40-YEARS DESIGN LIMITS, projects are being developed and implemented to allow reactors to operate for potentially up to 60 years.
"The NRC is currently considering plant life extension applications for 19 nuclear reactors (one more than a year ago), beyond the 72 license extensions already granted.
No final decision on the new applications can be granted until the NRC completes a new “waste confidence rule”, which relates to long term management of nuclear waste, including commercial reactor spent fuel. This follows a decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2012, which invalidated the NRC's then “waste confidence rule”. The court ruled that the NRC had failed to consider the environmental effects of not securing a permanent waste disposal facility in the United States, or the environmental risks from storage of spent fuel stored at reactor sites for six decades. "
IT'S A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.
EVER WONDER WHY THERE ARE NO NUCLEAR FACILITIES IN VERY WEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS?
EVER WONDER WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FREELY ALLOWS NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE AS WELL AS URANIUM MINING ON AMERICAN INDIAN LANDS?
EVER ASK YOURSELF, "WHAT IF IT WAS ME? WHAT WOULD I HOPE FOR?"
WE SHOULD ALL ASK THOSE QUESTIONS AND THEN DO ALL WE CAN FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN PLACES WE WOULD NEVER WANT TO BE!
OTHER SOURCES NOT CITED OR LINKED ABO
~ People Died at Three Mile Island
By Harvey Wasserman
DEEP GRATITUDE FOR THE CARING SHOWN AT THIS WEBSITE.
http://www.nukefree.org/news/peoplediedatthreemileisland~ “Review of Natural Phenomena Hazard (NPH) Assessments for the DOE Hanford Site” Snow, Robert L.; Ross, Steven B., 2011-09-15, PNNL-20684 Rev.1 830403000; TRN: US1105781, DOE contract no. AC05-76RL01830, Research Org: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA (US), Sponsoring Org: USDOE
~http://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1025685/
~http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/WNISR2014.html#_Toc268768717
~ http://nuclear-news.net/category/1-nuclear-issues/health/children/
~ https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/volcanoes/three_sisters/
No comments:
Post a Comment