# Nuke power plant safety shuffle.



## taichiliberal

*U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation*
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety  and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Citing a Huffington Post hit piece as your source really weakens your anti-nuke argument.

The NRC has been ridiculously over-regulating the U.S. nuke power plant industry ever since the overblown media circus also known as "the Three Mile Island accident".  Easing up on some of these "overkill" regulations is NOT a sign of weakness or failure.  It is a sign of COMMON SENSE.

The United States has the SAFEST and most reliable nuclear power plants in the world, and the thousands of people who operate our nuclear power plants are dedicated and highly trained professionals.

I used to be one of those people.  I retired a few years ago.


----------



## Douger

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?


----------



## martybegan

Douger said:


> How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?



You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Citing a Huffington Post hit piece as your source really weakens your anti-nuke argument.
> 
> Regardless of the source, it is the CONTENT that you have to contend with.  When someone offers information on a topic of interest to me, I READ IT ALL CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, and then I make an evaluation as to whether the information is valid or incorrect or skewed to a political social bias.  Maybe you should do likewise before you make snap judgements.
> 
> The NRC has been ridiculously over-regulating the U.S. nuke power plant industry ever since the overblown media circus also known as "the Three Mile Island accident".  Easing up on some of these "overkill" regulations is NOT a sign of weakness or failure.  It is a sign of COMMON SENSE.
> 
> 
> The United States has the SAFEST and most reliable nuclear power plants in the world, and the thousands of people who operate our nuclear power plants are dedicated and highly trained professionals.
> 
> I used to be one of those people.  I retired a few years ago.



YOU have given a sign that you favor opinion, supposition and conjecture over FACTS and logic.  So far, you have NOT been able or willing to address the content of the article, therefore your opinion is irrelevent to the subject at hand regardless of your past employment.  Come back when you are willing to honestly discuss the content of the article.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.
Click to expand...


True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.
Click to expand...


If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.
Click to expand...



Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?


----------



## TruthSeeker56

martybegan said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.
Click to expand...


Well said, marty.  You hit it right on the head.  Over-regulation is the answer for the ignorant enviro-wackos who refuse to stay in their own lane.

I am not going to engage a bunch of ignorant anti-nukes who have never so much as set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant facility.  They have NO CLUE what they are talking about.  I would be better off debating a HOUSE PLANT.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?
Click to expand...


Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.

Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said, marty.  You hit it right on the head.  Over-regulation is the answer for the ignorant enviro-wackos who refuse to stay in their own lane.
> 
> I am not going to engage a bunch of ignorant anti-nukes who have never so much as set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant facility.  They have NO CLUE what they are talking about.  I would be better off debating a HOUSE PLANT.
Click to expand...


Translation: This bogus "TruthSeeker56" is just another nuke wonk blowhard who thinks denial of contrary facts/information somehow justifies all the PR mantras for the pro-nuke group.

Sadly for them, it doesn't....as we see in Post #5 on this thread.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.
> 
> Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.
Click to expand...


You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well.  Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise.  Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences    history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search

First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that.  So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim.  The article shows how that is NOT being done.

And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island.  The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later.which is not entirely true  

Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.


----------



## editec

*



Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

Click to expand...

 
Nothing can go Worng.

Just a minor release of perfectly safe radioisotopes is all.

Why, they're practically like vitamins for your children!

*


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.
> 
> Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well.  Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise.  Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences    history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search
> 
> First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that.  So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim.  The article shows how that is NOT being done.
> 
> And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island.  The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later.which is not entirely true
> 
> Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
> 
> Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News
> 
> So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.
Click to expand...


One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is. 

Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest. 

Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.


----------



## martybegan

IndependntLogic said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
Click to expand...


----------



## IndependntLogic

martybegan said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about shutting down Indian Point? Does merely pointing out some verifiable facts that contradict the "Everything is absolutely perfect" viewpoint, automatically mean I must have the diametrically opposed view?
> 
> I see this dichotomous mentality all the time. If you think guns are fine but don't approve of carrying RPG's to kindergarten, someone says you're "one of those anti-gun whackjobs!".
> If you state that unions have a purpose but frequently go way beyond the functions of providing a safe workplace and competitive wage, you're called a "Corporate NeoCon" or whatever.
> 
> So to suggest that we might want to take a look at both safety and security at our facilities - especially in light of terrorism, flaws in security, the release of 600,000 gallons of radioactive steams etc....
> Automatically means I want to shut down Indian Point? Or is it that you don't have a strong counter to these simple measures but also don't want to concede that there are valid concerns out there?
Click to expand...


----------



## taichiliberal

IndependntLogic said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appropo to this:
> 
> 
> _Last year, residents living near the Indian Point Energy Center in New York State were shocked to learn that 600,000 gallons of radioactive steam had escaped from the nuclear plant through an open valve and drifted into their neighborhoods.
> 
> It was not the first time the plant startled its neighbors. In 2005, radioactive tritium, which is known to cause cancer, was found in monitoring wells around the plant. Federal officials concluded it came from a leaking spent-fuel storage pool. Tritium levels in one well were 30 times the federal limit for drinking water._
> 
> 
> Read more: Plant&#039;s history, location bring calls for closure - StamfordAdvocate
> 
> 
> It seems the definition of "safe operations" becomes a subjective term when it comes to nuke power plant supporters.  I for one, would not like to live by that definition.
> 
> 
> Plant&#039;s history, location bring calls for closure - StamfordAdvocate
Click to expand...


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.
> 
> Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well.  Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise.  Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences    history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search
> 
> First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that.  So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim.  The article shows how that is NOT being done.
> 
> And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island.  The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later.which is not entirely true
> 
> Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
> 
> Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News
> 
> So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.
> 
> Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.
> 
> Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.
Click to expand...



1)  the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.

2)  Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.

3)  That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ.  Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.

NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
Click to expand...


----------



## TruthSeeker56

If "taichiliberal" knew ANYTHING about U.S. nuclear power plants, he would know that there are two types of nuclear power plants..........BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) and PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors).

The Indian Point Nuclear Power facility has TWO Pressurized Water Reactors.  Pressurized Water Reactors DO NOT PRODUCE RADIOACTIVE STEAM.  Did you read that, "taichiliberal"?

Your bogus "600,000 gallons of radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere" claim holds no water (pun intended).

I'm still scratching my head over how steam is measured in "gallons".  That's a good one, too.

I warned you to "stay in your own lane", taichiliberal.  Now you've gone and embarrassed yourself by feverishly digging up bogus links from bogus sources in a feeble attempt to advance your Chicken Little "the sky is falling" anti-nuke nonsense.  

If you REALLY want to know the FACTS about U.S. nuclear power plants, I'm here to provide you with free tutoring, "chili".


----------



## TruthSeeker56

I'll give you some explanations about some of the "concerns" you mentioned:



IndependntLogic said:


> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.



The key words here are "monitoring well" and "underground vault".  Monitoring wells and underground vaults are used to obtain and analyze water and entrained gas samples PRIOR to any release into the environment.  By the way, tritium is a GAS, and tritium in the pico-curie range (pCi) is not anywhere close to a "dangerous" level.  I also have serious doubts about the "federal limits" you stated (not calling YOU a "liar", but questioning the source of your information).  



IndependntLogic said:


> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.



Water leaking INTO the containment building is much better than water leaking OUT of the containment building.  I can guarantee you that a fine was paid AND the problem was fixed. 



IndependntLogic said:


> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.



The amount of SFP water leaking into the Hudson River would have been very small if no fine was incurred.  I am also wondering why you seem to use the phrase "back to business as usual" as if it is some sort of "sinister" thing.



IndependntLogic said:


> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an &#8220;automatic shutdown&#8221; of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn&#8217;t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.



The problem with this whole "scenario" involves one "small" detail:  Indian Point's steam IS NOT RADIOACTIVE.  Pressurized Water Reactors (like Indian Point has) produce non-radioactive steam.  Also, steam is not measured in "gallons".  This whole statement makes no sense at all.   



IndependntLogic said:


> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.



The "main transformer" is located OUTDOORS, and has nothing to do with the nuclear reactor.  Transformers overheat and malfunction all the time.  I can guarantee you that some time during your life, you have lost electricity to your home because of a transformer malfunction (usually an overload situation).



IndependntLogic said:


> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.  Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often. &#8220;The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we&#8217;re not even close.&#8221; A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.'' An Entergy spokesman said &#8220;This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.'' The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.



You have NO IDEA how nuclear power plants are designed.  A terrorist could NEVER find his way around a U.S. nuclear power plant, unless he was an "insider" and had direct access to critical safety systems, which is highly unlikely because of the extensive background checks that ALL U.S. nuclear power plant employees undergo.  There are also hundreds of cameras located all over the place, and there are physical barriers located in high-security areas.  I will agree with the fact that the security personnel at the majority of U.S. nuke power plant facilities are woefully undertrained and underpaid.  Many are basically glorified rent-a-cops.    



IndependntLogic said:


> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.



U.S. nuclear power plants are VERY safe, not just "pretty safe".  You have NO IDEA how over-regulated our nuke power plants are.  You have NO IDEA how highly trained and extremely competent nuclear power plant operators and chemists and health physicists and engineering and maintenance personnel are.  U.S. nuclear power plants employ the best of the best.  You have NO IDEA how tough the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is when it comes to training and safety and maintenance and all other aspects of nuclear power plant operations.  "Overkill" doesn't even begin to describe how strict the NRC people are.

If people are looking for cheezy, poorly operated, technologically inferior, and inherently unsafe nuclear power plants, go to Russia or one of the other former Soviet countries, or go to Japan for that matter.  

The United States has the BEST nuclear power plants in the world.  Be PROUD of that.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> If "taichiliberal" knew ANYTHING about U.S. nuclear power plants, he would know that there are two types of nuclear power plants..........BWRs (Boiling Water Reactors) and PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactors).
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power facility has TWO Pressurized Water Reactors.  Pressurized Water Reactors DO NOT PRODUCE RADIOACTIVE STEAM.  Did you read that, "taichiliberal"?
> 
> Your bogus "600,000 gallons of radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere" claim holds no water (pun intended).
> 
> I'm still scratching my head over how steam is measured in "gallons".  That's a good one, too.
> 
> I warned you to "stay in your own lane", taichiliberal.  Now you've gone and embarrassed yourself by feverishly digging up bogus links from bogus sources in a feeble attempt to advance your Chicken Little "the sky is falling" anti-nuke nonsense.
> 
> If you REALLY want to know the FACTS about U.S. nuclear power plants, I'm here to provide you with free tutoring, "chili".



Actually, it was me who said it. From what I gather (and I don't claim to be an expert), it was measured by the number of gallons of water that created the steam.

As far as bogus link, bogus sources, bogus info etc... you could just Google it but here are a few links.  

Nuclear steam leak intentional: Response to Indian Point plant shutdown

On-Hudson.com : 600,000 Gallons Of Boiling RadioActive Water Turned To Steam Released Over Lower Hudson Valley Intentionally

Indian Point Energy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TruthSeeker56

From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment.  There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.

The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle.  Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true.  Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.

It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else.  I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter".  I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased.  18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.

As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham".  It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham.  Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever.  I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.

The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment.  There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.
> 
> The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle.  Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true.  Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.
> 
> It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else.  I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter".  I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased.  18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.
> 
> As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham".  It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham.  Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever.  I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.
> 
> The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.



Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical. 

So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment.  There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.
> 
> The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle.  Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true.  Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.
> 
> It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else.  I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter".  I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased.  18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.
> 
> As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham".  It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham.  Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever.  I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.
> 
> The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Once again, this bogus "truthseeker" spews his opinion, supposition and conjecture as  "fact", and either leaves out or is ignorant of information that contradicts his assertions, insinuations, allegations and opinions.
> 
> Case in point: the "truthseeker" leaves out a LOT of information regarding Shoreham on Long Island.  For starters, THE CITIZENS OF LONG ISLAND HAD NO DECISION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHOREHAM.  That was decided by the now defunct LILCO and it's shareholders.  Secondly, after 3 Mile Island, the citizenry put Shoreham's construction and policies under a microscope......which revealed such things as faulty coolant pipes that were being installed, and NO VIABLE evacuation plan in case of emergency.
> Then Gov. Cuomo (Sr.) reviewed the evacuation plan and said quite plainly that the Shoreham folk were out of their minds if they thought he would be responsible for trying to evacuate people from a situation when there's a traffic jam every day just for the commute to Manhattan, and were local roads do NOT handle mass movement when that siren went off (remember, it's called Long ISLAND.....nothing in that plan about naval rescue).  What killed Shoreham was due diligence analysis, NOT politics.
> 
> As the chronlogy of the posts show, the "truthseeker" has once again failed to find the whole truth.


----------



## martybegan

IndependntLogic said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about shutting down Indian Point? Does merely pointing out some verifiable facts that contradict the "Everything is absolutely perfect" viewpoint, automatically mean I must have the diametrically opposed view?
> 
> I see this dichotomous mentality all the time. If you think guns are fine but don't approve of carrying RPG's to kindergarten, someone says you're "one of those anti-gun whackjobs!".
> If you state that unions have a purpose but frequently go way beyond the functions of providing a safe workplace and competitive wage, you're called a "Corporate NeoCon" or whatever.
> 
> So to suggest that we might want to take a look at both safety and security at our facilities - especially in light of terrorism, flaws in security, the release of 600,000 gallons of radioactive steams etc....
> Automatically means I want to shut down Indian Point? Or is it that you don't have a strong counter to these simple measures but also don't want to concede that there are valid concerns out there?
Click to expand...


The current governmor of NY has made not renewing Indian Point's Operating liscence a priority of his.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I could gather from "independent" sources, the "radioactive steam" was extremely low level and posed no harm or danger to the environment.  There apparently was a small leak in a steam generator that caused the steam to become very slightly radioactive, which in itself is an impossibility since the steam generators are designed for "in-leakage" if a leak occurs, due to the difference in pressure between the "hot" and the "clean" water.
> 
> The problem with reading about nuke power plant "situations" is that there is a lot of anti-nuke bias out there, moreso since the Japan nuke power plant debacle.  Just because a person reads something, no matter what the "source" is, doesn't make it true.  Since the anti-nukes know little, if anything, about U.S. nuclear power plants, they will sling bullshit at the wall knowing that some of it will stick.
> 
> It's tough to sift through the B.S. and arrive at the facts, and the truth, about U.S. nuclear power plants, just like it is with anything else.  I am qualified, and more than willing, to be able to serve as the anti-nuke "bullshit meter".  I have no "allegiance" to any utility, and no reason to be biased.  18 years of nuke power plant experience and 9 years of retirement from the industry should "qualify" me to serve as a "neutral" voice on this topic.
> 
> As for New York nuclear power plants, there used to be a shiny new nuclear power plant on Long Island called "Shoreham".  It was completed back in the 1980s, but it never produced one kilowatt of electricity because the various towns on Long Island, and of course New York City, refused to approve the Emergency Plan for Shoreham.  Shoreham became a political football for a number of years, and ultimately the whole situation bankrupted the utility who built and operated the plant (LILCO- Long Island Lighting Company) and this perfectly safe 1,000+ MWe nuclear power plant was shut down forever.  I bet the residents wish they had those 1,000+ MWe of electricity now.
> 
> The laundry list is a long one, of nuclear power plants that were shut down before their time, nuclear power plants that were in various stages of construction that were never finished, etc., etc., etc.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Once again, this bogus "truthseeker" spews his opinion, supposition and conjecture as  "fact", and either leaves out or is ignorant of information that contradicts his assertions, insinuations, allegations and opinions.
> 
> Case in point: the "truthseeker" leaves out a LOT of information regarding Shoreham on Long Island.  For starters, THE CITIZENS OF LONG ISLAND HAD NO DECISION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHOREHAM.  That was decided by the now defunct LILCO and it's shareholders.  Secondly, after 3 Mile Island, the citizenry put Shoreham's construction and policies under a microscope......which revealed such things as faulty coolant pipes that were being installed, and NO VIABLE evacuation plan in case of emergency.
> Then Gov. Cuomo (Sr.) reviewed the evacuation plan and said quite plainly that the Shoreham folk were out of their minds if they thought he would be responsible for trying to evacuate people from a situation when there's a traffic jam every day just for the commute to Manhattan, and were local roads do NOT handle mass movement when that siren went off (remember, it's called Long ISLAND.....nothing in that plan about naval rescue).  What killed Shoreham was due diligence analysis, NOT politics.
> 
> As the chronlogy of the posts show, the "truthseeker" has once again failed to find the whole truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything in your list except for the evacuation plan was something that could have been rectified by design review and regulation. The evacuation plan was the killer, not the other issues.
> 
> The real crime of Shoram is that it was basically built before the plug was pulled, costing Long Islanders billions in increased power costs, and to this day long Island's power issues have still not been addressed.
Click to expand...


----------



## TruthSeeker56

IndependntLogic said:


> Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical.
> 
> So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?



I appreciate your "cautious" approach when it come to your "decision-making" process, Indy.

Your question is a valid one, and my answers involve NOTHING from a safety standpoint.
Here are my answers:

1.  U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age.  Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s.  This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.

2.  Storage of spent fuel bundles has been an ongoing problem for many years, because the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, which should have been "open for business" many years ago, has become a perpetual political football.  Currently, U.S. nuke power plant facilities store their spent fuel on-site.

3,  The anti-nuke pukes need to get a life, admit that wind turbines and solar power are NOT the answer to the continuing and growing power needs of the United States, and embrace the FACT that building many more nuclear power plants is the best answer.

As for "taichiliberal", I am not going to acknowledge his anti-nuke rhetoric.  "Martybegan" did a fine job of responding to him.


----------



## BoycottTheday

TruthSeeker56 said:


> 1.  U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age.  Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s.  This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.



I like the argument about old nukes, imagine if we had only 1970's vintage cars and we wanted to keep them running, hey who wants a vega to fix!?!



Anyways check these puppies out vroom! Turn up the A/c!

Mini Reactors Show Promise for Clean Nuclear Power's Future - Popular Mechanics


----------



## TruthSeeker56

BoycottTheday said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age.  Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s.  This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the argument about old nukes, imagine if we had only 1970's vintage cars and we wanted to keep them running, hey who wants a vega to fix!?!
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways check these puppies out vroom! Turn up the A/c!
> 
> Mini Reactors Show Promise for Clean Nuclear Power's Future - Popular Mechanics
Click to expand...


Interesting article, even though it was written in December of 2009.  I haven't heard anything recently about this "mini-reactor" design, so I wonder if it has moved forward or if the NRC just laughed it off.

There is at least one statement that is not true in this article.  The author characterized all current U.S. nuclear power plants as being in the 1,000-1,700 MW range, when in fact there are many nuke plants in the 500 MW range.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well.  Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise.  Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences    history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search
> 
> First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that.  So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim.  The article shows how that is NOT being done.
> 
> And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island.  The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later.which is not entirely true
> 
> Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later
> 
> Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News
> 
> So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.
> 
> Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.
> 
> Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.
> 
> 2)  Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.
> 
> 3)  That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ.  Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.
> 
> NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com
Click to expand...


Link doesnt work. try relinking it. 

and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting. 

Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
Click to expand...


This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:
> 
> On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.
> 
> 
> The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
> Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
> In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
> In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an automatic shutdown of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasnt high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
> In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
> One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
> Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
> The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but were not even close.
> A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
> An Entergy spokesman said This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
> The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.
> 
> 
> I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
Click to expand...


My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off. 

As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.


----------



## BoycottTheday

TruthSeeker56 said:


> There is at least one statement that is not true in this article.  The author characterized all current U.S. nuclear power plants as being in the 1,000-1,700 MW range, when in fact there are many nuke plants in the 500 MW range.



i have to be honest, i  just get the mag for the pictures 

The factual stuff is way over my head.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> *U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation*
> LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
> 
> Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
> 
> The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety  and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523



We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.


----------



## Big Black Dog

The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.


----------



## Intense

Nuclear-powered cars! airplanes! Fridges and freezers! In the heady days of the early 1950s &#8212; at the dawn of the civilian nuclear power age and President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program &#8212; nuclear optimists imagined a world powered by tiny nuclear reactors. Today, in an era of climate change and energy insecurity, the nuclear industry is dusting off some of those old dreams. That includes the nuclear battery.

Designed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory spin-off Hyperion Power Generation Inc., the nuclear battery &#8212; so called because it is cheap, small and easily transportable &#8212; is about the size of a refrigerator, compared with a 50-ft.-tall traditional reactor. It produces 25 megawatts of electricity &#8212; approximately a fortieth the output of a large atomic power-plant reactor. While not quite compact enough for cars, the battery, known as the Hyperion Power Module, has been designed to power subdivisions or towns with fewer than 20,000 homes, as well as military bases, mining operations, desalination plants and even commercial ships, including cruise liners.

Read more: Nuclear Batteries - TIME


----------



## Intense

Big Black Dog said:


> The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.



That's a good thing.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation*
> LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
> 
> Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
> 
> The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety  and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.
Click to expand...


Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.

Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.

I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I tend to believe that nothing is ever as good or as bad as people say. So when people say "Oh Nuclear power with be the death of us all, tomorrow!" I think about the fact that I lived down the coast from San Onofre and never heard of any problems. On the other side, when people say "There are no valid reasons for concern, when it comes to the safety or security of nuclear plants! None whatsoever!" I am just as skeptical.
> 
> So let's put that bullsh*t-o-meter of yours to the test. What would you say are the two or three main areas of concern, when it comes to nuclear plants?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your "cautious" approach when it come to your "decision-making" process, Indy.
> 
> Your question is a valid one, and my answers involve NOTHING from a safety standpoint.
> Here are my answers:
> 
> 1.  U.S. nuclear power plants are showing their age.  Ground has not been broken for a new U.S. nuclear power plant since the 1970s.  This country needs to build MORE nuke power plants before the old ones start going off-line.
> 
> 2.  Storage of spent fuel bundles has been an ongoing problem for many years, because the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada, which should have been "open for business" many years ago, has become a perpetual political football.  Currently, U.S. nuke power plant facilities store their spent fuel on-site.
> 
> 3,  The anti-nuke pukes need to get a life, admit that wind turbines and solar power are NOT the answer to the continuing and growing power needs of the United States, and embrace the FACT that building many more nuclear power plants is the best answer.
> 
> As for "taichiliberal", I am not going to acknowledge his anti-nuke rhetoric.  "Martybegan" did a fine job of responding to him.
Click to expand...


No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years. 
As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc... 
I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern. 
But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Big Black Dog said:


> The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.



You're absolutely correct, of course.  "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety.  They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites.  They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> *U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation*
> LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.
> 
> Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.
> 
> The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety &#8211; and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.
> 
> Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.
> 
> I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.
Click to expand...


They Promote Nuclear Power Very well. They Run Cover too well, also, that is the down side. That Mouth piece/Enforcer role sometimes gives the impression of not knowing whether to piss or shit.... Just saying. Some pretty unaccountable events this year... Just keep ignoring the man behind the curtain... when the shit hits the fan... just click your heels together 3 times. 

It is nice to see Homeland Security picking up some of the slack, which never seemed important enough for the NRC. Thank You Homeland Security.


----------



## Intense

While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove there&#8217;s more than one way to get clean energy from water.

A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
Source: Bourne Energy
A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.

That allows other users of the waterway&#8212;from ships to fish&#8212;unobstructed access while power is generated.

&#8220;[Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible,&#8221; says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.

He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.

&#8220;The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down,&#8221; he says.

Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlin&#8217;s, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill. 

News Headlines

Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are in agreement here. I never have had much love or trust in the NRC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of harsh for an agency that has been doing its job probably better than any other government agency.
> 
> Yes, there are always accidents, releases, misreporting etc. You can't eliminate that as hard as you try, but considering 1 bad accident that WAS CONTAINED in 40+ years of nuclear power, they seem to be doing thier job.
> 
> I hope you understand that any reduction in a safety margin is probably researched and backup up 10 ways from sunday before it is allowed. Consdiering they make them public, I assume they know any change will be scruitinzed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They Promote Nuclear Power Very well. They Run Cover too well, also, that is the down side. That Mouth piece/Enforcer role sometimes gives the impression of not knowing whether to piss or shit.... Just saying. Some pretty unaccountable events this year... Just keep ignoring the man behind the curtain... when the shit hits the fan... just click your heels together 3 times.
> 
> It is nice to see Homeland Security picking up some of the slack, which never seemed important enough for the NRC. Thank You Homeland Security.
Click to expand...


It's an unavoidable fact you have to get regulators from the industry being regulated, unless you want an accountant figuring out the containment wall thickness of the inner core shielding. 

These people belive in Nuclear power. Would you rather have regulators who hate it, and whos regulatory goal is to phase it out via onerous regulation?

No one is ignoring anything, what I am avoiding is overreaction to percieved excessive risks. The river flooding incidents this year were handled by the book, and resulted in no release, no damage, no ZOMG BOOM! event. Things worked the way they were supposed to.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove theres more than one way to get clean energy from water.
> 
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> Source: Bourne Energy
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.
> 
> That allows other users of the waterwayfrom ships to fishunobstructed access while power is generated.
> 
> [Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible, says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.
> 
> He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.
> 
> The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down, he says.
> 
> Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlins, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.
> 
> News Headlines
> 
> Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.



Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow  generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.

In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.

Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

IndependntLogic said:


> No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
> Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
> As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
> I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
> As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
> But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).



ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s.  As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.  

This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants.  Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.

The NRC does a great job.  In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators.  There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.

Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants.  It's a serious business.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct, of course.  "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety.  They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites.  They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
> Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
> As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
> I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
> As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
> But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s.  As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.
> 
> This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants.  Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.
> 
> The NRC does a great job.  In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators.  There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.
> 
> Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants.  It's a serious business.
Click to expand...


Well that's comforting to hear. Like I said, I lived down the coast from San Onofre for years and never thought twice about it. I've always been pro-nuke but I do think it's worth keeping an eye on. Like I said in the earlier post, a little bit of "better safe than sorry" never hurt.


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
> Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
> As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
> I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
> As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
> But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s.  As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.
> 
> This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants.  Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.
> 
> The NRC does a great job.  In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators.  There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.
> 
> Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants.  It's a serious business.
Click to expand...


Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove theres more than one way to get clean energy from water.
> 
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> Source: Bourne Energy
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.
> 
> That allows other users of the waterwayfrom ships to fishunobstructed access while power is generated.
> 
> [Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible, says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.
> 
> He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.
> 
> The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down, he says.
> 
> Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlins, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.
> 
> News Headlines
> 
> Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow  generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.
> 
> In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.
> 
> Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.
Click to expand...


Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> While big hydroelectric power projects attract more protestors than investors these days, days, new developments in river-run, hydro power could prove theres more than one way to get clean energy from water.
> 
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> Source: Bourne Energy
> A mockup of a Bourne Energy river hydro system array.
> River-run, hydro systems, also called hydrokinetic power, sit in running waterways like rivers, irrigation canals and even wastewater ditches, and generate power without needing to build a massive dam that interrupts water flow completely.
> 
> That allows other users of the waterwayfrom ships to fishunobstructed access while power is generated.
> 
> [Our] systems can be applied to each river's environment, culture and commercial activities as seamlessly and invisibly as possible, says Chris Catlin, president of Bourne Energy, a California-based firm building hydrokinetic power equipment.
> 
> He adds the always-flowing nature of these waterways makes hydrokinetic power more reliable than other renewable energy sources.
> 
> The river runs when the wind dies down and when the sun goes down, he says.
> 
> Hydrokinetic technologies, including Catlins, typically use some form of turbine placed in the water stream, and look like a boat motor or an underwater windmill.
> 
> News Headlines
> 
> Personally I favor Hydro. Always have, big or little. There are just too many pluses. In some ways the battle is between Energy Independence and Centralized control. You might want to think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow  generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.
> 
> In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.
> 
> Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.
Click to expand...


The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.

The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it. 

The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load. 

Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hydro is the most reliable of the renewables, I agree. The issue I have with level flow  generation is the overall lack of flow momentum. hydro works best at places where the potential energy drops (delta Z), you gain the power given from the fall into the generator, producing "gobs" (yes, a non scientifc term, I know) of energy.
> 
> In river flow only has kinetic energy, (delta V) and by using it you create a head loss in the river. Plus any meaningful levels of energy would require so many tubrines that if the river is navigable, you might acutally impede traffic.
> 
> Thats why you either build them by waterfalls, or you make a dam to do it, most of the energy taken out is from the change in potential energy via a drop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.
> 
> The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.
> 
> The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.
> 
> Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.
Click to expand...


Just a thought. 

Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
that incorporates the continual development of Bournes advanced technologies
including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
These include:

    Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
    Power Cartridge - micro generator system
    Virtual Stabilizer  highly adaptable float design
    SCM Mooring  advanced mooring system
    Active-Controls - smart control system
    Smart Grid - power transmission system

Energy for the Future


----------



## TruthSeeker56

IndependntLogic said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct, of course.  "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety.  They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites.  They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?
Click to expand...


No, not you.  You bring up many good points, and you are a fair and "non-partisan" participant in this debate who raises valid questions (many of which I have hopefully satisfactorily answered).  You are living up to your name. 

I was referring to those who are obviously anti-nuclear power and who go off on ridiculous tangents and supply anti-nuke power links to "bolster" their ignorant ramblings.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, the possibilities are immeasurable, add in tidal flow, erosion control, and they multiply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.
> 
> The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.
> 
> The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.
> 
> Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
> that incorporates the continual development of Bournes advanced technologies
> including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
> These include:
> 
> Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
> Power Cartridge - micro generator system
> Virtual Stabilizer  highly adaptable float design
> SCM Mooring  advanced mooring system
> Active-Controls - smart control system
> Smart Grid - power transmission system
> 
> Energy for the Future
Click to expand...


Interesting system, in particular I like how modular it is, as well as the methods for making the mechanical top units aethetically pleasing.  

The one issue I see is acutally from the environmental side, as some people may call them "fish choppers." I know the rotational velocity is very low, but someone out there will scream "THINK OF THE MINNOWS" and delay the project for years.

One of the problems the green movement has is that it contains a small group of people who think you can get "something from nothing" That there is some magical power source out there that has zero downsides.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Intense said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No offense but "NOTHING" just doesn't sound very objective. And a thread later, someone brings up a valid point: Imagine if every car on the road had the same technology, safty features and were all built in the 1970's.
> Now granted, a nuke plant is not a car - which is even more reason for concern. I am just not going to be convinced that we couldn't come up with completely new designs after 40 years.
> As far as trusting power companies? Any company that has to make a profit, will always meet the minimum safety requirements, spend the minumum necessary to build and maintain etc...
> I think we can have safe, effective nuke power. But I do think there are valid concerns and things that can be upgraded.
> As far as security goes, I think it's another valid reason for concern.
> But I have to take my daughter to the tennis court - we've got a month left to work on her game and I'm hoping to get her state ranked this year (she's going into 10th grade).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s.  As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.
> 
> This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants.  Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.
> 
> The NRC does a great job.  In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators.  There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.
> 
> Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants.  It's a serious business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.
Click to expand...



The plant owners are concerned with NRC compliance, first and foremost.  They don't do what the NRC says they need to do, their nuke plants don't operate.  PERIOD.  

The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants.  A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months.  These people don't mess around.  They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.

I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts.  As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant.  I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH.  I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.

Pay attention, and you and "taichiliberal" may actually LEARN something.  You are an intelligent person, but you need to put away your 1970s and 80s anti-nuke bumper sticker slogans, and pay attention to what I am telling you.  

I am an independent voice who knows the facts about U.S. nuclear power plants.  I worked at nuke plants from coast-to-coast..........big ones, small ones, old ones, new ones, PWRs and BWRs, and I wore several different "hats" during those years (1980s -2000s).  I am out of the business now because it was my time to retire.  Anybody who works in a nuclear power plant has a finite "shelf life".  Mine was 18 years.  The pressure and stress and responsibility are immense.  The work hours are detrimental to your health.  It takes a dedicated, intelligent, and mentally and physically tough person to work at a nuclear power plant.  It's certainly not the right career for most people.

I get it that your "agenda" is hydro power and wind power and sun power.  Those are all nice "alternatives" to other forms of energy, but they will ALWAYS be nothing more than SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources that will be used in conjunction with coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, natural gas, etc.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're absolutely correct, of course.  "Outsiders" have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to U.S. nuke power plant safety.  They just like blowing smoke by posting bogus links from anti-nuke websites.  They honestly believe that their own ignorance of the facts doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you referring to me as one of these "outsiders" or the taichi person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not you.  You bring up many good points, and you are a fair and "non-partisan" participant in this debate who raises valid questions (many of which I have hopefully satisfactorily answered).  You are living up to your name.
> 
> I was referring to those who are obviously anti-nuclear power and who go off on ridiculous tangents and supply anti-nuke power links to "bolster" their ignorant ramblings.
Click to expand...


Okay, so here's a couple concerns:
1. The energy corps are in business to make a profit. That's just a fact. I have an inherent distrust for big comanies, that could be compared to the distrust many have for Big Government. I could go into examples etc... but let's just assume this distrust is at a reasonable level and not the "tinfoil hat in the basement" type. 
So I can't help but ask pesky questions like: 
1. Would these guys at the top, order that materials which barely meet the requirements / regulations be used, or would they say "Hey! Let's reduce our profits by spending more than we need to!"? I just don't see them doing the latter.
2. In 2002 & 3 a couple congressmen made a BIG fuss about Nuke Plant safety. One of the things they brought up was what would happen if a terrorist hit a plant with a plane. Pac Gas & Electric and ConEd spent 6,000% more in campaign contributions than they ever had in those two districts. Those two congressmen were voted out of office. Congress changed it's mind in 2004 and decided it would be "unreasonable" to require that plants be secure against such risks. Call me picky but I wouldn't mind having UAV's working 24/7 and F-18's or whatever, ready-deployed just in case. Hell, if we can hand over $20B a year to Pakistan for their safety, we can spend 1/50th of that on ours. JMO
3. To date, Force on Force terrorists simulations are still fully run and controlled by the companies that are paid to provide security to the plants. They limit the number of attackers to ten or less (vs. the 40+ personnel on duty). Additionally, they still use "laser tag" equipment, which limits the terrorists to attacking with semi-automatic, short range, non-explosive weapons. IMO That's just plain bullshit. That's like having two rabbis argue over whether Judaism or Islam is better. Guess what the outcome will be. I think they should use wargames rules and tech. The marines have an "electronic grenade" which will set off the vest of everyone within 30". I also think they should use either A) U.S. Military personnel or B) A competing security company who would love to steal the contract.
Seriously, the way I came across all of this is that I am just finishing a novel in which the terrorist attack these places. With the help of a former Force Recon buddy from Camp Pendleton, I've come up with three ways to take them down quickly. The most difficult part is not taking over but rather, obtaining the intel necessary to cause a meltdown once the Control Room has been secured. Could they get it? For say $10M? I bet they could. So yes, I would increase security.

Like I said, I like nuke but I do think that like anything, there is room for improvement.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO.  Period.

One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.

As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have.  One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.

There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are underground for a reason.


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO.  Period.
> 
> One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.
> 
> As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have.  One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
> I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.
> 
> There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are
> underground for a reason.




Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.

Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided.  The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.
> 
> Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.
> 
> Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.
> 
> 2)  Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.
> 
> 3)  That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ.  Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.
> 
> NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link doesnt work. try relinking it.
> 
> I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
> and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.
> 
> Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.
> 
> Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.
Click to expand...


The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius.  Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed.  Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much.  Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.
Click to expand...



Spare me your BS, Marty.  YOU tried to pass off your opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT.  And when FACTUALLY proven wrong, you don't have the maturity or the cojones just to cop to that.  Grow up.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.
> 
> Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.
> 
> Actions have consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.
> 
> As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.
Click to expand...



Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc.  Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.


----------



## taichiliberal

Big Black Dog said:


> The last job I had before I retired in 2006 was that of a Sergeant (Supervisor) on the Guard Force at a Nuclear Power Plant.  There wasn't anywhere inside the entire Nuke Plant that I did not go into on a fairly frequent basis.  It was the safest place I ever worked in my entire life.  I worked there for over 10 years and the only injury I ever received was burning my tongue on hot coffee.



That's your story....which unfortunately doesn't change a god damned thing about the information I presented.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> In my 18 years, I never saw anybody "cut corners", I never saw sub-standard equipment being used, and I never saw an electric utility try to "get one over" on the NRC or INPO.  Period.
> 
> One fact you have not considered is that when an electric utility company commits BILLIONS of dollars to a nuclear power plant facility, they KNOW they can't cut corners or piss off the NRC or INPO in any way, or their nuke power plant facility becomes a big white elephant, and they lose BILLIONS of dollars, via monetary fines and lost revenue, not to mention a whole bunch of pissed off stockholders.
> 
> As for security, I already addressed this concern that you have.  One of the design requirements for a U.S. nuclear power plant containment building is the ability to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 747.
> I also mentioned all of the physical barriers, and the extreme difficulty a terrorist group would have in not only LOCATING critical plant systems and the main control room, but the extreme difficulty in having the ability to know what to do to cause some sort of catastrophic failure that would cause a core meltdown.
> 
> There are several UNDERGROUND levels in a nuclear power plant, and they are underground for a reason.



Actually, many of them can't withstand a direct hit from a commercial airliner the size of an F-111 or bigger - including San Onofre (research). Congress changed that requirement and declared it "unreasonable". Keep in mind, when these plants were designed and built, NO ONE in the USA was thinking about terrorism. 
So okay. I certainly don't fault the engineers for something that, back in the 70's was as likely as say, a direct hit by a meteor. But times are different now and you don't strike me as one of these Liberals who thinks that terrorists are just going to "go away". 
My job in the Navy was in intelligence. There are things I look at today, that give me pause for concern. You say security is good at every single nuke plant all the time, because you worked at one. I say I'm skeptical. I say that based on the results of the simulations over the last three years, there is reason for me to be skeptical. So while my understanding is that nuke is the safest form of power in our history, I still think there are things that could make it safer. So call me unreasonable! Oh well, I'll live. Hell, my wife and daughter have both called me unreasonable!


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a discussion board, people will have opinions. if you can't handle that go to a jeopardy website, they deal in facts only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your BS, Marty.  YOU tried to pass off your opinion, supposition and conjecture as FACT.  And when FACTUALLY proven wrong, you don't have the maturity or the cojones just to cop to that.  Grow up.
Click to expand...


I tried to do nothing of the sort, however you are so insecure about your own opinion that I guess you think no one else can have another opinion.

If I was considering my opinions as fact, i would have referenced said facts. 

I suggest going to DU if you want to hear nothing but opinions that agree with yours. Here your opinions will be questioned.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences.  But it's not impossible:  YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:
> 
> 
> *Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?*
> 
> Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN
> 
> 
> _This report presents the work of the National Research Councils (NRCs) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center._
> 
> Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.
> 
> As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc.  Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.
Click to expand...


Not ignoring it at all. And yes you may have more viable technologies since 2006, but are they cost effective enough to replace Indian point without a massive spike in electrical costs. 

Your last statement "people just have to have the will to do it" is the most telling. When it comes to that concept, people of a left persuasion go to the old grab bag of laws to make people do stuff, or taxes to make people do stuff.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1)  the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.
> 
> 2)  Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.
> 
> 3)  That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ.  Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.
> 
> NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link doesnt work. try relinking it.
> 
> I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
> and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.
> 
> Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.
> 
> Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius.  Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed.  Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much.  Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.
Click to expand...


This was a 200 year flood. They did thier design to the 150 year flood. The fact that they were able to recognize that they needed extra protection shows both the regulators and the owners were. 

1) Aware of the added risk
2) Took steps to mitigate the added risk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html

Also, as per the attached link, The plants are in NEBRASKA, near the Missouri RIVER. For someone so anal on the concept of facts vs. opinions, you should try to keep your FACTS straight.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

taichiliberal said:


> Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided.  The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.



My "alleged" personal experience?  You're a punk.  Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself.  Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

"Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks.  I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile.  There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters.  The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.

IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe.  Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about.  The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.

Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again.  That is the highest of insults.


----------



## IndependntLogic

TruthSeeker56 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided.  The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "alleged" personal experience?  You're a punk.  Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself.  Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.
Click to expand...


Hey hey HEY hey hey! Do NOT be dissin' SpongeBob!


----------



## TruthSeeker56

IndependntLogic said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided.  The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "alleged" personal experience?  You're a punk.  Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself.  Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey hey HEY hey hey! Do NOT be dissin' SpongeBob!
Click to expand...


You're absolutely correct, Indy.  I apologize to all of the Sponge Bob Square Pants fans out there, especially my grandkids.


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your alleged personal experience means NOTHING, as it DOES NOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.
> 
> Once again, you provide supposition and conjecture to try and discredit the conclusions based on the valid FACTS I provided.  The chronology of the post shows we've already done this dance, Truthseeker, and the truth is you just can't prove me wrong on these particular set of realities regarding the nuke power industry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "alleged" personal experience?  You're a punk.  Stay in your own lane and quit making a FOOL out of yourself.  Go find a Sponge Bob Square Pants talk forum, where you will feel right at home.
Click to expand...


You're not impressing or scaring anyone, you blowhard "truthseeker".  To date YOU CANNOT DISPROVE, REFUTE OR INVALIDATE THE FACT BASED, DOCUMENTED INCIDENCES THAT I'VE LINKED AND LISTED ON THIS THREAD.  And that's what is burning your company boy ass!  Prattle on, my faux Truthseeker clown!


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> "Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks.  I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile.  There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters.  The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.
> 
> IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe.  Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about.  The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.
> 
> Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again.  That is the highest of insults.



And our BS truthseeker scores a petty point, as I mixed up the name of the river with the State in which the reactor resides. 

However,

Our little nuke company toadie likes to leave out information, like the 8-foot-tall, water-filled temporary berm protecting the plant collapsed around dry buffer area.  My point was that had Mother Nature decided to just throw a few more feet of water down the river, the containment pool and the reactor areas would have been at risk.  It was a happy coincidence that the plant was in cold mode at the time of the uprecedented flooding.

They dodged a bullet.

And to be clear, I don't give a damn about Truthseeker's claimed experience.....that the "truthseeker" won't discuss or tries to dismiss the DOCUMENTED, FACT BASED EVIDENCE IN THE LINKS I PROVIDED speaks volumes of the mindset of those who would deem your life an acceptable risk to maintain their religious mantras that all aroundnuke power is as safe as flipping a light switch.

Dance the nuke power shuffle, my bogus truthseeker.  Dance.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link doesnt work. try relinking it.
> 
> I did, it must be your computer...but to be fair, I'll give it one more shot.
> and i stand by my huffo = useless knee jerk reporting.
> 
> Translation: Marty REFUSES TO READ AND DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF A LINK.....thereby displayin a willful ignorance and stubborn bias on Marty's part.
> 
> Missouri didnt dodge a bullet, the safety protocols put in place worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The safety protocols worked because the water STOPPED RISING, genius.  Had Mother Nature decided to go just a few feet more, Missouri would have been royally screwed.  Remember Marty, that was UNPRECEDENTED overflow....the EXTRA ADDED sandbags were NOT part of the "protocol", as the river wasn't expected to rise THAT much.  Stop being stubborn and deal with reality, Marty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This was a 200 year flood. They did thier design to the 150 year flood. The fact that they were able to recognize that they needed extra protection shows both the regulators and the owners were.
> 
> 1) Aware of the added risk
> 2) Took steps to mitigate the added risk.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/us/21flood.html
> 
> Also, as per the attached link, The plants are in NEBRASKA, near the Missouri RIVER. For someone so anal on the concept of facts vs. opinions, you should try to keep your FACTS straight.
Click to expand...



The POINT, Marty Boy, is that MOTHER NATURE DIDN'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE INGENIOUS PLANNING!  It was SHEER LUCK and an Act of GOD that the River didn't go a couple of more feet, as the initial "berm" broke down flooding the designated "dry area"....and that the storage pool wasn't affected, and that the plant was in cold shutdown mode.

And yes, I mixed up the river name with the state.....an error I readily admit.....an error that DOES NOT change the FACTS I refer to.  An error that DOES NOT EXCUSE you're insipid stubborness regarding the previous DOCUMENTED FACTS that I previously linked.

Shuffle, Marty boy, shuffle.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> My concern with the replacement report is that it concentrates too much on using demand reduction to meet the missing 2,000 MW. It is wishful thinking to assume you can change the power consumption of people by that much. Also the report is from 2006, so the energy use estimates are probably off.
> 
> As one example, I found that in thier PV home installations they basically ignore the maintenance needed to keep the cells working at peak efficency. In addition the problem with home based PV's vs. a centralized plant is that people in homes typically use thier highest power items (air conditoners) at night, when they would have to be pulling off the grid, therefore that power use must be included in the peak loading for the region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your ignoring the FACT that since 2006 you have a more viable alternative energy industry that can be put use, as well as improved energy saving devices, more ergonomically friendly home improvements, etc.  Power consumption can change....people just have to have the will to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not ignoring it at all. And yes you may have more viable technologies since 2006, but are they cost effective enough to replace Indian point without a massive spike in electrical costs.
> 
> As the link I provided shows, there would not be a "massive spike" as you nuke wonks just love to lie about.  As it stands, the rates being paid by New Yorkers for nuke energy hasn't improved much since it went online when you factor in the costs of maintenance, refueling, etc., that are passed onto the public.
> Your last statement "people just have to have the will to do it" is the most telling. When it comes to that concept, people of a left persuasion go to the old grab bag of laws to make people do stuff, or taxes to make people do stuff.
Click to expand...


So using the power of the vote to get things changed via an representative gov't, using fact based investigation to reveal dishonesty within a system that could have detrimental effect on the population and using the LAW appropo to the forementioned is deemed as a negative on our part because you can't have your way and your nuke power beliefs don't come up to snuff?

Give me a fucking break, Marty boy.  Go whine that BS to your like minded nuke power apologist cohorts.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The possibilites may be immersurable, but the chance of getting enough power out of the turbines to justify thier cost is the prime issue.
> 
> The same issue is there for tidal power, the delta Z is just too low to get enough power out of it to justify the expense of the turbines and the mounting of them. They are looking into places with large tidal bores, such as the Bay of Fundy to determine the peak you can get out of it.
> 
> The other issue with tidal power is that it is not continuous, and thus is not capable of providing base load.
> 
> Tidal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Run of the river hydro has been done sucessfully, the main limiting issue is that you still have to find a suitable location, you can't just plop a turbine down in the river and get reliable power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Every Bourne power system offers a modern, competitive energy solution
> that incorporates the continual development of Bournes advanced technologies
> including hydrodynamics, advanced materials, power and generator technologies.
> These include:
> 
> Tri-Phase Blade - advanced turbine blade design
> Power Cartridge - micro generator system
> Virtual Stabilizer  highly adaptable float design
> SCM Mooring  advanced mooring system
> Active-Controls - smart control system
> Smart Grid - power transmission system
> 
> Energy for the Future
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting system, in particular I like how modular it is, as well as the methods for making the mechanical top units aethetically pleasing.
> 
> The one issue I see is acutally from the environmental side, as some people may call them "fish choppers." I know the rotational velocity is very low, but someone out there will scream "THINK OF THE MINNOWS" and delay the project for years.
> 
> One of the problems the green movement has is that it contains a small group of people who think you can get "something from nothing" That there is some magical power source out there that has zero downsides.
Click to expand...


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL U.S. nuclear power plants have had every upgrade imaginable since they were originally built in the 1960s and 1970s.  As the technology has evolved, newer and better equipment has been installed.
> 
> This is the basic problem with people who know very little about nuclear power plants.  Because of their lack of knowledge they assume the worst, and they express their opinions based on false assumptions and unfounded fears.
> 
> The NRC does a great job.  In fact, they engage in extreme overkill, which at times is to the detriment of the various nuclear power plant operators.  There are other private companies, sanctioned by the NRC, that do various "quality control" inspections of U.S. nuclear power plants.
> 
> Every utility company that I ever worked for spared NO EXPENSE when it came to the operation of their nuclear power plants.  It's a serious business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty wide brush there Sparky. What the Plant Owners are concerned with is Licensing, not retrofitting. Operation =$$$ Down Time or added expense =!!! Nothing changes human nature. NRC has both it's up and down side. It does not walk on water, any more than you and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The plant owners are concerned with NRC compliance, first and foremost.  They don't do what the NRC says they need to do, their nuke plants don't operate.  PERIOD.
> 
> The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants.  A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months.  These people don't mess around.  They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.
> 
> I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts.  As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant.  I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH.  I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.
> 
> Pay attention, and you and "taichiliberal" may actually LEARN something.  You are an intelligent person, but you need to put away your 1970s and 80s anti-nuke bumper sticker slogans, and pay attention to what I am telling you.
> 
> I am an independent voice who knows the facts about U.S. nuclear power plants.  I worked at nuke plants from coast-to-coast..........big ones, small ones, old ones, new ones, PWRs and BWRs, and I wore several different "hats" during those years (1980s -2000s).  I am out of the business now because it was my time to retire.  Anybody who works in a nuclear power plant has a finite "shelf life".  Mine was 18 years.  The pressure and stress and responsibility are immense.  The work hours are detrimental to your health.  It takes a dedicated, intelligent, and mentally and physically tough person to work at a nuclear power plant.  It's certainly not the right career for most people.
> 
> I get it that your "agenda" is hydro power and wind power and sun power.  Those are all nice "alternatives" to other forms of energy, but they will ALWAYS be nothing more than SUPPLEMENTAL energy sources that will be used in conjunction with coal-fired power plants, nuclear power plants, natural gas, etc.
Click to expand...


*The NRC is not the only "watchdog" organization that oversees U.S. nuclear power plants.  A private company, INPO (Institute for Nuclear Power Operations) does intensive inspections of every nuclear power plant in the United States every 18 months.  These people don't mess around.  They check everything from paperwork to plant equipment to the training programs to the competency of every employee that works at the plant.*

The NRC may not mess around, yet it is not perfect, nor can it foresee Everything that can happen, nor are they prepared to deal with what is beyond their comprehension. This year alone speaks volumes in preparedness and short comings.  The Plants in Japan were GE Plants, weren't they? I'm glad for you that you survived 18 years with your health. That is a good thing. Still, anything out of lock step on your part, would have resulted in a ruined career and reputation. Don't kid yourself that it would have been otherwise. That goes for the NRC as well. 

*I may be using a "wide brush" in your estimation, but the facts are the facts.  As far as I know, only myself and one other person in this forum has set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant.  I'll put my 18 years of experience on the line, and I'll tell you the TRUTH.  I don't have a horse in this "pro-nuke/anti-nuke" race.*

I had 4 arrests at Diablo Canyon in 1981, 1 at the front gate, 3 back country, well within the property boundaries. I had 2 arrests there in the Spring of 1984, 1 front gate, 1, I broke maximum security by climbing the Double fences. They were not all that impenetrable. My horse is in responsible Construction, safety and innovation, true accountability, and as the technology advances, the retrofitting that goes with it. It is strange to me that it takes Homeland Security to start monitoring and chronicling background radiation levels around the Country and not the NRC. Where were they on that all these years?

I do believe Nuclear Power has a place. My picture of the future is just different than yours. Glitches like the massive shut downs that have indeed caused major power outages in recent years, prove the importance of alternatives to Nuclear. What are our best options today? Gas Plants? Hydro? Future Mega Nuclear Plants need to be in removed, remote locations. That is my opinion.


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> "Chili boy" doesn't realize that the Fort Calhoun Nuclear power plant is in NEBRASKA and it is the Missouri RIVER that overflowed it's banks.  I worked at Fort Calhoun for awhile.  There was never any danger to the public from the floodwaters.  The plant was in cold shutdown, and the reactor vessel was sealed.
> 
> IndependntLogic, as I stated before I worked at SEVERAL nuclear power plants, not just "one", as you seem to believe.  Worrying about nuclear power plants should be WAY DOWN on your list of things to be concerned about.  The U.S. economy is going to hell and you and your family are going to suffer the consequences, along with everybody else.
> 
> Please don't characterize me as a "liberal" again.  That is the highest of insults.



Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Intense said:


> Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.



Your quest for "perfection" is ridiculously unattainable, not only in nuclear power plants but in everything else that exists on this planet.

I hate to burst the "bubble" that you live in, but human error is a part of life, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your plant needs a Levy and Drainage. There is no excuse if that scenario plays out again. Neither is it the only vulnerable Plant to flooding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your quest for "perfection" is ridiculously unattainable, not only in nuclear power plants but in everything else that exists on this planet.
> 
> I hate to burst the "bubble" that you live in, but human error is a part of life, whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...


Which is why your ability is so limited. Your statement only proves your inability to adequatetly deal with what is dumped in your lap, rather than learn from mistake and adapt. Your interest seems more in finding excuses rather than solutions. Really big confidence builder there Sparky.  Tell us again why we should entrust our well being and very lives to the likes of you??? Coulda-woulda-shoulda, do nothing defense, again and again. What do yor excuses improve again. Let's try to keep up with the line of cause and effect, learning from our mistakes and doing something about what we learn, rather than defending bullshit?


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Intense said:


> Which is why your ability is so limited. Your statement only proves your inability to adequatetly deal with what is dumped in your lap, rather than learn from mistake and adapt. Your interest seems more in finding excuses rather than solutions. Really big confidence builder there Sparky.  Tell us again why we should entrust our well being and very lives to the likes of you??? Coulda-woulda-shoulda, do nothing defense, again and again. What do yor excuses improve again. Let's try to keep up with the line of cause and effect, learning from our mistakes and doing something about what we learn, rather than defending bullshit?



You haven't "dumped" anything into my lap, except for a bunch of platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense.  It is impossible for an intelligent and knowledgeable person to engage in a debate with you.  

You are nothing more than a know-nothing, namecalling playground bully who needs to STAY IN YOUR OWN LANE.  

Hurry along and go find a Disney Channel forum, where you can be amongst those with the same mentality and knowledge level as you.  Say hi to Mickey and Pluto for me.  My grandkids love those two.


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why your ability is so limited. Your statement only proves your inability to adequatetly deal with what is dumped in your lap, rather than learn from mistake and adapt. Your interest seems more in finding excuses rather than solutions. Really big confidence builder there Sparky.  Tell us again why we should entrust our well being and very lives to the likes of you??? Coulda-woulda-shoulda, do nothing defense, again and again. What do yor excuses improve again. Let's try to keep up with the line of cause and effect, learning from our mistakes and doing something about what we learn, rather than defending bullshit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't "dumped" anything into my lap, except for a bunch of platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense.  It is impossible for an intelligent and knowledgeable person to engage in a debate with you.
> 
> You are nothing more than a know-nothing, namecalling playground bully who needs to STAY IN YOUR OWN LANE.
> 
> Hurry along and go find a Disney Channel forum, where you can be amongst those with the same mentality and knowledge level as you.  Say hi to Mickey and Pluto for me.  My grandkids love those two.
Click to expand...


Who died and made you God, in your mind, anyway? 
Fuck You and the horse you rode in on, you worthless piece of shit. I bet you hear about platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense allot, being that you are fed so much of them all day long. Your people skills are lacking, that is why intelligent debate is so hard for you. Intelligence and knowledge seem more like empty cartridges in your arsenal, Cabin Boy. Big words for you though, I must say that I am impressed.

I'm impressed that you are such an authority on what You think I know, again your problem, not mine. Playground bully? You need to check your premise. Name calling? Try reading your own posts.  Stay in my own lane? Are you one of those old timers that do 15mph in a 30mph and hog the road or drive in the left lane on the Interstate, at 45mph because of the fond memories it brought you 50 years ago? Let me guess, you drive a 75 Cadillac, and sit on a big fat phone book so you can both reach the steering wheel and see out of the windshield?  Fuck, I thought I saw you causing a traffic jam the other day, you need to work on those parallel parking skills old timer, and try to change those depends more regularly, I make that suggestion purely on humanitarian grounds. Daily hygiene is important not only for ourselves and those around us, but the environment too.

You have an obsession for the Disney channel too? OMG? You want to make time with Pluto and Mickey? Too much information for me. Stop right there. I have no interest in your fantasies, be it your obsession with cartoon characters or your defense of Nuclear Incident cover ups. 

Again, my reason for being here is concern for the Nuclear Industry and it's responsibility to Us, We The People. Your Personal Attacks will not keep me from posting on the subject matter. Feel free to address me in PM format. I will respond in kind. My being here is not about having a pissing contest with you. It is about posting relevant information. We obviously do not share the same perspective or concerns. I am entitled to my own, you need to come to terms with that.


----------



## Intense

More platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3oMEqU1oAY&feature=related]&#x202a;Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9pPvJMmTzE&feature=related]&#x202a;Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]
Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency. 6-16-11


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> More platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense.
> 
> &#x202a;Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING.
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency. 6-16-11



From Scientific American on the babies dying from Fukishima. The report was based on flawed analysis of infant mortality data. 

Observations: Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers

For the nebraska plant the fire was in a pumping system for cooling water going to the spent fuel pool. The pump was off for a grand total of 90 minutes, leading to a 2 degree increase in the fuel pool. Boiling would not have occured for another 4 days, and in this case they chose to repair the electrical feed to main pump system instead of using one of several backup systems, because they had plenty of time to do the work. The backup system was on hot standby and ready to work if needed. 

Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant: Scientific American

By all means be skeptical of Nuclear Power safety, but please be more selective in the sources you use for information. Youtube is not exactly a verifiable source, any idiot can put something up.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> More platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense.
> 
> &#x202a;Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING.
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency. 6-16-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Scientific American on the babies dying from Fukishima. The report was based on flawed analysis of infant mortality data.
> 
> Observations: Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers
> 
> For the nebraska plant the fire was in a pumping system for cooling water going to the spent fuel pool. The pump was off for a grand total of 90 minutes, leading to a 2 degree increase in the fuel pool. Boiling would not have occured for another 4 days, and in this case they chose to repair the electrical feed to main pump system instead of using one of several backup systems, because they had plenty of time to do the work. The backup system was on hot standby and ready to work if needed.
> 
> Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant: Scientific American
> 
> By all means be skeptical of Nuclear Power safety, but please be more selective in the sources you use for information. Youtube is not exactly a verifiable source, any idiot can put something up.
Click to expand...


. . . the number of children and grandchildren with cancer in their bones, with leukemia in their blood, or with poison in their lungs might seem statistically small to some, in comparison with natural health hazards, but this is not a natural health hazard--and it is not a statistical issue. The loss of even one human life, or the malformation of even one baby--who may be born long after we are gone--should be of concern to us all. Our children and grandchildren are not merely statistics toward which we can be indifferent. 
-- President Kennedy, June, 1963 

Dr. Rosalie Bertell: 16 Million Radiation Deaths and Counting, 1989

http://peacehq.tripod.com/OSHN/docs/hn-doc0020.rtf

*From Scientific American on the babies dying from Fukishima. The report was based on flawed analysis of infant mortality data. * Conceded. Still, to deny that there is any effect on health is beyond reason.

*By all means be skeptical of Nuclear Power safety, but please be more selective in the sources you use for information. Youtube is not exactly a verifiable source, any idiot can put something up.*
*
For the nebraska plant the fire was in a pumping system for cooling water going to the spent fuel pool. The pump was off for a grand total of 90 minutes, leading to a 2 degree increase in the fuel pool. Boiling would not have occured for another 4 days, and in this case they chose to repair the electrical feed to main pump system instead of using one of several backup systems, because they had plenty of time to do the work. The backup system was on hot standby and ready to work if needed. *

I understand that. My concern is partly about attitude, preparedness, and ability to recognize and adapt to reasonable demand, made apparent by circumstance. For example Nuclear Power Plant, Earthen Damn, and Sand Bag, should never be found in the same paragraph, let alone, the same sentence.  Not even up for debate. Rather than justify, why not fix the problem there? Why is that concept so unreasonable and offensive to some? There is really no excuse for those plants to be flooded out regardless of what goes on outside of them. That is my point. Either you have your shit together regarding Plant Safety and Contingency, or you don't. Coulda-woulda-shoulda is not a defense. We seem to have serious problems with flood control across the Continent, in general. Why do you think that is? All the money we throw away everyday, yet Infrastructure get's short changed every time.

YouTube is not the problem. With Free Speech, one learns to take the good with the bad, and sift.  Point taken though.  Ran out of time last night sorting through dozens of leads and went with what I had. 

There is allot of bullshit out there on both sides, I'm sure you know. There are plenty of pitfalls, blinds, and dead end alley's to go around. The point here is that No source is beyond reproach. That is why we question.


----------



## Intense

NRC Urged to Set Rules Replacing Severe-Accident Guidelines
Q
By Brian Wingfield - Jul 19, 2011 1:50 PM ET

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should substitute government requirements for voluntary industry measures to cope with severe power-plant accidents, the head of a task force studying U.S. reactor safety said.

Expanding the rules &#8220;is warranted&#8221; because the agency doesn&#8217;t check company guidelines, which vary among operators, Charles Miller, the official in charge of the review, said today at a commission meeting in Rockville, Maryland.

U.S. regulators should adopt a framework that may require reactor owners to bolster safety measures, the panel created after the Japan crisis said in a July 13 report. The agency should quickly consider which proposals to advance as new rules, Chairman Gregory Jaczko said.

&#8220;We have 12 very solid recommendations and I think the simplest thing is for the commission to act on those within 90 days,&#8221; Jaczko said.

The NRC task force reviewed safety at the nation&#8217;s 104 commercial nuclear reactors after meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power Co.&#8217;s Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant in Japan. An earthquake and tsunami on March 11 triggered the worst nuclear catastrophe in 25 years, with a loss of electric power leading to hydrogen explosions and radiation leaks at the plant about 135 miles (217 kilometers) north of Tokyo.

Jaczko said he would support a recommendation from the task force to increase the amount of back-up power at U.S. reactors used when the plant loses electricity. 

NRC Urged to Set Rules Replacing Severe-Accident Guidelines - Bloomberg


----------



## TruthSeeker56

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> More platitudes, falsehoods, and chicken-little nonsense.
> 
> &#x202a;Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Fukushima Radiation Contamination of North America THE TRUTH is BABIES are DYING.
> 
> 
> &#x202a;Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube
> Radiation Poisoning Fire at Flooded Nebraska Nuke Plant Leads to Level 4 Emergency. 6-16-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From Scientific American on the babies dying from Fukishima. The report was based on flawed analysis of infant mortality data.
> 
> Observations: Are Babies Dying in the Pacific Northwest Due to Fukushima? A Look at the Numbers
> 
> For the nebraska plant the fire was in a pumping system for cooling water going to the spent fuel pool. The pump was off for a grand total of 90 minutes, leading to a 2 degree increase in the fuel pool. Boiling would not have occured for another 4 days, and in this case they chose to repair the electrical feed to main pump system instead of using one of several backup systems, because they had plenty of time to do the work. The backup system was on hot standby and ready to work if needed.
> 
> Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant: Scientific American
> 
> By all means be skeptical of Nuclear Power safety, but please be more selective in the sources you use for information. Youtube is not exactly a verifiable source, any idiot can put something up.
Click to expand...


Marty, there's not much you can say or do when dealing with the anti-nuke waterheads.  They don't want to know the FACTS.  They don't want to know the SCIENCE.  They don't want to know the TRUTH.  All they want to do is engage in cheezy scare tactics and junk science.  These idiots will be the FIRST ones to bitch and complain when they no longer have electricity and their PlayStation3 becomes a doorstop.


----------



## Intense




----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


>



In both pictures both have most major structures above even the top level of the water. using thier own generators, which appear to be above water, they could provide enough cooling to allow for a cold shutdown of the reactor. also considering river flooding is predictable (unlike a 48 foot high tsunami) appropriate measures can be taken to take the plant offline and safe it. Given even a few days warning additional reasources can be staged to provide even further levels of cooling. 

Also as a response to your last picture:


----------



## TruthSeeker56

I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.

The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.

Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.


----------



## taichiliberal

TruthSeeker56 said:


> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> A LUCKY COINCIDENCE REGARDING THE FLOODING.  And if the flood was just a few feet higher, you would STILL have significant contamination.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Incorrect, as the recent flooding was deemed by all official monitors as UNPRECEDENTED in it's volume.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.




  Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> A LUCKY COINCIDENCE REGARDING THE FLOODING.  And if the flood was just a few feet higher, you would STILL have significant contamination.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Incorrect, as the recent flooding was deemed by all official monitors as UNPRECEDENTED in it's volume.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
Click to expand...


They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.



Again you deflect from the safety issue which is the flooding. What matter is it when the pictures were taken, the point being to show the extent of the damage? You black out the News Access, Restrict Air Traffic, and then say where is the proof. Pretty pathetic. The NRC is not an open book retard. Neither are you. 

You want to post pictures of the flood water receded, do it moron. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is claiming that these pictures are current either. They are too well known for anyone but an idiot like you to to think otherwise. 

The point of the pictures ass wipe, it to show the extent of the damage and threat. Poor deflection. You could not be more full of shit or disingenuous. 

My position is if it is broke fix it, stop with the bullshit excuses and obstruction. The fact that you do not see the problem and so adamantly deny real concerns leads me to wonder if everyone in the industry is as blind and dangerous as you. If that was the case, I would advocate that every plant be shut down, and you all face prosecution. That however is not the case. Maybe you should spend more time playing with your little engine that could, and stop wasting all the grown up's time.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Intense said:


> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you deflect from the safety issue which is the flooding. What matter is it when the pictures were taken, the point being to show the extent of the damage? You black out the News Access, Restrict Air Traffic, and then say where is the proof. Pretty pathetic. The NRC is not an open book retard. Neither are you.
> 
> You want to post pictures of the flood water receded, do it moron. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is claiming that these pictures are current either. They are too well known for anyone but an idiot like you to to think otherwise.
> 
> The point of the pictures ass wipe, it to show the extent of the damage and threat. Poor deflection. You could not be more full of shit or disingenuous.
> 
> My position is if it is broke fix it, stop with the bullshit excuses and obstruction. The fact that you do not see the problem and so adamantly deny real concerns leads me to wonder if everyone in the industry is as blind and dangerous as you. If that was the case, I would advocate that every plant be shut down, and you all face prosecution. That however is not the case. Maybe you should spend more time playing with your little engine that could, and stop wasting all the grown up's time.
Click to expand...


Oooh, you must be REALLY mad at me.  Rolling out the namecalling and playing the playground bully again.  Are you frothing at the mouth, too?  Are you going to try and steal my lunch money, "Biff"?

You don't know what you are talking about, and I am not going to explain the inner workings of a nuclear power plant to you, because:  

1. You won't understand any of it.  
2. Your mind is a closed trap door.  The porch light is off, and nobody is home.  
3. Your pathological insistence on perfection and 100% infallibility is part of your mental illness.  I hope you seek treatment soon.
4. I would rather explain the "floorplan" and "landscape" of the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Power Plant facility to my German Shepherd dog, because her IQ is at least quadruple what yours is.

The only thing I am wondering is if you are "off the grid", since you seem to have deep-rooted problems with the "entities" that provide electricity to your 12x60 house trailer.  Just about all of the electricity produced in the USA is from coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants.  

So, do you have solar panels on your roof?  Perhaps a home wind turbine?  Maybe a few 12 volt batteries and a little power inverter?


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you deflect from the safety issue which is the flooding. What matter is it when the pictures were taken, the point being to show the extent of the damage? You black out the News Access, Restrict Air Traffic, and then say where is the proof. Pretty pathetic. The NRC is not an open book retard. Neither are you.
> 
> You want to post pictures of the flood water receded, do it moron. Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is claiming that these pictures are current either. They are too well known for anyone but an idiot like you to to think otherwise.
> 
> The point of the pictures ass wipe, it to show the extent of the damage and threat. Poor deflection. You could not be more full of shit or disingenuous.
> 
> My position is if it is broke fix it, stop with the bullshit excuses and obstruction. The fact that you do not see the problem and so adamantly deny real concerns leads me to wonder if everyone in the industry is as blind and dangerous as you. If that was the case, I would advocate that every plant be shut down, and you all face prosecution. That however is not the case. Maybe you should spend more time playing with your little engine that could, and stop wasting all the grown up's time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oooh, you must be REALLY mad at me.  Rolling out the namecalling and playing the playground bully again.  Are you frothing at the mouth, too?  Are you going to try and steal my lunch money, "Biff"?
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, and I am not going to explain the inner workings of a nuclear power plant to you, because:
> 
> 1. You won't understand any of it.
> 2. Your mind is a closed trap door.  The porch light is off, and nobody is home.
> 3. Your pathological insistence on perfection and 100% infallibility is part of your mental illness.  I hope you seek treatment soon.
> 4. I would rather explain the "floorplan" and "landscape" of the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Power Plant facility to my German Shepherd dog, because her IQ is at least quadruple what yours is.
> 
> The only thing I am wondering is if you are "off the grid", since you seem to have deep-rooted problems with the "entities" that provide electricity to your 12x60 house trailer.  Just about all of the electricity produced in the USA is from coal-fired power plants and nuclear power plants.
> 
> So, do you have solar panels on your roof?  Perhaps a home wind turbine?  Maybe a few 12 volt batteries and a little power inverter?
Click to expand...


Dear Spineless, I can't be your fantasy anymore, my concern is that your obsession is unhealthy for you, as well as those around you.  Find Another.  You can't have me, you can't be me.
Most people would be able to distinguish between known and unknown vulnerabilities, Einstein. Hint, when the obvious becomes known, reason dictates contingency and preparedness. I understand that is beyond you, I just wonder why the deficiency was not caught in your profile evaluation. Most people again learn from short comings and mistakes. Unfortunately not all. One time for a plant to go under water like that is not excusable, but it is forgivable. For it to happen again, there is no excuse. That is my whole point. You need to grow up, soon. Flood Damage, be it, fresh water, sewage contaminated, or slat water is destructive. You can bullshit yourself all you want with your perspective and credentials, all you want, you are only fooling yourself.


----------



## Intense

Given this reality, the United States must take concrete steps now to address serious shortcomings in nuclear plant safety and security that have been evident for years. No technology can be made perfectly safe, but the United States can and must do more to guard against accidents as well as the threat of terrorist attacks on reactors and spent fuel pools.

The report outlines and explains 23 specific recommendations, listed below.

  = Key recommendation that the NRC should make a top priority.
Preventing and Mitigating the Effects of Severe Accidents

Extend the scope of regulations to include the prevention and mitigation of severe accidents.

Require reactor owners to develop and test emergency procedures for situations when no AC or DC power is available for an extended period.

Modify emergency planning requirements to ensure that everyone at significant risk from a severe accident--not just the people within the arbitrary 10-mile planning zone--is protected.
Improving the Safety and Security of Spent Fuel

The NRC should require plant owners to move spent fuel at reactor sites from storage pools to dry casks when it has cooled enough to do so.

The NRC should require reactor owners to improve the security of existing dry cask storage facilities.

The NRC should require plant owners to significantly improve emergency procedures and operator training for spent fuel pool accidents
Making Existing Reactors Safer

The NRC should enforce its fire protection regulations and compel the owners of more than three dozen reactors to comply with regulations they currently violate.

The NRC should establish timeliness goals for resolving safety issues while continuing to meet its timeliness goals for business-related requests from reactor owners.

The NRC should treat generic and unique safety issues alike. Until a generic issue is resolved, the NRC should account for it as a potential risk factor in its safety analyses and decisionmaking related to all affected reactors.

The NRC should require plant owners to use multiple inspection techniques to ensure detection of any degradation in aging, high-risk equipment.

The NRC should require plant owners to periodically inspect equipment outside the scope of normal inspections, both to determine whether that scope is appropriate and to detect problems before safety margins are compromised.

The NRC should revise its regulations for the licensing of "high burn-up" fuel to ensure public safety, and restrict how this fuel is used until the revisions are complete.

The U.S. government should prohibit the use of plutonium-bearing mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel in reactors, and end the program to produce MOX fuel from excess weapons plutonium.
Ensuring the Continued Safety of Reactors with Renewed Licenses

Before granting a license renewal, the NRC should review all differences between current regulations and any past decisions specific to the aging reactor, to confirm that these differences will not compromise public safety going forward.
Making Existing Reactors More Secure against Terrorist Attacks

The NRC should revise its assumptions about terrorists' capabilities to ensure nuclear plants are adequately protected against credible threats, and these assumptions should be reviewed by U.S. intelligence agencies.

The NRC should modify the way it judges force-on-force security exercises by assessing a plant's "margin to failure," rather than whether the plant merely passes or fails.

The U.S. government should establish a program for licensing private security guards that would require successful completion of a federally supervised training course and periodic recertification.
Making New Reactors More Secure against Terrrorist Attacks

The NRC should require new reactor designs to be safer than existing reactors.

The NRC should require new reactor designs to be more secure against land- and water-based terrorist attacks.
Improving the NRC's Cost-Benefit and Risk-Informed Analyses

The NRC should increase the value it assigns to a human life in its cost-benefit analyses so the value is consistent with other government agencies.

The NRC should require plant owners to calculcate the risk of fuel damage in spent fuel pools as well as reactor cores in all safety analyses.

The NRC should not make decisions about reactor safety using probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) until it has corrected its flawed application of this tool.
Ensuring Public Participation

The NRC should fully restore the public's right to obtain information and question witnesses in hearings about changes to existing power plant licenses and applications for new licenses.
Last Revised: 07/14/11
UCS Nuclear Power Safety & Security Recommendations | Union of Concerned Scientists


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TruthSeeker56 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked at the Ft. Calhoun Nuke Plant in the early 90s.  I can assure you that the plant was in COLD SHUTDOWN before the floodwaters got anywhere near to where they are in the pictures, which by the way were taken back in JUNE.
> 
> A LUCKY COINCIDENCE REGARDING THE FLOODING.  And if the flood was just a few feet higher, you would STILL have significant contamination.
> 
> The Missouri River is narrow and deep in the area where Ft. Calhoun is located.  Any and all "disaster" scenarios are taken into account when the emergency plan is reviewed and approved by the NRC and local and state governments.
> 
> Incorrect, as the recent flooding was deemed by all official monitors as UNPRECEDENTED in it's volume.
> 
> Instead of providing RECENT pictures of the Ft. Calhoun nuke plant, which would show that the floodwaters have receded, the anti-nuke pukes in here make cute little cartoons instead.  Typical grade school bully nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
Click to expand...


We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.

By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
Click to expand...


Given the depth of the water was a serious factor, so was the amount of time it just sat there.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
Click to expand...


Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked. 

And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.

Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.


----------



## TruthSeeker56

Blah, blah, blah.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Anti-nuke waterheads are FUN, but also very annoying.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just acknowledging the FACT that it was SHEER LUCK that Mother Nature didn't decide to go a few feet more, nuke wonks and toadies just keep harping on ONE part of the story. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
Click to expand...


And for a more comical response:


----------



## Intense

TruthSeeker56 said:


> Blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Blah, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Anti-nuke waterheads are FUN, but also very annoying.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtzoUu7w-YM]&#x202a;Ray Stevens - The Streak&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Nuclear plants depend on standby batteries and backup diesel generators. Most standby power systems would continue to function after a severe solar storm, but supplying the standby power systems with adequate fuel, when the main power grids are offline for years, could become a very critical problem.

If the spent fuel rod pools at the country's 104 nuclear power plants lose their connection to the power grid, the current regulations are not sufficient to guarantee those pools won't boil over, exposing the hot, zirconium-clad rods and sparking fires that would release deadly radiation.

A recent report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory discloses that over the standard 40-year license term of nuclear power plants, solar flare activity provides a 33 percent chance of long-term power loss. This is a risk far greater than most other natural disasters, including major earthquakes and tsunamis.

In 1989, a solar storm affected the power grid in Quebec, Canada, leaving roughly six million people without electricity for many hours. A storm of similar magnitude today could cause up to $2 trillion in damage globally.

Massive Solar Storm Could Cause Catastrophic Nuclear Threat in US - International Business Times


----------



## Intense

ATHENS, Ala. &#8212; The Tennessee Valley Authority says it plans to correct a problem that left only 12 of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant's required 100 emergency sirens working after the April 27 tornadoes.

The power loss that left 88 sirens useless also caused problems at the nuclear plant.

Bill McCollum, the TVA's chief operating officer, says the authority is looking at installing emergency sirens with battery backup capability.

All three reactors shut down automatically April 27. A report TVA filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says water levels dropped in the Unit 1 reactor when the water boiled off faster than it was replaced. The cooling systems that control the temperature of the reactors stopped working for 47 minutes on April 28, 57 minutes on May 2 and 40 minutes on May 12.

___

TVA planning to correct problem that left most Browns Ferry sirens useless during tornadoes


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.
> 
> What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius?  You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with.  BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen.  Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.
> 
> But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history.  Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.
> 
> And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.
> 
> Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.
> 
> 
> 
> Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.
Click to expand...


Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool!  All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.

But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant

By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for a more comical response:
Click to expand...



Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty.  Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!


----------



## taichiliberal

Intense said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had additonal contingency plans in place to handle a few more feet of water. From the added berms, to sealing the buildings there were multiple paths they could have taken to address any other issues. Again, the main thing is the flooding was anticipated, so even the online reactor was brought to shutdown, and they had days to enact the critical cooling that is needed in the 2-4 days after a hard shutdown. Fukishima didnt have that. No warning, no cooldown period, and instead of a gradual rise of a river, it had a 48 foot high wall of water hit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Given the depth of the water was a serious factor, so was the amount of time it just sat there.
Click to expand...



You and I disagree on a lot of issues, but on this one we are in sync.  Here's an appropo to what you've been posting here


Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.
> 
> What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius?  You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with.  BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen.  Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.
> 
> But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history.  Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.
> 
> And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.
> 
> Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.
> 
> 
> 
> Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool!  All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.
> 
> But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards
> 
> 
> Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.
Click to expand...


You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening. 

My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured. 

There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for a more comical response:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty.  Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!
Click to expand...


I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.  

I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're not talking about Fukishima, Marty Boy......AGAIN, THE UPRECEDENTED FLOOD WATERS WERE NOT PART OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.  AGAIN, HAD THE WATER GONE A FEW MORE FEET, AFTER THE BERM WALL BROKE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUS TROUBLE DESPITE THE COINCIDENTAL COLD SHUTDOWN.
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty Boy.....and God doesn't give a damn about your contingency plans.  Grow the hell up and deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the depth of the water was a serious factor, so was the amount of time it just sat there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You and I disagree on a lot of issues, but on this one we are in sync.  Here's an appropo to what you've been posting here
> 
> 
> Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant
Click to expand...


From your Link. Interesting find.



> Dear Mr. Bannister:
> The purpose of this letter is to provide you the final significance determination of the preliminary
> Yellow finding identified in our previous communication dated July 15, 2010, which included the
> subject inspection report. The inspection finding was assessed using the Significance
> Determination Process and was preliminarily characterized as a Yellow finding with substantial
> importance to safety that may result in additional NRC inspection and potentially other NRC
> action. This Yellow finding involved the failure to maintain procedures for combating a
> significant flood as required by Technical Specification 5.8.1.a, Procedures.
> At your request, a regulatory conference was held on August 18, 2010, to further discuss your
> views on this issue. During the regulatory conference, your staff described your assessment of
> the significance of the finding, detailed corrective actions, and the root-cause analysis of the
> finding. Additionally, you requested that the NRC reconsider its evaluation of the findings risk
> significance based on six specific arguments. By letter dated September 23, 2010, you also
> provided supplemental information, clarifying information provided during the conference.
> We have reviewed your arguments and our evaluation of each is provided in Enclosure 2 of this
> letter. After considering the information developed during the inspection, and the information
> that you provided at the conference, the NRC has concluded that the finding is appropriately
> characterized as Yellow, a finding with substantial importance to safety that will result in
> additional NRC inspection and potentially other NRC action. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1028/ML102800342.pdf


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please look at the two words you used. UPRECEDENTED and CONTINGENCY? How does one make up contingency plans? One goes on PRECEDENT. We don't require nuke plants to withstand a metor hit, although techincally there is a chance of just that. When figuring out the risk, you have to go with what is feasible to a given risk factor. A contingency plan is based on what you think can happen with a reasonable chance. And thier contigency plan covered flooding. And it was implemented, and it worked.
> 
> What good is "going on precedent" when there is an UNPRECEDENTED event, genius?  You keep babbling bullshit in order to avoid the SIMPLE FACT that had the water just gone a few feet higher, the contingency plan would have been a piss in the wind, and there'd be a whold lot of contamination to deal with.  BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD, that didn't happen.  Damned lucky, given the break in the berm wall.
> 
> But stubborn nuke toadies like you, Marty boy, will just keep parroting moot points, supposition and conjecture to try and gloss over a matter of fact and history.  Let's watch Marty continue to do the nuke power plant safety shuffle, folks.
> 
> And even if the water kept rising, and the building was breached, at that point they had plenty of water around to use fo cooling, basically take gas powered trash pumps and use the river water. It might have ruined the reactor but it would have kept it cool.
> 
> Sure Marty...a flooded out spent rod pool and a "ruined reactor" would have been kept cool and everything would've been hunky dory.....and pigs fly daily over Ft. Calhoun.
> 
> 
> 
> Also even if the plant wasn't shut down due to maintenance, they would have shut it when they determined the river was going to flood. once shut down all you have to do is keep it cool. and guess what you had plenty of lying around. WATER.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool!  All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.
> 
> But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards
> 
> 
> Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.
> 
> I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED!  There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood.  But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point.  Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.
> 
> My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.
> 
> Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques.  This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.
> 
> There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.
Click to expand...


The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And for a more comical response:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty.  Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.
> 
> I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!
> 
> 
> You're a liar, Marty....the chronology of the posts details WHO started name calling and displaying a nasty, condescending attitude...and that would be YOU and your like minded cronies.  What's buring your ass is that I successfully proved you wrong using simple facts and the logic derived from those facts.  Now frustrated at your defeat, you resort to silly and childish name calling and an attempt to change the topic to who insulted who first.
> 
> Again, the chronology of the posts shows the failure of your defense of the nuke industry PR regarding Ft. Calhoun.  Grow the fuck up and deal with it, Marty boy.
Click to expand...


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another fantastic scenario from nuke toadie Marty....why, if the plant is flooded, we have all that nice flood water to keep the nuke fuel cool!  All is well.....save for having all that contaminated water all over the place, (Marty forgets about the spent rod pool), and damage to the plant systems which ain't water proofed.
> 
> But then, all one has to do is a little research to see how close Ft. Calhoun came to a serious calamity by NRC's own standards
> 
> 
> Daily Kos: The Troubling Back Story of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant
> 
> By the Grace of God, Marty boy....and God doesn't give a damn about your belief in your contingency plans when it comes to nuke power plants....whether you accept that or not is of no consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.
> 
> I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED!  There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood.  But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point.  Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.
> 
> My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.
> 
> Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques.  This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.
> 
> There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.
Click to expand...


Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind. 

Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options. 

I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.


----------



## martybegan

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, Marty boy shows the true depth of his intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty.  Way to go, my little nuke power toadie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually responded to your post in a more intellectual way. This response is more due to your name calling. Resorting to name calling and accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill is the height of being butthurt.
> 
> I GOT MORE WHERE THAT CAME FROM!
> 
> 
> You're a liar, Marty....the chronology of the posts details WHO started name calling and displaying a nasty, condescending attitude...and that would be YOU and your like minded cronies.  What's buring your ass is that I successfully proved you wrong using simple facts and the logic derived from those facts.  Now frustrated at your defeat, you resort to silly and childish name calling and an attempt to change the topic to who insulted who first.
> 
> Again, the chronology of the posts shows the failure of your defense of the nuke industry PR regarding Ft. Calhoun.  Grow the fuck up and deal with it, Marty boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only namecalling I can find is that I called your source (huffpo) crap, and I told you your link didn't work. You are the one accusing anyone who disagree's with you a paid shill.  You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill with the events at the plant, and you are being called on it. Again, if you can't deal with people who have opinions that differ from your own, either stop posting or go to some place like DU. You will be far happier.
> 
> The ONLY reason the events at these plants made the news was Fukishima. If Fukishima didn't happen the flooding at the two plants would have been a page 15 blurb in some local paper. Instead we have people making crap up about "how close we came to disaster"
> 
> YOU EARN A DERP!
Click to expand...


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.
> 
> I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED!  There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood.  But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point.  Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.
> 
> My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.
> 
> Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques.  This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.
> 
> There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.
> 
> I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.
Click to expand...


Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,

I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps? 

The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.
> 
> I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,
> 
> I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?
> 
> The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.
Click to expand...


Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well. 

The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it. 

When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.

Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked. 
Even if some of the layers failed temporarily. 


I


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.
> 
> I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,
> 
> I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?
> 
> The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.
> 
> The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.
> 
> When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.
> 
> Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
> Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.
> 
> 
> I
Click to expand...


*Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.*
One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement. 

In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down,  close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.


----------



## martybegan

Intense said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur,
> 
> I posted a link from the NRC showing inadequacies with the Plants Flood Control Capabilities. The plant had known issues and deficiencies, for which it was tagged. Yes modifications were recently made before the flood. Thank God for that, or we might have been singing a different tune. Still, Earthen Damns and Sand Bags should not be a primary defense against flooding, but last ditch. What exactly do you have against cement? How about better drainage pumps?
> 
> The question that concerns me is do you suck it up and make necessary safety improvements so that there is not a repeat performance, or do you fight every inch, tooth and nail, in the state of denial? Make the improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.
> 
> The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.
> 
> When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.
> 
> Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
> Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.*
> One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement.
> 
> In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down,  close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.
Click to expand...


Sounds good, but something like that requires constant maintenance. People like concrete/dirt levees because once you make them maintenance consists of driving down the road next to them once a week looking for problems. Once you get into mechanisms and plates you have to maintain them. 

You also discount the force of water once it breaches something. Trying to slam the plates in while the water is gushing through would probably be futile. 

We also do not have access to the plant O&M manual so we really don't know how thier sump system is designed.


----------



## Intense

martybegan said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option. Concrete levees are a better one, but economics states you only build them as high as you need to. every additonal foot adds to the base size required, and creates access issues as well.
> 
> The tagged deficiency appears to be a mid level one. If it were critical it would not allow response, you would basically just have to do it. We have similar audits and this would be a mid level issue for us as well, giving us up to 60 days to correct it.
> 
> When you build levees you typically build them for the 100 year flood. This was a 200 year flood. When that happens you have to take extra precautions. Also remember that even if the reactor was in full power mode they would have had to shut it off anyway due to even moderate flooding. So basically you would have had several days to cool it down before the flooding reached the levels we saw in the pictures.
> 
> Intense, your concerns are well thought out, and I agree you do have a right to be concerned. I work in Engineering, and we would all like to make everything 100% safe. however 100% safety isnt possible. You implement the best controls you can, and in the case of nuke reactors, go with a layered defense. Here the layered defense worked.
> Even if some of the layers failed temporarily.
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Drainage pumps vs. flooding are not a good option.*
> One reason I mentioned the pumps was that the NRC Report stated that they were inadequate. Another was the length of time the water sat. Even utilizing Fire Engine Pumps to drain the standing water would have been an improvement.
> 
> In general it would be great to see improvement on our ability to repair Levy breaches around the country. Maybe they should all have railroad track across the top. In my mind I envision something that would incorporate railroad track, flat cars, and a mechanism of layered louvered locking steel plates, that would swing down,  close when in position, and be filled with cement. Cool huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but something like that requires constant maintenance. People like concrete/dirt levees because once you make them maintenance consists of driving down the road next to them once a week looking for problems. Once you get into mechanisms and plates you have to maintain them.
> 
> You also discount the force of water once it breaches something. Trying to slam the plates in while the water is gushing through would probably be futile.
> 
> We also do not have access to the plant O&M manual so we really don't know how thier sump system is designed.
Click to expand...


I was thinking that the plates go into the current with the louvers open to reduce drag like open blinds. design them so that when they are in place, you release the safety and the current or gravity slams them shut. 2-3 rows thick, filled in with concrete and it is entombed. The Steel reinforces the concrete, like re-bar. The only problem I see would be debris getting caught in the louvers before they close. Just a thought anyway.


----------



## taichiliberal

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of "ifs" and "could ofs and all that stuff, while basically all the safety systems worked. A slow rising flood also gives people options to figure stuff out as they happen. People who blindly rely on contingency plans and do not THINK while a situation is happening can cause worse problems than orgingally were happening.
> 
> I'm talking about WHAT HAPPENED, Marty boy....the berm, part of the safety systems, BUSTED!  There was an UNPRECEDENTED flood....and the contingency plans THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY LAUDED didn't include that unprecedented flood.  But NOW that you realize that it was by sheer luck and the Grace of God that the uprecedented flood waters didn't go a few feet more, YOU are now trying to BS your way pass the FACT that I'm right and you're wrong on this point.  Sorry Marty, but the chronology of the post exposes your intellectual dishonesty and piss poor attempt to dodge your failure.
> 
> My problem is not with people who question nuclear safety, it is with those who fall for hyperbole and "shock" information that is often at a minimum misleading, and often patently false. The incident with this plant started with people calling a "LEVEL 4 EMERGENCY" and screaming that a no fly zone was declared due to radioactive leak from the problem with the electrical supply to the cooling pool pumps when no such leak occured.
> 
> Actually, your problem is NOT acknowledging the failures and problems of the nuke industry....and then dodging and misrepresenting fact based critiques.  This "incident" with this plant started with an UNPRECEDENTED flood endangering a nuke plant...a broken berm wall and everyone nervously watching whether the flood levels would continue to rise......so spare us all your hyperbole and exaggerations, Marty boy.
> 
> There is a difference between concern and chicken little fear of every little thing that goes bump in the night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.
> 
> I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.
Click to expand...



You don't even understand the concept of unprcedented events, do ya Marty boy?  Bottom line: the Nuke power plant wonks and toadies are consistently assuring everyone that all contingency plans are sound, and all the bases are covered.  

Then God and Mother Nature decides to play by a different set of rules, and suddenly all that expertise is either for naught or proven to be frightfully flawed.

Time and again YOU keep making lame ass excuses for a system that had failed, AND BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD was not further inundated by higher flood waters.  The "system" lucked out, plain and simple, and all your supposition and conjecture won't change that, Marty boy.  You "don't get" that and WON'T get that because it would mean admitting a serious flaw in the religious mantra of how safe nuke plants have been all these years.  I expect nothing less or more from the likes of you, Marty boy....Carry on predictably, my little nuke power toadie.


----------



## Intense

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is between dealing with facts that contradict the Nuke power industry PR and the wishful thinking of nuke toadies, as the chronology of the posts shows.  Carry on predictably, Marty boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a contigency plan include an *unprecedented* flood? Plans have to be based on events that are likely to occur, or you basically fill your binder up with useless crap contigency plans for alien attack or al gore coming to blow the plant down with his mighty wind.
> 
> Do you even understand the concept of layered defense? Yes a temporary berm broke. The other layers held. Yes there was an electrical fire that shut the pumps down for 90 minutes, the backups were availible. The water was rising so slowly they had plenty of time to figure out options.
> 
> I just don't get how you are trying to make this out to be some huge dodged bullet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even understand the concept of unprcedented events, do ya Marty boy?  Bottom line: the Nuke power plant wonks and toadies are consistently assuring everyone that all contingency plans are sound, and all the bases are covered.
> 
> Then God and Mother Nature decides to play by a different set of rules, and suddenly all that expertise is either for naught or proven to be frightfully flawed.
> 
> Time and again YOU keep making lame ass excuses for a system that had failed, AND BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD was not further inundated by higher flood waters.  The "system" lucked out, plain and simple, and all your supposition and conjecture won't change that, Marty boy.  You "don't get" that and WON'T get that because it would mean admitting a serious flaw in the religious mantra of how safe nuke plants have been all these years.  I expect nothing less or more from the likes of you, Marty boy....Carry on predictably, my little nuke power toadie.
Click to expand...




> You don't even understand the concept of unprcedented events, do ya Marty boy?  Bottom line: the Nuke power plant wonks and toadies are consistently assuring everyone that all contingency plans are sound, and all the bases are covered.


That has also bothered me from the start. Right after I saw "The China Syndrome" literally, 3 Mile Island hit the front page with the core melt down. Went to the movies one night, and woke up to the news on the radio the next morning.


----------

