Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 18:25.
"an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America's 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater"
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 18:34.
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.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 19:04.
You know, I've been reading a lot about nuclear energy since March and the more I read the more I'm able to envision an hypothetic world where nuclear reactors are safe. But not with this sloppy regulators, big corporations with enough media power to distort the public perception of the risks, corrupt politicians and, specially, the lack of a current viable solution for the spent fuel problem (you know, like flying on a plane for which the landing runway has not yet been built and for which we will be charged an extra fee nobody warned us about).
A lot of structural changes are needed and safety measures would have to be increased, the price of the spent fuel processing and storage would have to be included and by the time we manage to do that renewable energy sources would be economically preferable and nuclear energy would not survive. Better start investing now on that change and stop spending money on end of line technology.
As I said, before March I only had vague memories of some events called Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that were pretty scary. Take this as my uneducated analysis.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2011-06-25 10:59.
:(
I concur, that substantially safer nuclear power plant designs are tecnically feasible.
Many of the difficulties are deeply ingrained human behaviors, such as denial and 'corporate loyalty'. The same behavior patterns created and compounded the problems in the Soviet Union, France, Japan and USA nuclear disasters.
The psychology of the nuclear proponents is just plain scary. The early safety assurances by US politicians, regulatory authorities, media and the speaker's circuit were; technically incorrect and directly damaging to public safety. The two worst offenders in the USA were Ann Coulter and Barack Obama.
The mass bombardment of assurances were quite simply unfounded. Every facet of the mass media trumpeted the same mindless dismissals of danger.
The Fukushima meltdowns quickly eclipsed the category 7 level of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The scale will now need to include a Level-8 for what HAS provably occured in Fukushima. The scale will further require a Level-9 for a Spent-Fuel-Pool disaster; that may have or may yet occur at the Fukushima Electrical Generation Complex.
Submitted by Red Murcury (not verified) on Mon, 2011-06-27 23:12.
After the NEW costs are calculated Nukes become a very poor value. Wasting money is private matter and should never become public intention or cost. Of course there will continue to be dumping grounds for our cast-off technology. That should be fun, but radiation on the wind instead of the pesticides that they ship back to us when we import food from them.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 18:44.
Most of the fears are unfounded. It is true that the NRC is allowing for power uprates etc., but this is due to the fact that we know how the reactors work now. Back in the 50s when they were designed, they were over engineered and had conservative limits put in place. Now that we have supercomputers and 50 years of new scientific advances, we can better understand how they work. Thus allowing for higher power rates. Of course this makes it look like the NRC is cozy with the power companies, but it is just our understanding allows for more efficient running of reactors.
Submitted by Bill Duff (not verified) on Sat, 2011-06-25 11:13.
;)
Actually, many of 'the fears' are quite well grounded in realty.
Flagrant design flaws are widespread in the USA nuclear power plant inventory.
An extremely dangerous 'group-think' mentality pervades the industry. There are simply no lies or dirty tricks that are 'off-limits' for the cadre of nuclear 'industry-faithfuls'.
Perhaps the USA could be well served by a new generation of nuclear power plants. Perhaps we would be better served by scaling the industry down to 1/10th its present size.
Certainly the future public policy of the USA, must escape the 'mind-set' of the GE proponents and the Greenpeace opponents of nuclear energy. For the present, virtually the entire public arena is devoted to their equally mindless 'mind-sets'. Both are by my lights, pathological and malignant.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 19:05.
It does, but not to the point where I am concerned. We should really build new ones to replace the old ones, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 18:50.
"Corroded piping: Nuclear operators have failed to stop an epidemic of leaks in pipes and other underground equipment in damp settings. The country's nuclear sites have suffered more than 400 accidental radioactive leaks during their history, the activist Union of Concerned Scientists reported in September.
Plant operators have been drilling monitoring wells and patching hidden or buried piping and other equipment for several years to control an escalating outbreak.
Here, too, they have failed. Between 2000 and 2009, the annual number of leaks from underground piping shot up fivefold, according to an internal industry document obtained and analyzed by the AP."
Submitted by Tdm (not verified) on Thu, 2011-06-23 18:40.
Move it or loose it - fix It or forget it.
The nuclear industry better wise up to these reports and make corrections or public support will vanish.I am glad we are learning from Japan and reporters are looking at us safety concerns.
NRC welcomes attention
Late Tuesday, the NRC said it “welcomed the attention to nuclear plant safety the stories have generated”.
Read more:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/22/national/main20073181.shtml#ix...
U.S. nuke regulators weaken safety rules
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/20/national/main20072497.shtml
Feds seek nuke plants' plans for terror attacks
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/11/national/main20061880.shtml
High radiation prompts evac at Ohio nuke plant
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/27/national/main20057775.shtml
"an Associated Press
"an Associated Press investigation that shows three-quarters of America's 65 nuclear plant sites have leaked radioactive tritium, sometimes into groundwater"
Jesus Christ.
Still not as dangerous as
Still not as dangerous as all the crap that gets released from every other industrial facility.
it's not good either .And downplay this
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.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/20/national/main20072497.shtml?ta...
You know, I've been reading
You know, I've been reading a lot about nuclear energy since March and the more I read the more I'm able to envision an hypothetic world where nuclear reactors are safe. But not with this sloppy regulators, big corporations with enough media power to distort the public perception of the risks, corrupt politicians and, specially, the lack of a current viable solution for the spent fuel problem (you know, like flying on a plane for which the landing runway has not yet been built and for which we will be charged an extra fee nobody warned us about).
A lot of structural changes are needed and safety measures would have to be increased, the price of the spent fuel processing and storage would have to be included and by the time we manage to do that renewable energy sources would be economically preferable and nuclear energy would not survive. Better start investing now on that change and stop spending money on end of line technology.
As I said, before March I only had vague memories of some events called Three Mile Island and Chernobyl that were pretty scary. Take this as my uneducated analysis.
Group Think Dangers
:(
I concur, that substantially safer nuclear power plant designs are tecnically feasible.
Many of the difficulties are deeply ingrained human behaviors, such as denial and 'corporate loyalty'. The same behavior patterns created and compounded the problems in the Soviet Union, France, Japan and USA nuclear disasters.
The psychology of the nuclear proponents is just plain scary. The early safety assurances by US politicians, regulatory authorities, media and the speaker's circuit were; technically incorrect and directly damaging to public safety. The two worst offenders in the USA were Ann Coulter and Barack Obama.
The mass bombardment of assurances were quite simply unfounded. Every facet of the mass media trumpeted the same mindless dismissals of danger.
The Fukushima meltdowns quickly eclipsed the category 7 level of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The scale will now need to include a Level-8 for what HAS provably occured in Fukushima. The scale will further require a Level-9 for a Spent-Fuel-Pool disaster; that may have or may yet occur at the Fukushima Electrical Generation Complex.
:(
cost
After the NEW costs are calculated Nukes become a very poor value. Wasting money is private matter and should never become public intention or cost. Of course there will continue to be dumping grounds for our cast-off technology. That should be fun, but radiation on the wind instead of the pesticides that they ship back to us when we import food from them.
Most of the fears are
Most of the fears are unfounded. It is true that the NRC is allowing for power uprates etc., but this is due to the fact that we know how the reactors work now. Back in the 50s when they were designed, they were over engineered and had conservative limits put in place. Now that we have supercomputers and 50 years of new scientific advances, we can better understand how they work. Thus allowing for higher power rates. Of course this makes it look like the NRC is cozy with the power companies, but it is just our understanding allows for more efficient running of reactors.
Well Grounded Fears
;)
Actually, many of 'the fears' are quite well grounded in realty.
Flagrant design flaws are widespread in the USA nuclear power plant inventory.
An extremely dangerous 'group-think' mentality pervades the industry. There are simply no lies or dirty tricks that are 'off-limits' for the cadre of nuclear 'industry-faithfuls'.
Perhaps the USA could be well served by a new generation of nuclear power plants. Perhaps we would be better served by scaling the industry down to 1/10th its present size.
Certainly the future public policy of the USA, must escape the 'mind-set' of the GE proponents and the Greenpeace opponents of nuclear energy. For the present, virtually the entire public arena is devoted to their equally mindless 'mind-sets'. Both are by my lights, pathological and malignant.
;)
Aging plant
U can honestly say the aging plant effect doesn't concern u?
It does, but not to the
It does, but not to the point where I am concerned. We should really build new ones to replace the old ones, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon
Most key word
"Corroded piping: Nuclear operators have failed to stop an epidemic of leaks in pipes and other underground equipment in damp settings. The country's nuclear sites have suffered more than 400 accidental radioactive leaks during their history, the activist Union of Concerned Scientists reported in September.
Plant operators have been drilling monitoring wells and patching hidden or buried piping and other equipment for several years to control an escalating outbreak.
Here, too, they have failed. Between 2000 and 2009, the annual number of leaks from underground piping shot up fivefold, according to an internal industry document obtained and analyzed by the AP."
Move it or loose it - fix It
Move it or loose it - fix It or forget it.
The nuclear industry better wise up to these reports and make corrections or public support will vanish.I am glad we are learning from Japan and reporters are looking at us safety concerns.