|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power
Here at Co-op America, we’re working hard to heal the climate by transitioning our electricity mix away from its heavy emphasis on coal-fired power. In 2007, you helped us stop fifteen new coal plants, tell the financiers of major coal projects to stop funding coal, and persuade mutual funds to support shareholder efforts to mitigate climate change.
But all of that good work will be wasted if we transition from coal into an equally dangerous source – nuclear power, which is why we've put together this list of reasons why nuclear power is not a climate solution.
Solar power, wind power, geothermal power, hybrid and electric cars, and aggressive energy efficiency are climate solutions that are safer, cheaper, faster, more secure, and less wasteful than nuclear power. Our country needs a massive influx of investment in these solutions if we are to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Thankfully, no new nuclear plants have been built in the US for over 30 years. That means that a whole new generation of concerned citizens grew up without knowing the facts about nuclear power – or remembering the terrible disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. So it is time to remind everyone that nuclear is not the answer. Please help us get the word out.
Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn’t possible – neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here’s why:
1. Nuclear waste -- The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It’s untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.
Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology eventually can successful reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept nuclear waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.
The Bush administration’s solution – a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain – is overbudget and won’t provide a safe solution either. The people of Nevada don’t want that nuclear waste facility there. Also, we would need to transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country and drive it there – which puts communities across the country at risk.
2. Nuclear proliferation – In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, “During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program.” Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can’t develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries.
Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands
3. National Security – Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant.
What’s more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured, without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.
4. Accidents – Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents – human error or natural disasters – can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands poisoned by radiation.
Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than one billion dollars in cost. The cost of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost – and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population centers. For example, there’s a plant just up the Hudson from New York City. If there was an accident, evacuation would be impossible.
5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer – even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.
According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia; cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth defects. Because safe and healthy power sources like solar and wind exist now, we don’t have to rely on risky nuclear power.
6. Not enough sites – Scaling up to 17,000 – or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.
There are many communities around the country that simply won’t allow a new nuclear plant to be built – further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, geography, local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a scaled up nuclear power strategy.
Remember that climate change is causing stronger storms and coastal flooding, which in turn reduces the number of feasible sites for nuclear power plants. Furthermore, due to all of the other strikes against nuclear power, many communities will actively fight against nuclear plants coming into their town. How could we get enough communities on board to accept the grave risks of nuclear power, if we need to build 17, let alone, 17,000 new plants?
7. Not enough uranium – Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we’re running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.
As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. What’s more, dwindling supplies will trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more climate-change-producing emissions – resulting in a climate-change catch 22.
8. Costs – Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.
What’s worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions creates jobs good-paying, green collar, jobs in every community.
Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25 percent of its $4 billion budget. The US government’s current energy policy providing more than $11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do. Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.
9. Private sector unwilling to finance – Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place.
As the Nuclear Energy Institute recently reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, “100 percent loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential … because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary” for new nuclear power plants. Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50 percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.
And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn’t exist, nuclear power still can’t be a climate solution because there is …
10. No time – Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren’t enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear’s coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn’t possible to build 17,000 – or 2,500 or 17 for that matter – in ten years.
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation. |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:57 pm |
|
|
strattonsigns
F L I N T O I D
|
| If only Obama had been President...we wouldn't have an energy crisis. He would have stifled the American economy to an extent that we would not have been able to promote the economic growth in Asia. Then those rascals wouldn't be using up all of OUR gas. |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:17 pm |
|
|
Adam Ford
F L I N T O I D
|
1. Desert Storage
2. Use only for non military energy production.
3. Energy Security
4. It's safe - Technology has improved and it's safer than paying terrorist for their oil.
5. It's probably about as safe as coal plants if not safer.
6. Plenty of space on old industrial sites.
7. 100 suplly if we use nuclear for 10%
8. Cheaper than $100 oil
9. We could make it cheaper if we ran the government better
10. No time like the present although 10 years ago would have been better. |
_________________
Adam Ford
|
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:00 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
of course we have to remember what really swayed a bunch of folks away from the nukes  A dumbass Holywood movie starring Jane Fonda
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
| You mean "On Golden Pond?". That movie sacred the shit out of me! |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:54 pm |
|
|
Flinn's Journal
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
twotap schreef:
of course we have to remember what really swayed a bunch of folks away from the nukes A dumbass Holywood movie starring Jane Fonda
"The China Syndrome" had the fortunate timing of coming out just after the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Pennsylvania. I wonder how the McCain camp would react when I say Chernobyl. The 1986 accident in Soviet Ukraine was the worst nuclear power plant disaster in history. |
_________________
I HAVE SEVERED MY TIES WITH FLINTTALK.COM BECAUSE TROLLS CANNOT BE CONTROLLED ON THIS BOARD. |
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:02 pm |
|
|
squash
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
You mean "On Golden Pond?". That movie sacred the shit out of me!
That's pretty funny Kevin.  |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:05 pm |
|
|
Kevin McKague
F L I N T O I D
|
| Seriously though, although no energy alternative is perfect, the problem of what to do with the nuclear waste seems to large to ignore. On the other hand, during my constant travels around the nation, a week doesn't go by that I don't see an oversized truck load carrying a windmill blade to some new windmill construction site somewhere. Somebody must think they're a good idea, because I see them everywhere now. Wisconsin, Penn, Illinois, NY, etc. |
|
|
|
Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:07 pm |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
Damn Hollywood. Damn truth being scarier than fiction. Plutonium and Bologna Sandwich, anyone?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interact/silkwood.html
Karen Silkwood died on November 13, 1974 in a fatal one-car crash. Since then, her story has achieved worldwide fame as the subject of many books, magazine and newspaper articles, and even a major motion picture. Silkwood was a chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee's plutonium fuels production plant in Crescent, Oklahoma, and a member of the Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers' Union. She was also an activist who was critical of plant safety. During the week prior to her death, Silkwood was reportedly gathering evidence for the Union to support her claim that Kerr-McGee was negligent in maintaining plant safety, and at the same time, was involved in a number of unexplained exposures to plutonium. The circumstances of her death have been the subject of great speculation.
After her death, organs from Silkwood's body were analyzed as part of the Los Alamos Tissue Analysis Program at the request of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Oklahoma City Medical Examiner. Silkwood's case was important to the program because it was one of very few cases involving recent exposure to plutonium. It also served to confirm the contemporary techniques for the measurement of plutonium body burdens and lung burdens. The following account is a summary of Silkwood's exposure to plutonium at the Kerr-McGee plant and the subsequent analysis of her tissues at Los Alamos.
_______
In the evening of November 5, plutonium-239 was found on Karen Silkwood's hands. Silkwood had been working in a glovebox in the metallography laboratory where she was grinding and polishing plutonium pellets that would be used in fuel rods. At 6:30 P.M., she decided to monitor herself for alpha activity with he detector that was mounted on the glove box. The right side of her body read 20,000 disintegrations per minute, or about 9 nanocuries, mostly on the right sleeve and shoulder of her coveralls. She was taken to the plant's Health Physics Office where she was given a test called a "nasal swipe". This test measures a person's exposure to airborne plutonium, but might also measure plutonium that got on the person's nose from their hands. The swipe showed an activity of 160 disintegrations per minute, a modest positive result.
The two gloves in the glovebox Silkwood had been using were replaced. Strangely, the gloves were found to have plutonium on the "outside" surfaces that were in contact with Silkwood's hands; no leaks were found in the gloves. No plutonium was found on the surfaces in the room where she had been working and filter papers from the two air monitors in the room showed that there was no significant plutonium in the air. By 9:00 P.M., Silkwood's cleanup had been completed, and as a precautionary measure, Silkwood was put on a program in which her total urine and feces were collected for five days for plutonium measurements. She returned to the laboratory and worked until 1:10 A.M., but did no further work in the glove boxes. As she left the plant, she monitored herself and found nothing.
Silkwood arrived at work at 7:30 A.M. on November 6. She examined metallographic prints and performed paperwork for one hour, then monitored herself as she left the laboratory to attend a meeting. Although she had not worked at the glovebox that morning, the detector registered alpha activity on her hands. Health physics staff members found further activity on her right forearm and the right side of her neck and face, and proceeded to decontaminate her. At her request, a technician checked her locker and automobile with an alpha detector, but no activity was found.
On November 7, Silkwood reported to the Health Physics Office at about 7:50 in the morning with her bioassay kit containing four urine samples and one fecal sample. A nasal swipe was taken and significant levels of alpha activity (1,000 to 4,000 dpm on her hands, arm, chest, neck, and right ear). A preliminary examination of her bioassay samples showed extremely high levels of activity (30,000 to 40,000 counts per minute in the fecal sample). Her locker and automobile were checked again, and essentially no alpha activity was found.
Following her cleanup, the Kerr-McGee health physicists accompanied her to her apartment, which she shared with another laboratory analyst, Sherri Ellis. The apartment was surveyed. Significant levels of activity were found in the bathroom and kitchen, and lower levels of activity were found in other rooms. In the bathroom, 100,000 dpm were found on the toilet seat, 40,000 dpm on the floor mat, and 20,000 dpm on the floor. In the kitchen, they found 400,000 dpm on a package of bologna and cheese in the refrigerator, 20,000 dpm on the cabinet top, 20,000 dpm on the floor, 25,000 dpm on the stove sides, and 6,000 dpm on a package of chicken. In the bedroom, between 500 and 1000 dpm were detected on the pillow cases and between 500 and 2,000 dpm on the bed sheets. However, the AEC estimated that the total amount of plutonium in Silkwood's apartment was no more than 300 micrograms. No plutonium was found outside the apartment. Ellis was found to have two areas of low level activity on her, so Silkwood and Ellis returned to the plant where Ellis was cleaned up.
When asked how the alpha activity got into her apartment, Silkwood said that when she produced a urine sample that morning, she had spilled some for the urine. She wiped off the container and the bathroom floor with tissue and disposed of the tissue in the commode. Furthermore, she had taken a package of bologna from the refrigerator, intending to make a sandwich for her lunch, but then carried the bologna into the bathroom and laid it on the closed toilet seat. She remembered that she had part of her lunch from November 5 in the refrigerator at work and decided not to make the sandwich, so returned the bologna to the refrigerator. Between October 22 and November 6, high levels of activity had been found in four of the urine samples that Silkwood had collected at home (33,000 to 1,600,000 dpm), whereas those that were collected at the Kerr-McGee plant or Los Alamos contained very small amounts of plutonium if any at all.
The amount of plutonium at Silkwood's apartment raised concern. Therefore, Kerr-McGee arranged for Silkwood, Ellis, and Silkwood's boyfriend, Drew Stephens, who had spent time at their apartment, to go to Los Alamos for testing. On Monday, November 11, the trio met with Dr. George Voelz, the leader of the Laboratory Health Division. He explained that all of their urine and feces would be collected and that several whole body and lung counts would be taken. They would also be monitored for external activity.
The next day, Dr. Voelz informed Ellis and Stephens that their tests showed a small but insignificant amount of plutonium in their bodies. Silkwood, on the other hand, had 0.34 nanocuries of americicium-241 (a gamma-emitting daughter of plutonium-241) in her lungs. Based on the amount of americium, Dr. Voelz estimated that Silkwood had about 6 or 7 nanocuries of plutonium-239 in her lungs, or less than half the maximum permissible lung burden (16 nanocuries) for workers. Dr. Voelz reassured Silkwood that, based upon his experience with workers that had much larger amounts of plutonium in their bodies, she should not be concerned about developing cancer or dying from radiation poisoning. Silkwood wondered whether the plutonium would affect her ability to have children or cause her children to be deformed. Dr. Voelz reassured her that she could have normal children.
Silkwood, Ellis, and Stephens returned to the Oklahoma City on November 12. Silkwood and Ellis reported for work the next day, but they were restricted from further radiation work. After work that night, Silkwood went to a union meeting in Crescent, Oklahoma. At the end of the meeting, at about 7 P.M., she left alone in her car. At 8:05, the Oklahoma State Highway Patrol was notified of a single car accident 7 miles south of Crescent. the driver, Karen Silkwood, was dead at the scene from multiple injuries. An Oklahoma State Trooper who investigated the accident reported that Silkwood's death was a result of a classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident. Later, blood tests performed as part of the autopsy showed Silkwood had 0.35 milligrams of methaqualone (Quaalude) per 100 milliliters of blood at the time of her death. That amount id almost twice the recommended dosage for inducing drowsiness. About 50 milligrams of undissolved methaqualone remained in her stomach.
At the request of the AEC and the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner, Dr. A. Jay Chapman, who was concerned about performing an autopsy on someone reportedly contaminated with plutonium, a team from Los Alamos was sent to make radiation measurements and assist in the autopsy. Dr. Voelz, Dr. Michael Stewart, Alan Valentine, and James Lawrence comprised the team. Because Silkwood's death was an accident, the coroner did not legally need consent from the next of kin to perform the autopsy. However, Silkwood's father was contacted and he gave permission for the autopsy over the telephone. The autopsy was performed November 14, 1974, at the University Hospital in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
Appropriate specimens were collected, preserved, and retained by Dr. Chapman for his pathological and toxicological examination. At the request of the coroner and the AEC, certain organs and bone specimens were removed, packaged, frozen, and brought back to Los Alamos for analysis of their plutonium content. Because Silkwood had been exposed to plutonium and had undergone in vivo plutonium measurements, her tissue was also used in the Los Alamos Tissue Analysis Program to determine her actual plutonium body burden, the distribution of the plutonium between different organs of her body, and the distribution within her lung. On November 15, small samples of the liver, lung, stomach, gastrointestinal tract, and bone were selected and analysed. The date, shown in Table 1, indicated clearly that there were 3.2 nanocuries in the liver, 4.5 nanocuries in the lungs, and a little more than 7.7 nanocuries in her whole body. These measurements agreed well with the in vivo measurements made before Silkwood's death (6 or 7 nanocuries in the lung and a little more than 7 nanocuries in the whole body).
There was no significant deposition of plutonium in any other tissues, including the skeleton. The highest concentrations measured were in the contents of the gastrointestinal tract (0.05 nanocurie/gram in the duodenum and 0.02 nanocurie/gram in a small fecal sample taken from the large intestine.) This demonstrated that she had ingested plutonium prior to her death.
With the exception of the left lung, the remaining unanalyzed tissues were repackaged and kept frozen until it was determined whether or not additional analyses were required. The left lung was thawed, inflated with dry nitrogen until it was approximately the size that it would have been in the chest, and re-frozen in that configuration. It was packed in an insulated shipping container in dry ice and sent to the lung counting facility at the Los Alamos Health Research Laboratory. The data were then compared with the in vivo measurements made prior to her death. As expected, without the ribs and associated muscle attenuating the x-rays from the americium-241, the results for the left lung measured postmortem were about 50 per cent higher, but not inconsistent with the in vivo result.
Some of the most interesting observations made during Silkwood's tissue analysis were: 1) the distribution of plutonium-239 within her lung and 2) the concentration of plutonium in the lung relative to that in the tracheobronchial lymph nodes (TBLN). After the frozen left lung was returned to the Tissue Analysis Laboratory, the superior lobe was divided horizontally into sections. Those sections were further divided into two parts: the outer layer of the lung (pleura and sub-pleural tissue) and the inner soft tissue of the lung (parenchyma). The plutonium concentrations in the inner and outer parts of Silkwood's lung were about equal, in stark contrast with another case examined under the Tissue Analysis Program in which the concentration in the outer part of the lung was 22.5 times higher than that in the inner part. That difference was an indication that Silkwood had probably been exposed within 30 days prior to her death, whereas the other case had been exposed years prior to death. Furthermore, the concentration of plutonium in Silkwood's lung was about 6 times greater than that in the lymph nodes, whereas in typical cases that ratio would be about 0.1. Both of those results indicated that Silkwood had received very recent exposure and supported the view that the plutonium tends to migrate from the inner part to the outer part of the lung and to the lymph nodes over time.
The saga of Karen Silkwood continued for years after her death. Her estate filed a civil suit against Kerr-McGee for alleged inadequate health and safety program that led to Silkwood's exposure. The first trial ended in 1979, with the jury awarding the estate of Silkwood $10.5 million for personal injury and punitive damages. This was reversed later by the Federal Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, which awarded $5000 for the personal property she lost during the cleanup of her apartment. In 1986, twelve years after Silkwood's death, the suit was headed for retrial when it was finally settled out of court for $1.3 million. The Kerr-McGee nuclear fuel plants closed in 1975. |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:56 am |
|
|
MikeInGB
F L I N T O I D
|
Yup, you sure don't want to get plutonium on your hands. I would not recommend doing so to a friend. However, we have made a
few
technological advances in nuclear energy since 1973 and I don't see how a horrible accident that happened to a womann over 3 decades ago should effect our energy policy in 2008.
The facts of the matter are nuclear power is tremendously efficient, carbon emission free, and extremely safe. |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:15 am |
|
|
Public D
F L I N T O I D
|
30 years ago? Try a week ago:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/07/MNNH12719I.DTL
American submarine reports a small leak of radiation
Ports in Guam, Pearl Harbor, Japan appear unaffected
Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press
Friday, August 8, 2008
(08-08) 04:00 PDT Tokyo - --
An American nuclear-powered submarine leaked radiation for more than two years, releasing the bulk of the material in its home port of Guam and at Pearl Harbor, Japanese and U.S. officials said Thursday.
On Aug. 1, the U.S. Navy notified Japan that the Houston had leaked water containing small amounts of radiation during three calls to the southern Japanese ports of Sasebo and Okinawa in March and April this year but caused no threat to people or the environment.
The U.S. Navy released a detailed chronology of the leaks over the past two years, showing that the cumulative radioactivity released was less than 9.3 microcuries - with 8 microcuries released in Guam alone. By comparison, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average amount of radioactivity in a smoke detector is about one microcurie, or 1 millionth of a curie.
Navy Cmdr. Jeff Davis said the Houston is still in Hawaii being repaired and the reactor is turned off. Once the leak was discovered last month, the Navy provided detailed data to the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory - a government facility - to determine exactly how much radiation had leaked over the two-year period, Davis said.
The amount is so small, he said, that the Navy terms it a "weepage" rather than a leak. The problem was discovered on July 17, when about a gallon of water spilled onto a crew member when a fitting came loose. The water had previously come in contact with the reactor, but no radioactivity was detected on the sailor.
The radiation leak has caused a stir in Japan, where the continued presence of the U.S. military and its nuclear vessels draw complaints from residents about crime, noise and pollution linked to some 50,000 American servicemen based in the country. The presence of nuclear submarines is particularly sensitive, given that Japan is the only country the United States ever used atomic bombs against in the closing days of World War II.
"If we add all radiation leaked at every Japanese port, it would be still smaller than the amount of naturally occurring radioactivity found inside home smoke detectors," the Japanese foreign ministry said in a statement accompanying its release of the U.S. report. "Japan also has found no abnormality in its monitoring results during Houston's port calls since June 2006." |
_________________
http://www.toomuchonline.org/index.html
http://www.hr676.org
http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php |
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:41 pm |
|
|
Mellow D
F L I N T O I D
|
Or try today:
quote:
TOKYO (AP) — A small amount of liquid containing uranium splashed out of a container at a Japanese nuclear fuel plant near Tokyo, slightly exposing two people to radiation, the plant operator said Friday. - August 8, 2008
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/08/08/6387101-ap.html
Or over the last coupla years...
quote:
Saturday, July 26
BRATTLEBORO — Radiation levels measured at the fence line of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant were 30 percent higher in 2007 than in 2006.
http://wakethehellup.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/reformer-reports-radiation-levels-measured-at-the-fence-line-of-vermont-yankee-nuclear-power-plant-were-30-percent-higher-in-2007-than-in-2006/
Or today...
quote:
8/8/2008, 11:44 a.m. CDT
The Associated Press
ATHENS, Ala. (AP) — Production at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant was reduced significantly Friday as one reactor was taken off-line and the two other reactors continued to operate at half power.
Reactor number one was taken off-line when a leak in a temperature sensor on the main steam line was discovered during an inspection, Tennessee Valley Authority spokesman John Moulton said. He said it was not known how long it would take to get the reactor back online.
At the time the reactor was shutdown, the plant's three reactors were operating at half power as workers repaired two transformers that had failed and knocked out cooling towers.
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-37/121820365476300.xml&storylist=alabamanews
Or in the 90's right here in Michigan...
quote:
To show his support for nuclear power, John McCain toured the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Plant here today, comparing the safety of the plant to the Navy's warships he was stationed on.
...
The plant, 30 miles outside Detroit, hasn't always had the best safety record. One of the reactors had a partial meltdown in 1966, and although there were no injuries or release of radiation, the accident allegedly led to the term “China syndrome,” after an engineer said the nuclear reaction “could go all the way to China.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/05/politics/fromtheroad/entry4323481.shtml |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:09 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
"If we add all radiation leaked at every Japanese port, it would be still smaller than the amount of naturally occurring radioactivity found inside home smoke detectors
See See Jane Fonda was right. Ban the detectors so what if it costs a few smokers to lose their lives its worth it. And dont forget the average TV let alone those god forbid Plasmas and LCDs that all those rich republicans own. microwave ovens, cell phones, getting those teeth Xrayed every 5 years if your a rich repub and can actually afford it. Ban it all. Let Baracko takes us back to our roots the friggin stoneage. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:17 pm |
|
|
Mellow D
F L I N T O I D
|
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-12-12-nuclear-safety-problems_N.htm#uslPageReturn
A sampling of nuclear safety problems
Posted 12/12/2007 8:48 AM
Since the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, there have been 18 "significant precursors," or equipment failures, at U.S. nuclear plants that sharply raise the chance of a reactor core meltdown, says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There have been four since 1990. Since 1988, there have been 337 precursors that increase the risk of a meltdown more modestly.
Significant precursors
Problems that increase the risk of a core meltdown within a year from an average 1 in 17,000 to greater than 1 in 1,000.
1.) Plant: Davis-Besse
Location: Oak Harbor, Ohio
Date: February 2002
What happened: Leak through cracked nozzles wore away reactor vessel lid. Debris from the corrosion damaged emergency pumps. Loss of water from reactor core through lid could have led to meltdown within months.
2.) Plant: Catawba
Location: Rock Hill, S.C.
Date: February 1996
What happened: During storm, loss of power needed to run vital core cooling systems. Lines linking emergency generator to cooling systems disabled. Plant used alternative generator. No core damage.
3.) Plant: Wolf Creek
Location: Burlington, Kan.
Date: Septenber 1994
What happened: Misaligned valve prevented water from flowing into reactor core from storage tank. Core temperature rose 7 degrees. Workers realigned valve. No core damage.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Washington | North Carolina | Illinois | South Carolina | Wisconsin | Kan | Nuclear Regulatory Commission | Three Mile Island | Leak | Electrical | Cables | Debris
4.) Plant: Harris
Location: New Hill, N.C.
Date: April 1991
What happened: Emergency system that injects water into reactor core would not have operated properly ebcause of a broken relief valve. Other water supply systems available. No core damage.
Less-serious precursors
Problems that increase the risk of a core meltdown from an average 1 in 17,000 to up to 1 in 1,000.
5.) Plant: Clinton
Location: Clinton, Ill.
Date: January 2006
What happened: System that notices when emergency tank water gets too low and instead pumps water from another source was set at too low a level. Water would have run out in event of core overheating. Found during test. No core damage.
6.) Plant: Callaway
Location: Callaway, Fulton Miss.
Date: March 2002
What happened: Debris from water tank's rubber lining floating in water. Could have caused failure of all emergency pumps that cool reactor in case of overheating. Found during test. No core damage.
7.) Plant: Columbia
Location: Richland, Wash.
Date: April 2002
What happened: Electrical breakers that operate both primary and backup pumps to cool the core in emergency were faulty, so all systems might have failed in crisis. Found during check. No core damage.
8.) Plant: Kewaunee
Location: Carlton, Wis.
Date: February 2001
What happened: Cables that operate both primary and backup core-cooling systems located in same area and too close to sprinkler systems. In case of fire that activated sprinklers, water likely would have shorted both primary and backup emergency systems needed to cool core. Found during check. No core damage.
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:17 pm |
|
|
MikeInGB
F L I N T O I D
|
The U.S. Navy released a detailed chronology of the leaks over the past two years, showing that the cumulative radioactivity released was less than 9.3 microcuries - with 8 microcuries released in Guam alone. By comparison, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average amount of radioactivity in a smoke detector is about one microcurie, or 1 millionth of a curie.
So basically, they've dumped the equivalent of 9 smoke detectors in the ocean over a two year span. If this is a "smoking gun" you're really reaching. Look, ANY industry has its risks. How many people are injured or killed in oil wells or manufacturing factories?
Mellow D, to me your list validates how safe nuclear power can be if monitored correctly. Incidents like Chernobyl resulted from serious neglect, a shoe-string budget, poor engineering and materials, etc. It WAS a disaster waiting to happen. At that point the USSR was operating at a slightly higher level than a banana republic.
The problem with nuclear power is that it has the word "nuclear" in it. People immediately see mushroom clouds and leveled cities. The fact of the matter is it is tremendously effecient, carbon-emission free and very safe. |
|
|
|
Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:42 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
