RUSSIAN NUCLEAR SUBS DUMPED IN THE ARCTIC : THE HOPELESSNESS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

When a senior employee of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 

the late Professor John Gofman, resigned from his post, he said, 

“The nuclear industry is waging a war against humanity.”

OFTEN ATTRIBUTED TO ALBERT EINSTEIN IS THE QUOTE:

"NUCLEAR POWER IS A HELL OF A WAY TO BOIL WATER!"

BOIL WATER IS WHAT IT DOES, GENERATING STEAM TO TURN TURBINES FOR ELECTRICITY.

BOILING WATER... SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE BY ANYONE WITH A GOOD FIRE UNDER A KETTLE OF H2O.

A RUSSIAN NUCLEAR SUB ON ITS WAY TO "DECOMMISSIONING"...
PERHAPS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OCEAN?

COULD IT POSSIBLY BE THAT SO MUCH NUCLEAR WASTE HAS BEEN DUMPED INTO THE SEA THAT THAT IS THE REAL CAUSE OF THE RISE IN OCEAN TEMPERATURES, THAT EVER-INCREASING NUCLEAR WASTE IS A REAL REASON FOR "GLOBAL WARMING"?

IS IT REMOTELY POSSIBLE THAT THE "BOILING WATER" CREATED BY NUCLEAR REACTORS' AND THE ONGOING, EVER-PRESENT RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES IS WHAT'S AFFECTING THOUSANDS OF MASS DIE-OFFS OF HUNDREDS OF SPECIES OF MARINE ANIMALS, CAUSING HISTORICALLY LARGE ALGAE BLOOMS (ALGAE DOES VERY WELL IN RADIOACTIVE ENVIRONMENTS!), CAUSING "HOT SPOTS" ("ANOMALIES") IN THE OCEANS?

WE KNOW HOW HOT THE COOLING POOLS GET IN NUCLEAR REACTORS.

"SPENT fuel rods actually makes heat all by themselves, even after taken out of the reactor."

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A REACTOR OF A NUCLEAR SUB IS SUNK IN THE OCEAN?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NUCLEAR WASTE IS DUMPED BY THE THOUSANDS OF TONS INTO THE OCEAN EVERY SINGLE DAY?

DOES THAT HAVE NO EFFECT ON OCEAN TEMPERATURE, ON MARINE LIFE...

ON US ALL?

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC EXPLAINED THAT GEOTHERMAL ENERGY COMES FROM DECAY OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN THE EARTH'S CORE.
THINK VOLCANOES, GEYSERS, HOT SPRINGS.

"The vast majority of Earth’s heat is constantly generated by the decay of radioactive isotopes, such as potassium-40 and thorium-232. "

HOW MANY BILLIONS OF YEARS HAS THAT 'NUCLEAR REACTION' BEEN GOING ON?
AND IT'S STILL PLENTY HOT DOWN THERE!

RUSSIA HAD TO ADMIT IT DUMPED NUCLEAR SUBS AND WASTE INTO THE ARCTIC.
 

Before the London Convention of 1972, an international agreement that prohibited marine dumping, countries were free to use the oceans as a trash heap for nuclear waste.
Though the Soviets signed the treaty in the late 1980s, it wasn't until after the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 that the Russians opened up to the international community about the extent of the Arctic dumping campaign.
Currently, 195 of the 201 decommissioned submarines have been "disposed". 

The demolition of all the decommissioned nuclear submarines and 14 technical support vessels is due to be completed by 2020.

“We have started the disposal of technical support vessels and depot ships. 

By 2020, we are expected to complete the disposal of all 14 support ships decommissioned from the Northern and the Pacific Fleets as well as two Atomflot support ships,” Rosatom CEO Sergei Kirienko said during the “70th anniversary of the Russian Atom” forum in Chelyabinsk.

HERE'S THE PROBLEM WITH THAT...SOME WERE "DISPOSED OF" BY SINKING THEM IN THE ARCTIC SEA!

NOW THAT THE SEA ICE IS MELTING UP THAT WAY AND THERE IS HIGH INTEREST BY SEVERAL NATIONS IN DRILLING FOR OIL AND FOR OTHER "RESOURCE MINING", RUSSIA HAS HAD TO ADMIT THEY DID DUMP A LOT OF NUCLEAR WASTE AND A FEW NUCLEAR SUBS UP NEAR THE ARCTIC CIRCLE. 

"Two years ago, the Russian government provided a tally: two submarines, 14 reactors — five of which contain spent nuclear fuel — 19 other vessels sunk with radioactive waste on board, and about 17,000 containers holding radioactive waste. The last known dumping occurred in 1993.

Of particular concern are the two submarines, the K-27, which was dumped into the Kara Sea in 1981, and the K-159, which sunk in 2003 into the Barents Sea, while being towed for dismantling.

The K-27 has highly enriched uranium on board, Bohmer said. Seawater could corrode the reactor and even kick-start a nuclear chain reaction. 

Ocean currents in those seas travel eastward and any contamination would move away from the active fisheries in the Barents Sea but could ultimately end up in US waters.

The 17,000 dumped containers are also a potential disaster, creating a minefield for oil companies looking to drill in the area, particularly because the exact locations of most of the containers are unknown."

TOO MUCH IS UNKNOWN!

HOW HOT CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GET?
HOT ENOUGH TO MELT LEAD.
Because no permanent repository for spent fuel exists in the United States, reactor owners have kept spent fuel at the reactor sites. 

As the amount of spent fuel has increased, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized many power plant owners to increase the amount in their storage pools to as much as five times what they were designed to hold. 

As a result, virtually all U.S. spent fuel pools have been “re-racked” to hold spent fuel assemblies at densities that approach those in reactor cores. 

In order to prevent the spent fuel from going critical, the spent fuel assemblies are placed in metal boxes whose walls contain neutron-absorbing boron. 

If a malfunction, a natural disaster, or a terrorist attack causes the water to leak from the pool or the cooling system to stop working, the rods will begin to heat the remaining water in the pool, eventually causing it to boil and evaporate. 

If the water that leaks or boils away cannot be replenished quickly enough, the water level will drop, exposing the fuel rods. 

Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until it suffers damage. 

SPENT FUEL POOLS MORE DANGEROUS THAN REACTORS?
Any radiation released from a spent fuel pool is more likely to reach the outside environment than is radiation released from the reactor core. Moreover, because it is outside the primary containment, the spent fuel pool is more vulnerable than the reactor core to certain terrorist attacks like deliberate aircraft crashes. 

Continuing to add spent fuel to these pools compounds this problem by increasing the amount of radioactive material that could be released into the environment. A large radiation release from a spent fuel pool could release more cesium-137 than the Chernobyl disaster, resulting in thousands of cancer deaths and hundreds of billions of dollars in decontamination costs and economic damage."

SO, WAS RUSSIA THE ONLY ONE TO DUMP NUCLEAR WASTE AND/OR SUBMARINES IN THE ARCTIC?

NO ONE WILL BUY THAT!
IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO SLIP INTO AND DUMP IN, NO CROWDED WATERWAYS, NO POPULATION TO SPEAK OF, SO ANYONE WITH THE MEANS TO DRAG A SUB UP THERE WOULD NEVER BE SEEN BY HUMAN EYES.

DOESN'T SUCH A PLACE JUST BEG THE BIG NUKE BOYS TO DUMP THERE, SAVE THEMSELVES BILLIONS IN WASTE DISPOSAL?

LOOK AT HOW MANY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT DUMPING NUCLEAR WASTE OFF THE COAST OF AFRICA!

OUR OWN MILITARY WAS BUSTED FOR DUMPING WASTE IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, PACIFIC, AND ATLANTIC!

GREAT BRITAIN WAS CAUGHT DUMPING INTO THE ENGLISH CHANNEL!

FRANCE PAID THE ITALIAN MAFIA TO DUMP WASTE FOR THAT NATION!

WE KNOW THAT TEPCO CURRENTLY ADMITS TO RELEASING UP TO 600 TONS OF RADIOACTIVE WATER EVERY DAY INTO THE PACIFIC.

BUT THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY ADMIT TO.

TEPCO HAS ALSO BEEN CAUGHT LYING ABOUT BOTH THE AMOUNT AND THE HIGH LEVELS OF THAT CONTINUOUS NUCLEAR FLOOD.

RUSSIA MAY BE THE ONLY NATION TO ACTUALLY SCUTTLE ITS NUCLEAR SUBS INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE ARCTIC, BUT YOU CAN BET THE FARM ALL NATIONS WITH NUCLEAR WASTE TO DISPOSE OF HAVE USED THE OCEANS, INCLUDING THE ARCTIC, AS A CHEAP WAY AROUND SAFE DISPOSAL OF THEIR NEVER ENDING NUCLEAR GARBAGE!

AND WHEN THAT TREATY THAT STOPPED THEM FROM DUMPING EVERYTHING THEY CARED TO INTO THE SEA EXPIRES IN 2017, THE NUCLEAR ENERGY BOYS ARE ALREADY PUSHING TO USE THAT METHOD AGAIN!
THEY CAN'T WAIT TO IRRADIATE THE WORLD'S OCEANS MORE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE!
PROFITS WILL SOAR FOR "BIG NUKE" WHEN THEY CAN USE THE OCEANS LIKE TOILETS AGAIN!

PLANNED FAILURES
THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY KNOWS THERE WILL BE ACCIDENTS, FAILURES, HUMAN ERROR, POWER OUTAGES...IT ACTUALLY PLANS FOR THOSE IN ITS "DESIGN CYCLE", LIKE THIS ESTIMATE OF UH-OH MOMENTS FROM A CURRENTLY OPERATING OLD RUIN OF A REACTOR HERE IN THE U.S.
AS THE REACTOR AGES, THE "EVENTS" GO UP AND UP.

[LARGER IMAGE <HERE>.]
"Several design cycles are specified because the plant is not a single homogeneous hunk of metal.    
It consists of dozens of systems, thousands of components, and miles of piping. 

A rod withdrawal accident (item 8) affects different parts of the plant than a loss of station power (the second “bonus” design cycle). 

Design cycles and cumulative usage factors are guides, NOT guarantees.  

Three Mile Island Unit 2 was licensed for 40 years and expected to experience hundreds of reactor trips over that 40-year operating lifetime. Its lifetime expired after only about ONE year and 34 reactor trips.

Design cycles and cumulative usage factors are but two of many indicators of available safety margins. Periodic inspections, such as x-raying welds and ultrasonically measure pipe wall thicknesses, also check whether safety margins are adequate.

No single method is 100 percent reliable. If one was that reliable, the other methods would not be used."


EACH NUCLEAR REACTOR REQUIRES AT LEAST 4,500 TO 5,400 FUEL BUNDLES, BUNDLES, NOT RODS, PER YEAR.
THERE ARE AT LEAST 31-264 RODS PER BUNDLE, DEPENDING ON WHICH TYPE FUEL ROD IS USED.
THE USA HAS 99 CURRENTLY ACTIVE NUCLEAR REACTORS RUNNING FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY.  

DO THE MATH...

FEW PEOPLE REALIZE HOW MANY TYPES OF FUEL THERE ARE.
1 Oxide fuel
1.1 UOX
1.2 MOX

2 Metal fuel
2.1 TRIGA fuel
2.2 Actinide fuel
2.3 Molten plutonium

3 Ceramic fuels
3.1 Uranium nitride
3.2 Uranium carbide

4 Liquid fuels
4.1 Molten salts
4.2 Aqueous solutions of uranyl salts

5 Common physical forms of nuclear fuel
5.1 PWR fuel
5.2 BWR fuel
5.3 CANDU fuel

6 Less-common fuel forms
6.1 Magnox fuel
6.2 TRISO fuel
6.3 QUADRISO fuel
6.4 RBMK fuel
6.5 CerMet fuel
6.6 Plate-type fuel

6.7 Sodium-bonded fuel

EACH TYPE REQUIRES BOTH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS PER REACTOR AND DIFFERENT LENGTHS OF TIME TO SAFELY PUT THEM INTO DRY STORAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE 7 TO 15 YEARS MOST MUST SPEND IN "WET STORAGE".

"Nuclear reactors generating electricity in the United States fall into two main categories: boiling water reactors (BWRs) and pressurized water reactors (PWRs). Both systems boil water to make steam (BWRs within the reactor and PWRs outside the reactor); in both cases, this steam must be cooled after it runs through a turbine to produce electricity.

During an accident,  Ultimate Heat Sinks (UHS), used to cool the reactor may need to supply 10,000 to 30,000 gallons of water PER MINUTE for emergency cooling. 
The main difference between nuclear reactor types is that pressurized water reactors  keep the boiler water separate from the reactor, which allows this water to be kept free of radioactivity.

When nuclear plants draw water from natural water sources, fish and other wildlife get caught in the cooling system water intake structures.

While this is an issue for all power plants with water-cooled systems, a study completed in 2005 in Southern California indicates that the problem is more acute for nuclear facilities. 

The study investigated impacts from 11 coastal power plants and estimated that in 2003, a SINGLE nuclear plant killed close to 3.5 million fish--32 times more than the combined impact of all of the other plants in the study.

The most common fuel for nuclear power plants is uranium. 
Processing uranium requires mining, milling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication, all of which use significant quantities of water."

AND THEN WE GET THAT RADIOACTIVE WATER BY THE BILLIONS OF GALLONS RELEASED BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY BACK INTO OUR ENVIRONMENT, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BY ONGOING, DAILY "LEAKS" OR ILLEGAL OR "ACCIDENTAL" DUMPING, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

SOME NUCLEAR WASTE WILL REMAIN DANGEROUS TO ALL LIFE FOR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SAFE" DISPOSAL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS!

OUR "PROTECTION AGENCIES" PROTECT INDUSTRY, NOT HUMANS!The nuclear power plant-cancer link is clear, yet the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) continues to cancel important studies and hide vital information from the American public.  

TAKOMA PARK, MD, September 8, 2015 — Beyond Nuclear, a leading U.S. NGO of record on the health, safety and environmental dangers of nuclear power facilities, today decried the outrageous decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to cancel a study that would have examined cancer incidence and mortalities and the connection to U.S. nuclear facilities.

"Study after study in Europe has shown a clear rise in childhood leukemia around operating nuclear power facilities, yet the NRC has decided to hide this vital information from the American public," said Cindy Folkers, radiation and health specialist at Beyond Nuclear. 

The study, initiated in 2009 and carried out under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), had completed Phase 1 and was looking at seven pilot nuclear sites around the country, a project that was estimated to cost $8 million.

In documents obtained by Beyond Nuclear it was revealed that NRC staff had been approached by the president of U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), John Boice, offering a cheaper, faster and less sensitive study design to replace the NAS study, although the NRC has not yet agreed to accept the NCRP bid.

"NCRP is not only funded in part by the nuclear industry but its decision-makers also have strong pro-nuclear ties," said Folkers, who has been leading a six-year effort by Beyond Nuclear and other groups to ensure the NAS cancer study went forward with scientific integrity.

"John Boice has repeatedly taken industry funding for health studies and has testified AGAINST plaintiffs in radiation exposure cases," Folkers continued. "The public will have absolutely no confidence in any conclusions reached by such a study and would recognize it as an attempt by the NRC to, yet again, bury public concerns about radiation exposure," Folkers added.

THE NRC IS FUNDED BY THE VERY INDUSTRY IT IS SUPPOSED TO REGULATE!

The influence of the nuclear industry over the NRC is no surprise, given the agency receives 90% of its funding from the nuclear industry itself. But a recent pattern of dismissing public engagement and canceling minimal safety measures at U.S. nuclear plants is a worrying trend. 

"Funding a cancer study around nuclear power plants is a legitimate cost of doing radioactive business that the NRC could have collected through its licensing fees," said Paul Gunter, Director of Reactor Oversight at Beyond Nuclear and an NRC watchdog. "Instead, the NRC has decided to pass along another cost savings to the nuclear industry at the expense of public health and safety."
The United States is home to 23 GE Mark I nuclear reactors, the same model that underwent meltdowns in Fukushima.

 In 1972 engineers who worked on the Mark I design resigned because they knew [the reactors] were dangerous.

Nuclear reactors are so unsafe that no insurance companies will insure them. 
Only public subsidies can sustain their construction.
YOU SEE, WE, THE TAXPAYERS, FOOT THE BILL FOR THE VERY THINGS THAT ARE THE MOST DANGEROUS ON EARTH!

WHY USE NUCLEAR ENERGY?
IT SUPPLIES ONLY ABOUT 11% OF ENERGY IN THE U.S.
THERE IS ENOUGH WIND POWER BETWEEN THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER TO GENERATE THREE TIMES WHAT AMERICA NEEDS TO RUN ON EACH YEAR!

SOLAR ENERGY IS CURRENTLY FAR CHEAPER THAN NUCLEAR ENERGY!

ALL OVER EUROPE, NATIONS THERE ARE GETTING RID OF "BIG NUKE" AND EASILY AND QUICKLY SWITCHING TO WIND, SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL AND OCEAN WAVES ENERGY!
WHY NOT THE U.S.?
AND THAT, MY FRIENDS, IS WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST.

IT IS A HOPELESS SITUATION BECAUSE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE CARE TO STUDY THE SUBJECT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF IT EVER BEING SAFE SO WE CAN DEMAND AN END TO IT.

WE WILL BE IRRADIATED, CONTAMINATED, AND MURDERED BY AN INVISIBLE ENEMY THAT WAS CREATED BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT.

WE WILL NOT BE GIVEN THE FACTS, NOR WILL ANYONE MONITOR OUR TRUE EXPOSURE RATES AND REPORT THOSE TO US.
THE EPA HAS TAKEN OUT MOST OF ITS MONITORING STATIONS AND HAS BEEN CAUGHT RED-HANDED CHANGING THE DATA IT DOES REPORT TO MAKE EVERYTHING LOOK JUST FINE.

IS THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY BOILING US ALL LIKE THE PROVERBIAL FROG IN A POT...SLOWLY, HEATING UP THE PLANET A LITTLE MORE EACH YEAR, DESTROYING HUMAN DNA, CREATING NEW AND "IMPROVED" DISEASES AND CANCERS?

YES, YES, THAT IS WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE!
AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS JUST DON'T KNOW OR DON'T CARE TO KNOW!

LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ARCTIC, THE PACIFIC, THE GULF OF MEXICO, ALONG THE COASTS OF AFRICA...EVERYWHERE!
THE OCEANS ARE TRULY DYING, AND, AS THEY GO, SO GO WE ALL!

I, FOR ONE, WILL GO KICKING AND SCREAMING AND DAMNING NUCLEAR ENERGY WITH MY LAST BREATH!