Please share far and wide!

Search This Blog

Monday, August 10, 2015

Over 500 Federal Agencies, But the Basic Law Only Allows for a Handful of Agencies and Functions

Pretty off topic for an Energy blog, however, I think it is part of the problem.  

Way too large a government, over 500 Federal Agencies, being influenced in way too many ways.

Think if a candidate promised to eliminate / combine 200 of these agencies.   He would probably lose the gov worker votes, and the moocher votes.

He or she would get my vote.    Hillary "don't let anyone, you know, tell you that businesses create jobs" Clinton would not eliminate any agencies, but rather increase their numbers and sizes. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to the spreadsheet on Box (don't confuse this with Dropbox which I don't like for several reasons.


 https://app.box.com/s/i0cqeo2otcx8y8zanl0w97jh2r2pz9ze

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a
Compiled by Nukepro and support crew
532 Federal Agencies
55 State and similar governments
587 Total agencies listed at this site




How much better off would the USA be if 200 of these agencies were
eliminated and those "tax payer supported" worker were offered
some real productive work?




No. Could Be Eliminated Name Action to Eliminate, or combine into other agency
1     AbilityOne Commission
2     Access Board
3     Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
4     Administration for Native Americans
5     Administration on Aging (AoA)
6     Administration on Developmental Disabilities
7     Administrative Conference of the United States
8     Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
9     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
10     African Development Foundation
11     Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
12     Agency for International Development (USAID)
13     Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
14     Agricultural Marketing Service
15     Agricultural Research Service
16     Agriculture Department (USDA)
17     Air Force
18     Air Force Reserve
19     Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
20     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau
21     AmeriCorps
22     American Battle Monuments Commission
23     American Samoa
24     Amtrak (AMTRAK)
25     Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
26     Antitrust Division
27     Architect of the Capitol
28     Archives (National Archives and Records Administration) (NARA)
29     Arctic Research Commission
30     Armed Forces Retirement Home
31     Arms Control and International Security
32     Army
33     Army Corps of Engineers
34     Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee
35     Bankruptcy Courts
36     Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship and Excellence in Education Program
37     Bonneville Power Administration
38     Botanic Garden
39     Broadcasting Board of Governors
40     Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
41     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
42     Bureau of Consular Affairs
43     Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection
44     Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
45     Bureau of Indian Affairs
46     Bureau of Industry and Security
47     Bureau of International Labor Affairs
48     Bureau of Justice Statistics
49     Bureau of Labor Statistics
50     Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
51     Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
52     Bureau of Prisons
53     Bureau of Reclamation
54     Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)  
55     Bureau of Transportation Statistics
56     Bureau of the Census
57     Bureau of the Fiscal Service
58     Bureau of the Public Debt
59     Capitol Police
60     Capitol Visitor Center
61     Census Bureau
62     Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
63     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
64     Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
65     Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
66     Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board
67     Chief Acquisition Officers Council
68     Chief Financial Officers Council
69     Chief Human Capital Officers Council
70     Chief Information Officers Council
71     Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee
72     Citizenship and Immigration Services
73     Coast Guard
74     Commerce Department (DOC)
75     Commission of Fine Arts
76     Commission on Civil Rights
77     Commission on International Religious Freedom
78     Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki Commission)
79     Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
80     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
81     Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
82     Community Planning and Development
83     Compliance, Office of
84     Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US CERT)
85     Congress—U.S. House of Representatives
86     Congress—U.S. Senate
87     Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
88     Congressional Research Service
89     Consular Affairs, Bureau of
90     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
91     Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
92     Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
93     Copyright Office
94     Corps of Engineers
95     Council of Economic Advisers
96     Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
97     Council on Environmental Quality
98     Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
99     Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
100     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
101     Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
102     Court of Federal Claims
103     Court of International Trade
104     Customs and Border Protection
105     Defense Acquisition University
106     Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
107     Defense Commissary Agency
108     Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
109     Defense Contract Management Agency
110     Defense Field Activities
111     Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
112     Defense Finance and Accounting Service Out-of-Service Debt Management Center
113     Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
114     Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
115     Defense Legal Services Agency
116     Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
117     Defense Security Service (DSS)
118     Defense Technical Information Center
119     Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)
120     Delaware River Basin Commission
121     Denali Commission
122     Department of Agriculture (USDA)
123     Department of Commerce (DOC)
124     Department of Defense
125     Department of Education (ED)
126     Department of Energy (DOE)
127     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
128     Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
129     Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
130     Department of Justice (DOJ)
131     Department of Labor (DOL)
132     Department of State (DOS)
133     Department of Transportation (DOT)
134     Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
135     Department of the Interior (DOI)
136     Department of the Treasury
137     Director of National Intelligence, Office of
138     Domestic Policy Council
139     Drug Enforcement Administration
140     Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy
141     Economic Adjustment Office
142     Economic Analysis, Bureau of (BEA)
143     Economic Development Administration (EDA)
144     Economic Research Service
145     Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs
146     Economics and Statistics Administration
147     Education Department (ED)
148     Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
149     Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
150     Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of (OESE)
151     Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
152     Employment and Training Administration
153     Endangered Species Program
154     Energy Department (DOE)
155     Energy Information Administration
156     English Language Acquisition Office
157     Environmental Management (Energy Department)
158     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
159     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
160     European Command
161     Executive Office for Immigration Review
162     Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)
163     Fannie Mae
164     Farm Credit Administration
165     Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
166     Farm Service Agency
167     Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
168     Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
169     Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
170     Federal Bureau of Prisons
171     Federal Citizen Information Center
172     Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
173     Federal Consulting Group
174     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
175     Federal Election Commission
176     Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
177     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
178     Federal Executive Boards
179     Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
180     Federal Financing Bank
181     Federal Geographic Data Committee
182     Federal Highway Administration
183     Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
184     Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
185     Federal Housing Finance Agency
186     Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds
187     Federal Interagency Committee on Education
188     Federal Interagency Council on Statistical Policy
189     Federal Judicial Center
190     Federal Labor Relations Authority
191     Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer
192     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
193     Federal Library and Information Center Committee
194     Federal Maritime Commission
195     Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service
196     Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
197     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
198     Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
199     Federal Protective Service
200     Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
201     Federal Register
202     Federal Reserve System
203     Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board
204     Federal Student Aid Information Center
205     Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
206     Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
207     Federal Voting Assistance Program
208     Federated States of Micronesia
209     Financial Management Service
210     Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Commission
211     Fiscal Service, Bureau of
212     Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
213     Food Safety and Inspection Service
214     Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
215     Foreign Agricultural Service
216     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
217     Forest Service
218     Fossil Energy
219     Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board
220     General Services Administration (GSA)
221     Geological Survey (USGS)
222     Global Affairs (State Department)
223     Government Accountability Office (GAO)
224     Government Ethics, Office of
225     Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
226     Government Publishing Office
227     Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
228     Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation
229     Health Resources and Services Administration
230     Health and Human Services Department (HHS)
231     Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control Office
232     Helsinki Commission
233     Holocaust Memorial Museum
234     Homeland Security Department (DHS)
235     House Office of Inspector General
236     House Office of the Clerk
237     House of Representatives
238     Housing Office
239     Immigration and Citizenship Services
240     Immigration and Customs Enforcement
241     Indian Affairs
242     Indian Arts and Crafts Board
243     Indian Health Service
244     Industrial College of the Armed Forces
245     Industry and Security, Bureau of
246     Information Resource Management College
247     Information Resources Center (ERIC)
248     Innovation and Improvement Office
249     Inspectors General
250     Institute of Education Sciences
251     Institute of Museum and Library Services
252     Institute of Peace
253     Inter-American Foundation
254     Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
255     Interagency Council on Homelessness
256     Interior Department (DOI)
257     Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
258     International Labor Affairs, Bureau of
259     International Trade Administration (ITA)
260     International Trade Commission
261     Interpol
262     James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation
263     Japan-United States Friendship Commission
264     Job Corps
265     John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts
266     Joint Board for the Enrollment of Actuaries
267     Joint Chiefs of Staff
268     Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies
269     Joint Fire Science Program
270     Joint Forces Command
271     Joint Forces Staff College
272     Joint Military Intelligence College
273     Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeal
274     Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
275     Justice Department (DOJ)
276     Justice Programs, Office of
277     Justice Statistics, Bureau of
278     Labor Department (DOL)
279     Labor Statistics, Bureau of
280     Land Management, Bureau of (BLM)
281     Legal Services Corporation
282     Library of Congress (LOC)
283     Marine Mammal Commission
284     Maritime Administration (MARAD)
285     Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Agriculture Department)
286     Marshals Service
287     Massachusetts
288     Mediation and Conciliation Service
289     Medicaid (CMS)
290     Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission
291     Medicare (CMS)
292     Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
293     Merit Systems Protection Board
294     Migratory Bird Conservation Commission
295     Military Postal Service Agency
296     Millennium Challenge Corporation
297     Mine Safety and Health Administration
298     Minority Business Development Agency
299     Mint
300     Missile Defense Agency (MDA)
301     Mississippi River Commission
302     Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation
303     Multifamily Housing Office
304     NOAA Fisheries
305     National AIDS Policy Office
306     National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
307     National Agricultural Statistics Service
308     National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
309     National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare
310     National Capital Planning Commission
311     National Cemetery Administration
312     National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
313     National Constitution Center
314     National Council on Disability (NCD)
315     National Counterintelligence Executive, Office of
316     National Credit Union Administration
317     National Defense University
318     National Defense University iCollege
319     National Drug Intelligence Center
320     National Economic Council
321     National Endowment for the Arts
322     National Endowment for the Humanities
323     National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
324     National Gallery of Art
325     National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
326     National Guard
327     National Health Information Center (NHIC)
328     National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
329     National Indian Gaming Commission
330     National Institute of Corrections
331     National Institute of Food and Agriculture
332     National Institute of Justice
333     National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
334     National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
335     National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
336     National Institutes of Health (NIH)
337     National Intelligence University
338     National Interagency Fire Center
339     National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
340     National Laboratories (Energy Department)
341     National Marine Fisheries Service
342     National Mediation Board
343     National Nuclear Security Administration
344     National Ocean Service
345     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
346     National Park Foundation
347     National Park Service
348     National Passport Information Center (NPIC)
349     National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
350     National Reconnaissance Office
351     National Science Foundation (NSF)
352     National Security Agency (NSA)
353     National Security Council
354     National Technical Information Service
355     National Telecommunications and Information Administration
356     National Transportation Safety Board
357     National War College
358     National Weather Service (NOAA)
359     Natural Resources Conservation Service
360     Natural Resources Revenue, Office of
361     Northern Command
362     Northern Mariana Islands
363     Northwest Power Planning Council
364     Northwest Power and Conservation Council
365     Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
366     Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
367     Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board
368     Oak Ridge National Laboratory
369     Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
370     Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
371     Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of (BOEM)
372     Office for Civil Rights, Department of Education
373     Office of Community Planning and Development
374     Office of Compliance
375     Office of Disability Employment Policy
376     Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)
377     Office of Fossil Energy
378     Office of Government Ethics
379     Office of Housing
380     Office of Justice Programs
381     Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
382     Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
383     Office of Natural Resources Revenue
384     Office of Nuclear Energy (Department of Energy)
385     Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
386     Office of Refugee Resettlement
387     Office of Science and Technology Policy
388     Office of Scientific and Technical Information
389     Office of Servicemember Affairs
390     Office of Special Counsel
391     Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
392     Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
393     Office of the Director of National Intelligence
394     Office of the Federal Register
395     Office of the Pardon Attorney
396     Open World Leadership Center
397     Out-of-Service Debt Management Center
398     Overseas Private Investment Corporation
399     Pacific Command
400     Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council
401     Pardon Attorney, Office of
402     Parole Commission (Justice Department)
404     Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)
405     Pentagon Force Protection Agency
406     Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
407     Policy Development and Research (HUD)
408     Political Affairs (State Department)
409     Postal Regulatory Commission
410     Postal Service (USPS)
411     Power Administrations
412     President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
413     Presidio Trust
414     Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office
415     Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (State Department)
416     Public and Indian Housing
417     Radio Free Asia (RFA)
418     Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)
419     Radio and TV Marti
420     Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
421     Reclamation, Bureau of
422     Refugee Resettlement, Office of
423     Regulatory Information Service Center
424     Rehabilitation Services Administration (Education Department)
425     Republic of The Marshall Islands
426     Research and Innovative Technology Administration
427     Risk Management Agency (Agriculture Department)
428     Rural Business and Cooperative Programs
429     Rural Development
430     Rural Housing Service
431     Rural Utilities Service
432     Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Bureau of (BSEE)
433     Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
434     Science Office (Energy Department)
435     Science and Technology Policy, Office of
436     Scientific and Technical Information, Office of
437     Secret Service
438     Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
439     Selective Service System (SSS)
440     Senate
441     Small Business Administration (SBA)
442     Smithsonian Institution
443     Social Security Administration (SSA)
444     Social Security Advisory Board
445     Southeastern Power Administration
446     Southern Command
447     Southwestern Power Administration
448     Special Forces Operations Command
449     State Department (DOS)
450     State Justice Institute
451     Stennis Center for Public Service
452     Strategic Command
453     Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
454     Supreme Court of the United States
455     Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
456     Surface Transportation Board
457     Susquehanna River Basin Commission
458     TRICARE Management
459     Tax Court
460     Taxpayer Advocacy Panel
461     Tennessee Valley Authority
462     Trade and Development Agency
463     Transportation Command
464     Transportation Department (DOT)
465     Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
466     Transportation Statistics, Bureau of
467     Treasury Department
468     Trustee Program
469     U.S. AbilityOne Commission
470     U.S. Access Board
471     U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
472     U.S. Air Force
473     U.S. Air Force Reserve Command
474     U.S. Arctic Research Commission
475     U.S. Army
476     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
477     U.S. Botanic Garden
478     U.S. Capitol Police
479     U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
480     U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
481     U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal
482     U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
483     U.S. Coast Guard
484     U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
485     U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
486     U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
487     U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
488     U.S. Customs and Border Protection
489     U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
490     U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)
491     U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
492     U.S. Department of the Treasury
493     U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC)
494     U.S. Fleet Forces Command
495     U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
496     U.S. House of Representatives
497     U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
498     U.S. International Trade Commission
499     U.S. Marine Corps
500     U.S. Military Academy, West Point
501     U.S. Mission to the United Nations
502     U.S. National Central Bureau - Interpol
503     U.S. Navy
504     U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
505     U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
506     U.S. Senate
507     U.S. Sentencing Commission
508     U.S. Trade Representative
509     U.S. Trade and Development Agency
510     U.S. Trustee Program
511     US-CERT (US CERT)
512     Unified Combatant Commands (Defense Department)
513     Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
514     United States Mint
515     United States Postal Inspection Service
516     Veterans Affairs Department (VA)
517     Veterans Benefits Administration
518     Veterans Day National Committee
519     Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS)
520     Veterans' Employment and Training Service
521     Vietnam Education Foundation
522     Voice of America
523     Washington Headquarters Services
524     Weather Service (NOAA)
525     Weights and Measures Division
526     West Point (Army)
527     Western Area Power Administration
528     White House
529     White House Commission on Presidential Scholars
530     White House Office of Administration
531     Women's Bureau (Labor Department)
532     Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
1 s     Alabama
2 s     Alaska
3 s     Arizona
4 s     Arkansas
5 s     California
6 s     Colorado
7 s     Connecticut
8 s     Delaware
9 s     District of Columbia
10 s     Florida
11 s     Georgia
12 s     Guam
13 s     Hawaii
14 s     Idaho
15 s     Illinois
16 s     Indiana
17 s     Iowa
18 s     Kansas
19 s     Kentucky
20 s     Louisiana
21 s     Maine
22 s     Maryland
23 s     Michigan
24 s     Minnesota
25 s     Minor Outlying Islands
26 s     Mississippi
27 s     Missouri
28 s     Montana
29 s     Nebraska
30 s     Nevada
31 s     New Hampshire
32 s     New Jersey
33 s     New Mexico
34 s     New York
35 s     North Carolina
36 s     North Dakota
37 s     Ohio
38 s     Oklahoma
39 s     Oregon
40 s     Palau
41 s     Pennsylvania
42 s     Puerto Rico
43 s     Rhode Island
44 s     South Carolina
45 s     South Dakota
46 s     Tennessee
47 s     Texas
48 s     Utah
49 s     Vermont
50 s     Virginia
51 s     Washington
52 s     West Virginia
53 s     Wisconsin
54 s     Wyoming
55 s     U.S. Virgin Islands

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Fukushima Camera Watchers, and New and Alternate Spot Continue Discussions and Reach a Broad Audience

I used to post articles on "reddit", but then lost my access to a hushmail account I was using, because I didn't use it often enough.

reddit is a great organization for open discussions, promotion of causes.  They are reliable, and they are a professional organization.

They won't sell you out, meaning they won't give out any personal information (i.e. your email) with a court ordered document that is legit.  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: There are a bunch of excellent and time committed Fukushima Camera Watchers who strive fill in the blanks of the void of proper news coverage of Fukushima.

They have for over 4 years held discussions at ENENEWS on a special forum, which is "often broke".    ENENEWS went down hard for a whole day last week.    The Admin has provided a great service being an excellent news aggregator and not lets Fukushima fall into the shadows, whilst it continues to spew radiation and heavy metals.

Cam Watchers and Off Topic posters are worried that the whole forum and their ability to communicate with each other could potentially go away at any time.....this would be a crying shame.

New Fukushima Camera Watchers forum at reddit

I sent a request today to create the subreddit underlined above.

The initial computer response was that I didn't have a long enough sign up period, so I sent a request for variance to create this anyway.   We will see what happens.

I recommend that you all get a free reddit account today.    It's easy, and they will work to protect your privacy too.     When the government insists on coverups, it is not crazy to take simple step to protect privacy.   Make it hard on the bastards.

If you also sign up through a free hushmail account, that is an extra step of protection, an additional court order to get to the "real you", I guess that means providing your IP address, computer people will know more than I.

Sign up HERE

Choose "create an account" on the upper right hand side
https://www.reddit.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a flyer from reddit on their security policy
https://www.redditstatic.com/transparency/2014.pdf

And here is a summary, they only release information on a valid court order.
In 2014, we successfully fought back against
two civil subpoenas that sought to unmask
more than a dozen anonymous users

Friday, August 7, 2015

High Five to Miriam German Who Runs Radcast.org

https://www.radcast.org/

Check it out

She also authored this Hiroshima anniversary article on Counterpunch

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/07/follow-the-radiation/

You have seen what I’ve seen. You know basically what I know. You know that communities near and relatively far from nuclear power plants are getting dosed with radiation, an act that is sanctioned by the NRC. You can see it for yourselves in the charts I’ve presented. We know that according to Dr. Ian Fairle and studies reported in the Lancet, that workers at nuclear power plants develop leukemia at more than double the previous estimates in studies from 2005.
The essence of the argument against nuclear is that nuclear power kills.
And she has 7 charts showing EPA radiation monitoring and "reportable events" at Columbia Generating Station CGS Nuclear Plant.    They are astounding, here is one of them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And the NIRS has always been a professional and great site.    Here is their take on shutting down Indian Point

http://www.nirs.org/closeindianpoint/closeindianpoint.htm





Thursday, August 6, 2015

Fukushima Spent Fuel Pool 4, Burnup, Meltout, Nuclear Explosion also?


stock here.
lol, a reply to codeshutdown
------------------------------------------------------
Sheesh bro (or sis), it's the melted MOX from the equipment pool, it picked up some steel and shite along it short traverse to the "right", was cooler than the melting point of steel at the point of slumping out, hit a few pressurized tanks or pipes which blasted some of it.

It wasn't that radioactive, since it was fresh fuel....mostly Alphas that stop in a few CM of air...so they bulldozed the whole kit and kaboodle into the ocean with remote or even kamakazie bulldozer drivers....then they cemented the bottom of the harbor several times to handle those pesky high plutonium readings the USA and French MOX industry asked them to "be discreet with to prevent panic and illness due to fear".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

phillipupnorth (in da UP eh?) posts some good stuff
I pulled out his picture links and put this into a very consumable format

One commenter suggested that it could be corium sitting on the steel pipe because corium would melt the pipe.    Below pictures show that it is possible as steel has a significantly higher melting point than uranium (95% of the corium is uranium)



  ---------------------------------------------
 PhilipUpNorth August 6, 2015 at 3:17 pm

  Last time (I hope) to answer SFP 4 Deniers:

 The photo on the left side is the north wall of Unit 4:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/simplyinfo/10710313415/in/album-72157635765810656/ 



Note the meltout flowing out of the 4 th floor missing panel, down the outside of the building, and pooling on the big vent pipe. Where did this meltout originate?

Cross section of GE Mark 1 reactor similar to Unit 4.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/files/2011/03/GE_BWR_Containment_Diagram.jpg



Note that the Equipment Pool isn't as deep as the SFP on the opposite side if the PCV. The bottom of the EP is on the 4th floor. Note that the EP abuts the outer wall of the reactor building.

Photo of Yellow Corium exiting from 4th floor, out of the bottom of EP.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LVB30e8BV2M/UQwuBOvLP5I/AAAAAAAABBA/aPxQteQ5xFw/s1600/CoriumFukushimanumber3.PNG 



Another view of the corium exiting north wall of Unit 4:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4ojI8DCOgqw/VMKOgwCO_EI/AAAAAAAAO9k/4kTvuP0hHr0/s1600
 /r4%2Bequipment%2Bpool%2Bmeltout.png 



Note the corium blob on top of the big vent pipe. What could it be?

PattieB (reposted from ENEnews) July 23, 2013 at 7:02 pm Log in to Reply yes…

257 rods @ 1200 lbs.. 700 lbs each rod average is fissionable.. these were breeders with 1/3 Pu-139/Pu-140/Pu-141 in them.

Not nice.. and that's not counting the #3pool blast… most of that transmuted to U-234 by the air sample over-flight data.

But then that's not even counting the MOX rods, nor the U-235/238's that had partial transmutation of Pu-239 in them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------



Codeshutdown contributed some links that support earlier leaks/fires/explosions from Fukushima, here they are

Hey stock, I think you could make a strong case that U3 and U4 pools were heavily damaged and involved in the explosions with a concurrent release of radionuclides to the environment. The significance is that this exposes the lies of TEPCO and the nuke cartel, like safe spent fuel removal. It illustrates the dangers inherent to spent fuel pools. It adds one more fissile reactor building (#4) to the three. The most hyped fear that Unit4 SFP could emit radioactivity may have already been a reality. So do it

Stohls paper is good evidence U4 SFP was releasing considerable radioactivity

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/2313/2012/acp-12-2313-2012.pdf

http://enenews.com/vice-suspicious-death-fukushima-plant-officials-damaged-nuclear-fuel-rod-containers-found-unit-3-pool-after-debris-removed-concern-about-new-fuel-failure-high-radioactivity-prevented-workers/comment-page-2#comment-693864

overview of Unit3 blast dynamic
http://enenews.com/vice-suspicious-death-fukushima-plant-officials-damaged-nuclear-fuel-rod-containers-found-unit-3-pool-after-debris-removed-concern-about-new-fuel-failure-high-radioactivity-prevented-workers/comment-page-1#comment-693418

http://enenews.com/vice-suspicious-death-fukushima-plant-officials-damaged-nuclear-fuel-rod-containers-found-unit-3-pool-after-debris-removed-concern-about-new-fuel-failure-high-radioactivity-prevented-workers/comment-page-1#comment-692938




Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Total radiation waste dumped into our Oceans

this is in draft format for future build out of article, from"Grant Research"

www.trueactivist.com/toxic-time-bomb-abandoned-us-military-nuclear-dome-threatens-pacific-ocean/
 
She kindly provided a Google docs link to all the text below, it may be easier reading on the link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7PbzAzkdGjNZm5NbEpoX0lmdDA/view?usp=sharing

UN Treaties Multilateral and bilateral nuclear disarmament and arms
regulation agreements history www.un.org/en/globalissues/atomicenergy/
agreements.shtml
1980 US EPA Fact Sheet on Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste
Materials
copy paste this odd url or google title above nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/
900M0700.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976+Thru
+1980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n
&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQ
FieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A\zyfiles\Index Data
\76thru80\Txt
\00000010\900M0700.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&Sort
Method=h|-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/
r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p|
f&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Re
sults page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL
Ocean disposal of radioactive waste Coasts of Europe 30:07 minutes via
Deep13th https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNV0cmKO8sM
Aug 1999 Inventory of radioactive waste disposals at sea - IAEA 127
pages www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1105_prn.pdf
28 March 2011 The Radioactive Ocean Mother Jones
www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/03/radioactive-ocean
Ocean Dumping
Governments world-wide were urged by the 1972 Stockholm Conference
[external link] to control the dumping of waste in "their oceans" by
implementing new laws. The United Nations met in London after this
recommendation to begin the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter [external link] which was
implemented in 1975. The International Maritime Organization was given
responsibility for this convention and a Protocol was finally adopted in 1996, a
major step in the regulation of ocean dumping.
Stockholm Conference www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?
DocumentID=97&ArticleID=1506&l=en
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/
LCLP/Documents/LC1972.pdf
The disposal of nuclear waste into the world’s oceans
By Patrick Kozakiewicz January 27, 2014 http://www.cbrneportal.com/thedisposal-
of-nuclear-waste-into-the-worlds-oceans/
Humans have been altering the oceans for millennia. Up till now, five critical
environmental issues have affected the oceans: over-fishing, chemical
pollution and eutrophicaion, habit destruction, invasion of alien species and
global climate change. However, one of the major threats the oceans may
face in the twenty-first century is radioactive pollution.
The Wall St. Journal has recently claimed that plutonium levels are 1,000
times above normal on the seafloor 50 miles from San Francisco where
50,000 containers of radioactive waste lay at the bottom of the seafloor after
steel barrels of nuclear material were disposed of a few decades ago. They
also claimed this is globally significant and is impacting the ecosystem. This
is a first study of this kind.
After World War II, for many decades, the nuclear industries used the oceans
as a dumping ground. It was only two decades ago that dumping from ships
was internationally banned.
From 1946 through 1993, thirteen nuclear capable countries used the ocean
as an ends to dispose of nuclear/radioactive waste. The waste materials
included industrial, medical and weapons, both liquids and solids housed in
various containers, as well as reactor vessels, with and without spent or
damaged nuclear fuel.
The United States alone dumped vast quantities of nuclear material off its
coasts between 1946 and 1970—more than 110,000 containers. More
specifically, for up to 15 years after World War II, the USS Calhoun County
dumped thousands of tons of radioactive waste into the Atlantic Ocean, often
without heeding the simplest health precautions. In order to make sure the
waste-containing drums sank, the sailors would sometimes shoot them with
rifles. On top of that in the Pacific, there is an estimated 47,000 containers
which lie at the bottom of the ocean floor near San Francisco and Japan has
also disposed of a magnitude of radioactive waste into the ocean.
Russia, on the other hand, dumped some 17,000 containers of radioactive
waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including
five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively
contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two
reactors loaded with nuclear fuel. The K-27 sank in 1989 and is currently
resting on the floor of the Barents Sea, one mile deep, with its nuclear reactor
and two nuclear warheads. In total, there are now 6 nuclear submarines lying
at the bottom of the Oceans, lost as a result of failure – 4 Russian and 2
American.
In Europe alone, some 28,500 containers of radioactive waste were dropped
into the English Channel between 1950 and 1963 by European states, some
of which are being now discovered to have leaks. In addition, lots of
radioactive waste was disposed of off the coast of Japan and in the South
Korean Sea. In all honesty, every nuclear nation, to some extent or another,
could be possibly linked to the dumping of radioactive waste, and, most of
them to that of the oceans. Collectively the known containers from Europe, let
alone the rest of the world, translate to hundreds of thousands of tons of
radioactive waste. It is like having a tooth x-ray every time you enter your
bath – and yet that is too much.
While in Europe waste was all supposed to be disposed of in waters at least
4,000 meters deep, many of the ship log documents are inaccurate or are left,
“incomplete or unknown” in the location of the dump, sometimes dumped
even in water only 100 meters deep and only miles away from the coast.
Also, the captain’s main concerns were the safety of the crew not about the
exact location of the dump. The barrels of waste were radioactive and the
crew was getting radioactive doses. Therefore, once the radioactive safe
zone timer was up, the crew just dumped the barrels regardless of location.
The issue here is how one checks the current radioactive leakages and levels
of the waste if the locations are unknown.
NCT CBRNe Asia
It wasn’t until 1993 that nuclear and radioactive ocean disposal had been fully
banned and ratified by international treaties. (London Convention, Basel
Convention, MARPOL). Beyond technical and political considerations, the
London Convention places prohibitions on disposing of radioactive materials
at sea and does not make a distinction between wastes dumped directly into
the water and waste that is buried underneath the ocean’s floor. It also does
not exclude dumping radioactive waste through pipelines, which companies in
Europe are actually doing. Some claim that populations of humans located
near these pipelines are 10 times more likely to die of cancers. While others
state the risks are insignificant.
It seems that the general consensus is that storing radioactive waste in the
ocean is harmful to the organisms that inhabit the ocean and to humans as
well due to radiation and in addition it is a rather expensive process. Poor
insulation of the containers, leaks, volcanic activity, tectonic plate movement,
limited locations, and several other factors prove that storing radioactive
waste in the oceans has a potential of becoming a catastrophe. Yet for some,
it is more practical than alternatives such as storing it on land or launching
rockets off towards the sun.
Nevertheless, many argue that ocean-based approaches to the disposal of
nuclear waste have significant advantages. First, disposing waste at the
bottom of the ocean is hard for terrorists, rebels, or criminals to steal for use
in radiological weapons or in nuclear bombs. The world’s oceans also have a
vastly greater dilutive capacity than any single land site in the event of
unintended leaks.
In the US for example, Federal officials have long maintained that, despite
some leakage from containers, there isn’t evidence of damage to the wider
ocean environment or threats to public health. The Wall Street Journal review
of decades of federal and other records has found many unanswered
questions and evidence which proves otherwise. It is also well documented
by the scientific community, that even lose doses of radioactive exposer can
increase the rates of cancers. However, more specifically, endocrine disruptor
in form of radioactivity can cause cancer in the same manner, as it can cure
cancer.
The 1993 Treaty remains in force up until 2018, after which the sub-seabed
disposal option can be revisited, creating new opportunities for nuclear waste
disposal and a more potentially radioactively ocean. Companies are already
writing up plans to convince the public and governments about the
importance and safety of ocean-floor disposals.
Back then, and even now, many believed the ocean is fair game when it
comes to radioactive waste. Especially since the impact of radioactivity on
human health was largely underestimated. Fortunately the case is not the
same today. While radioactive and nuclear waste is no longer disposed from
ships into the oceans, great risks still remain.
Russia Dumped 19 Radioactive Ships Plus 14 Nuclear Reactors Into the
Ocean
Posted on September 18, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog (Multiple in text links to
sources in online article) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/09/russiadumped-
19-radioactive-ships-plus-14-nuclear-reactors-into-the-ocean.html
Government Dumping of Nuclear Waste Still Poses a Threat … Decades
Later
Governments – including both Russia and the United States – have been
covering up nuclear meltdowns for 50 years and covering up the dangers of
radiation for 67 years.
Governments have also covered up dumping of nuclear waste in the ocean.
As the International Atomic Energy Agency notes, 13 countries used ocean
dumping to “dispose” of radioactive waste between 1946 and 1993.
Since 1993, ocean disposal has been banned by agreement through a
number of international treaties, including the London Convention of 1972,
the Basel Convention, and MARPOL 73/78.
Wikipedia notes:
According to the United Nations, some companies have been dumping
radioactive waste and other hazardous materials into the coastal waters of
Somalia [well after the treaties were signed], taking advantage of the fact that
the country has had no functioning government from the early 1990s
onwards. This has caused health problems for locals in the coastal region
and poses a significant danger to Somalia’s fishing industry and local marine
life.
Wikipedia also provides a breakdown by region:
[North Atlantic] 78% of dumping at Atlantic Ocean is done by UK
(35,088TBq), followed by Switzerland (4,419TBq), USA (2,924TBq) and
Belgium (2,120TBq). Sunken USSR nuclear submarines are not included.
***
137 x 103 tones were dumped by 8 European countries. USA did not report
tonnage nor volume of 34,282 containers.
***
[Pacific Ocean] USSR 874TBq [i.e. terabecquerels], USA 554 TBq, Japan
15.1TBq, New Zealand 1+TBq and unknown figure by South Korea.
751×103m3 were dumped by Japan and USSR. USA did not report tonnage
nor volume of 56,261 containers.
[Sea of Japan] USSR dumped 749TBq in the Sea of Japan, Japan
dumped 15.1TBq south of main island. South Korea dumped 45 tones
(unknown radio activity value) in the Sea of Japan.
As the Norwegian environmental group Bellona Fondation reported last
month, Russia has just admitted that it dumped 19 radioactive ships plus 14
nuclear reactors – some of them containing fissible material – into the ocean:
The catalogue of waste dumped at sea by the Soviets, according to
documents seen by Bellona, and which were today released by the
Norwegian daily Aftenposten, includes some 17,000 containers of radioactive
waste, 19 ships containing radioactive waste, 14 nuclear reactors, including
five that still contain spent nuclear fuel; 735 other pieces of radioactively
contaminated heavy machinery, and the K-27 nuclear submarine with its two
reactors loaded with nuclear fuel.
***
Per Strand of the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority told
Aftenposten that the information on the radioactive waste had come from the
Russian authorities gradually.
“No one can guarantee that this outline we have received is complete,” he
said.
He added that Russia has set up a special commission to undertake the
task of mapping the waste, the paper reported.
A Norwegian-Russian Expert Group will this week start an expedition in
areas of the Kara Sea, which the report released by Russia says was used as
a radioactive dump until the early 1990s
***
Bellona’s Igor Kurdrik, an expert on Russian naval nuclear waste, said that,
“We know that the Russians have an interest in oil exploration in this area.
They therefore want to know were the radioactive waste is so they can clean
it up before they beging oil recovery operations.”
He cautiously praised the openness of the Russian report given to Norway
and that Norway would be taking part in the waste charting expedition.
Bellona thinks that Russia has passed its report to Norway as a veiled cry
for help, as the exent of the problem is far too great for Moscow to handle on
its own.
***
Kudrik said that one of the most critical pieces of information missing from
the report released to the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority was the
presence of the K-27 nuclear submarine, which was scuttled in 50 meters of
water with its two reactors filled with spent nuclear fuel in in Stepovogo Bay in
the Kara Sea in 1981.
Information that the reactors about the K-27 could reachieve criticality and
explode was released at the Bellona-Rosatom seminar in February.
“This danger had previously been unknown, and is very important
information. When they search and map these reactors, they must be the first
priority,” said Kudrik.
Researchers will now evaluate whether it is possible to raise the
submarine, and attempt to determine if it is leaking radioactivity into the sea.
(Here is a slideshow of one of Bellona’s earlier expeditions to research
Russian nuclear ocean dumping in the same region.)
Wikipedia provides details of nuclear submarine accidents, including the
K-27:
Eight nuclear submarines have sunk as a consequence of either accident
or extensive damage: two from the United States Navy, four from the Soviet
Navy, and two from the Russian Navy.
***
K-27: The only Project 645 submarine, equipped with a liquid metal cooled
reactor, was irreparably damaged by a reactor accident (control rod failure)
on May 24, 1968. 9 were killed in the reactor accident. After shutting down the
reactor and sealing the compartment, the Soviet Navy scuttled her in shallow
water of the Kara Sea on September 6, 1982, contrary to the
recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Nuclear scientists might defend previous ocean dumping by saying “we
thought it was safe”. And this may be true.
But a previously-secret 1955 U.S. government report found that the ocean
may not adequately “dilute” nuclear materials.
Previously-Secret 1955 Government Report Concluded that Ocean May
Not Adequately Dilute Radiation from Nuclear Accidents
Posted on June 1, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog (Multiple in text links to sources
in online article) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/06/why-the-oceanmay-
not-adequately-dilute-the-radiation-from-fukushima.html
Fukushima Likely to Produce “Pockets” and “Streams” of Highly-
Concentrated Radiation
The operator of the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant has been dumping
something like a thousand tons per day of radioactive water into the Pacific
ocean.
Remember, the reactors are “riddled with meltdown holes”, building 4 – with
more radiation than all nuclear bombs ever dropped or tested – is missing
entire walls, and building 3 is a pile of rubble.
The whole complex is leaking like a sieve, and the rivers of water pumped
into the reactors every day are just pouring into the ocean (with only a slight
delay).
Most people assume that the ocean will dilute the radiation from Fukushima
enough that any radiation reaching the West Coast of the U.S. will be low.
For example, the Congressional Research Service wrote in April:
Scientists have stated that radiation in the ocean very quickly becomes
diluted and would not be a problem beyond the coast of Japan.
***
U.S. fisheries are unlikely to be affected because radioactive material that
enters the marine environment would be greatly diluted before reaching U.S.
fishing grounds.
And a Woods Hole oceanographer said:
“The Kuroshio current is considered like the Gulf Stream of the Pacific, a
very large current that can rapidly carry the radioactivity into the interior” of
the ocean, Buesseler said.
“But it also dilutes along the way, causing a lot of mixing and decreasing
radioactivity as it moves offshore.”
But – just as we noted 2 days after the earthquake hit that the jet stream
might carry radiation to the U.S. by wind – we are now warning that ocean
currents might carry more radiation to the at least some portions of the West
Coast of North America than is assumed.
Specifically, we noted more than a year ago:
The ocean currents head from Japan to the West Coast of the U.S.
As AP notes:
The floating debris will likely be carried by currents off of Japan toward
Washington, Oregon and California before turning toward Hawaii and back
again toward Asia, circulating in what is known as the North Pacific gyre, said
Curt Ebbesmeyer, a Seattle oceanographer who has spent decades tracking
flotsam.
***
“All this debris will find a way to reach the West coast or stop in the
Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” a swirling mass of concentrated marine litter in
the Pacific Ocean, said Luca Centurioni, a researcher at Scripps Institution of
Oceanography, UC San Diego.
Here is what the North Pacific Gyre looks like:
North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone FDA Refuses to Test Fish for
Radioactivity ... Government Pretends Radioactive Fish Is Safe
NPR reports:
CNN said that “the Hawaiian islands may get a new and unwelcome
addition in coming months — a giant new island of debris floating in from
Japan.” It relied in part on work done by the University of Hawaii’s
International Pacific Research Center, which predicts that:
“In three years, the [debris] plume will reach the U.S. West Coast,
dumping debris on Californian beaches and the beaches of British Columbia,
Alaska, and Baja California. The debris will then drift into the famous North
Pacific Garbage Patch, where it will wander around and break into smaller
and smaller pieces. In five years, Hawaii shores can expect to see another
barrage of debris that is stronger and longer lastingthan the first one. Much of
the debris leaving the North Pacific Garbage Patch ends up on Hawaii’s reefs
and beaches.”
Indeed, CNN notes:
The debris mass, which appears as an island from the air, contains
cars, trucks, tractors, boats and entire houses floating in the current heading
toward the U.S. and Canada, according to ABC News.
The bulk of the debris will likely not be radioactive, as it was presumably
washed out to sea during the initial tsunami – before much radioactivity had
leaked. But this shows the power of the currents from Japan to the West
Coast.
An animated graphic from the University of Hawaii’s International Pacific
Research Center shows the projected dispersion of debris from Japan:
http://iprc.soest.hawaii.edu/users/nikolai/2011/Pacific_Islands/
Simulation_of_Debris_from_March_11_2011_Japan_tsunami.gif
Indeed, an island of Japanese debris the size of California is hitting the West
Coast of North America … and some of it is radioactive.
In addition to radioactive debris, MIT says that seawater which is itself
radioactive may begin hitting the West Coast within 5 years. Given that the
debris is hitting faster than predicted, it is possible that the radioactive
seawater will as well.
And the Congressional Research Service admitted:
However, there remains the slight potential for a relatively narrow corridor
of highly contaminated water leading away from Japan …
***
Transport by ocean currents is much slower, and additional radiation from
this source might eventually also be detected in North Pacific waters under
U.S. jurisdiction, even months after its release. Regardless of slow ocean
transport, the long half-life of radioactive cesium isotopes means that
radioactive contaminants could remain a valid concern for
ears.
Indeed, nuclear expert Robert Alvarez – senior policy adviser to the Energy
Department’s secretary and deputy assistant secretary for national security
and the environment from 1993 to 1999 – wrote yesterday:
According to a previously secret 1955 memo from the U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission regarding concerns of the British government over contaminated
tuna, “dissipation of radioactive fall-out in ocean waters is not a gradual
spreading out of the activity from the region with the highest concentration to
uncontaminated regions, but that in all probability the process results in
scattered pockets and streams of higher radioactive materials in the Pacific.
We can speculate that tuna which now show radioactivity from ingested
materials [this is in 1955, not today] have been living, in or have passed
through, such pockets; or have been feeding on plant and animal life which
has been exposed in those areas.”
Because of the huge amounts of radioactive water Tepco is dumping into the
Pacific Ocean, and the fact that the current pushes water from Japan to the
West Coast of North America, at least some of these radioactive “streams” or
“hot spots” will likely end up impacting the West Coast.
Sea-Based Nuclear Waste Solutions Scientia Press http://
www.scientiapress.com/nuclearwaste
Sea-based approaches to the disposal of nuclear waste make it hard for
terrorists, rebels, or criminals to steal for use in radiological weapons or in
nuclear bombs. The world’s oceans have a vastly greater dilutive capacity
than any single land site in the event of unintended leaks (though by the
same token the effects of a leak could travel farther). And seawater itself
contains a variety of radionuclides, so treating it as a domain in which there is
no natural radioactivity runs counter to fact. Meanwhile, without a great deal
of additional investment and endless political arguments, land-based
geological storage sites will not have the capacity to store all the waste that
will be generated in future decades.
The most important rationale, though, is that siting, constructing, and
operating land-based long-term storage sites constitute major, difficult
technological and political problems. It is wrongheaded and irresponsible to
assume that many relatively poor, unstable, and technologically lagging
countries with nuclear reactors will deal successfully with these challenges.
Too many things can go wrong, with disastrous outcomes.
So a shared international solution to the problems of the long-term storage of
nuclear waste should represent a high priority. And investigating sea-based
solutions makes eminent sense because they are peculiarly suited to
international cooperation.
Four sea-based approaches recommend themselves.
Sub-Seabed Disposal in Stable Clay Formations
First formally proposed in 1973, the concept of burying nuclear waste in
stable clay formations under the seabed was investigated by international
teams of scientists for many years. A substantial scientific literature details the
various modalities, associated risks, and geological conditions. The large
undersea plain some 600 miles north of Hawaii, stable for some 65 million
years, received special attention.
Researchers found that the clay muds in such sub-seabed formations had a
high capacity for binding radionuclides, so that any leakage would be likely to
remain within the clay for millions of years, by which time radioactive
emissions would decline to natural background levels.
However, in 1986 the U.S. Department of Energy cut off funding for research
on sub-seabed and other nuclear waste disposal options in favor of pursuing
the Yucca Mountain one. Even though Congress had established an Office of
Subseabed Disposal Research within the Department of Energy, it soon
changed its mind, and the Office spent allocated funds on other projects.
From the outset, environmentalists voiced hostility to the concept of subseabed
disposal, though it is clear that some failed to make the elementary
distinction between casual dumping and the planned burial of nuclear waste
in secure containers either in deep boreholes under the seabed or in a
prepared sub- seabed geological repository. Also, it must be noted that some
environmentalists oppose all specific proposals for nuclear waste disposal as
a way of putting an end to nuclear technology entirely. Given the
determination of quite a few governments around the world to pursue nuclear
technology, however, this stance may prove unrealistic, unhelpful, and
ultimately dangerous to the environment itself. At the very least, such
environmentalists should state that they oppose all solutions when objecting
to any specific one.
The London Dumping Convention prohibits dumping nuclear waste at
sea. It is not clear whether this applies to a sub-seabed geological disposal
solution. Moreover, the Convention will be coming up for renewal in the nottoo-
distant future. Other countries have tended to follow the U.S. lead thus
far, but this situation might change as nuclear waste disposal becomes an
ever more pressing problem and land-based solutions appear inadequate.
At a minimum, funding further research into sub-seabed disposal makes
sense. Since the abandonment of research, fundamental changes have
occurred. The danger of terrorists or others gaining access to nuclear waste
and using it in radiological weapons looms far larger now than in the 1980s.
New technology for containing storage reduces the threat of early leakage.
And bottom-crawling submarines are now available that can effectively insert
canisters of waste deep into the sub-seabed.
Restarting investigation into sub-seabed disposal in stable clay formations is
a commonsensical way to develop a fallback alternative to geological
disposal on land. The possibility of creating an international consortium that
would ensure that all high-level nuclear waste from every country in the world
would be buried in a single sub-seabed storage area seems promising.
Burial in Subduction Faults
A second sub-seabed option has received little attention but deserves careful
consideration: burying canisters of nuclear waste in Subduction Faults that
would carry the waste downward toward the Earth’s mantle. This approach
possesses the virtue of being very permanent–the reverse of shooting the
waste with rockets into the Sun, except much more practical. As the
subduction fault would carry the canisters down at a rate of, say, 10 cm per
year, the chances of any release of radionuclides into the biosphere would
become increasingly remote.
A single California firm, Permanent RadWaste Solutions, has pursued the
technology for this option. In addition to the bottom-crawling submarine for
digging the holes and delivering the waste, this company has developed a
canister technology that becomes more tightly sealed and resistant as the
outside pressure increases during the descent of the canister toward the
mantle.
Some observers object that earthquake or volcanic activity could cause the
canister to leak, and the radioactive waste would spew into the sky or onto
the surface. However, it is possible to place the canisters in the parts of a
subduction zone where there is no volcanic activity, so that they will take
millions of years to migrate to less stable parts, at a time when their level of
radioactivity will no longer surpass that of the natural background.
As with the stable clay approach, it would be possible to bore deep holes into
the subduction faults in order to get the waste as deep as possible, even
though the danger of leakage upward to the seafloor appears to be minimal.
Radionuclides are heavier than water, so there is also no reason why they
should migrate upward to the ocean’s surface, especially since there is no
evidence that bottom-dwelling marine species are concentrated upward into a
food pyramid that leads to the surface.
Engineered Island Disposal
The notion of burying nuclear waste on remote, unpopulated islands has
been investigated, but one must question how thoroughly. The Yucca
Mountain Project Website lists the reasons why this option was not pursued:
1) risks of ocean transport, especially bad weather; 2) earthquake and
volcanic activity; 3) penetration of island foundations by seawater and fresh
water, leading to leakage; and 4) the opposition of nearby countries.
Many of these objections could be overcome by constructing a remote island
in a place in the ocean where the depth is not great. While constructing the
island would cost a lot of money, so do all other geological disposal solutions.
In this case, the island itself would be the disposal site. One could use rock
with optimal barrier properties and select a location far from other islands, the
mainland, and areas with seismic activity. Building an Engineered Island
would best be done as an international effort, perhaps spearheaded by
several countries with no other attractive options.
Objection #1 (risks of ocean transport) does not deter the shipment of nuclear
waste now, and it can be reduced by various technical and procedural means,
including monitoring by an authorized international body. Engineered Island
disposal would have the great virtue of solving the disposal problem for all
countries (assuming that all would participate), including those incapable of
managing safe disposal themselves. It is an option that deserves more
research, especially since the human-made island approach has tended to be
overlooked thus far. Nuclear waste disposal of this sort could also
conceivably be done with the purpose of elevating a low-lying, populated
island threatened by rising sea level caused by climate change. For instance,
the waste could be buried deep under the island, with the excavated rock
used to build up the island to a higher level.
Seawater Uranium Cycling
The presence of uranium in seawater at 3 parts per billion suggests a fourth
and final sea-based nuclear waste solution. Technology already exists to
separate this uranium from seawater, but currently its cost (an estimated
$240/kg) far exceeds the cost of conventional uranium mining (long-term
average ~$80/kg). Nonetheless, the potential for such seawater uranium
extraction holds considerable interest for countries like Japan where other
sources of energy are lacking, and researchers are gradually achieving better
results.
One way to lower the cost would be to combine the extraction of uranium with
related activities. The most obvious would be to extract other minerals at the
same time. Na, Mg, Ca, and K are currently commercially extracted; and of
course desalinated water and salt (sodium chloride) are also removed.1
It would also be possible to extract toxic chemicals, recyclable waste
materials, and carbon to reduce seawater acidity as a consequence of fossil
fuel pollution. Every time something would be extracted from the original
seawater, the concentration of the remaining uranium would rise, reducing the
cost of extracting it.
Another such activity would consist of performing the extraction of uranium
and other minerals using the water flowing through an Oceanic Thermal
Energy Conversion (OTEC) plant, which in turn would make OTEC
technology more economically attractive.
And there is still another activity that can be combined with seawater uranium
extraction, if one considers that every atom of uranium extracted reduces the
natural level of radioactivity of the ocean. In a process called “Seawater
Uranium Cycling” (SUC), an international monitoring body could grant to a
company engaged in seawater uranium extraction a license to return to the
ocean an amount of radionuclides from high-level waste equivalent in
radioactivity and potential chemical toxicity to the uranium extracted (or this
could be done by a non-profit). This would permit the company, under careful
supervision, to dispense in a very diffuse way from a ship traversing vast
expanses of sea a tiny trickle of precisely the long-lived radionuclides like
americium that cause such difficulties when concentrated into High-Level
Waste because of their very long decay times.
SUC would begin in a small way, perhaps with one or two companies
handling only a small amount of uranium and waste radionuclides each year.
Over time, however, improvements in technology for extracting uranium and
other minerals would attract more firms. The total amount of uranium in the
ocean is immense (4,300,000,000 metric tons), so SUC could operate for a
very long time.
While many people might feel consternation at the image of simply pouring
radionuclides into the water, a correct scientific view shows this image to be
very misleading. The gigantic volume of the ocean and careful dispersal
carried out in accordance with international monitoring, never exceeding the
amount of uranium extracted, would make SUC an admirably safe method. It
would also provide incentives for the development and deployment of
seawater uranium extraction, while lessening the environmental impact of
opening new uranium mines on land.
Conclusion
Clearly, for solutions involving a single large sea-based repository for nuclear
waste, some form of compensation should be provided for neighboring
countries.
While objections can–and surely will–be raised to each of these sea-based
approaches to nuclear waste disposal, it is much harder to oppose them as a
bundle. Even though they compete with each other, they also support each
other in terms of reinforcing the general concept of carefully investigating
methods of sea-based disposal.
Since governments appear to lack the political will to pursue such
approaches, international organizations, companies, foundations, and NGOs
need to begin to support research on them. Relying, as we now do, on
dozens of nuclear countries each to develop and maintain secure geological
disposal sites for nuclear waste is a thoughtless and dangerously
irresponsible approach. The ultimate goal should be to devise a nuclear
waste solution (not necessarily a sea-based one) that will gain international
adherence and become the shared global long-term one for all High-Level
Waste, and perhaps for Low-Level Waste as well.
- See more at: http://www.scientiapress.com/nuclearwaste#sthash.
0osivbCP.dpuf

Dumping nuclear waste into the ocean —>
“…Millions of barrels have been cheaply disposed of into the open ocean.”
“The British and Americans dumped their nuclear waste in 200 liter barrels at 50 different locations.”
50,000 barrels were dumped off the coast of San Francisco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIEzTKO03do
Quietly Into Disaster – full movie

Dr. Goodheart
Then add all the stuff dumped by La Hague, all the nuclear reactors dumped, all of the RTG satellites crashed, all of the nuke subs and ships waste just from running around out there, plus all of the 400 nuke reactors liquid and air emissions, most of it ends up in the ocean, PLUS
FUKUSHIMA
TMI
Chernobyl
all other 67 plus nuclear accidents


Report comment

History, Locations, Country Totals, Types, Amounts Of Radioactive Nuclear Waste And Reactors Dumped In Oceans And Seas
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/11/locations-and-amounts-of-radioactive.html

Almost 1000 Nuclear Plant Workers Busted for Drugs and Alcohol in 2013, 10 for Heroin

The USA's nuclear plants are owned by greedy corporations using druggies and alcoholics to run the nuclear plants.

Second reportable employee incident at Pilgrim nuclear plant in two weeks

 http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150804/NEWS/150808815

Sheesh, but it is not just Pilgrim, the oldest and most potentially damaging plant, it is a nationwide problem. 

And after a pronuker gave me a link to an internal NRC document, I discovered the drug problem is accelerating in the most dangerous class of worker....the supervisors and the licensed REACTOR OPERATORS!   See highlighted screen cap below


In 2013, The following is the reported test results.   You can be assured that there are some personal relationships in these areas where nukes are....usually small towns, away from big towns, and that many more tests were covered up or the person was "given a talking to" and allowed to clean up and retest without a report.

(10) Workers CAUGHT doing Heroin

(123) "Workers" tested positive for cocaine

(480) Workers tested positive for Marijuana.   Is marijuana worse than alcohol, well it all depends.   Does maijuana cause people to make ridiculous, plain non-thinking mistakes where assumptions are made that are completely false, and thus can cause problems of any magnitude.........YES.

(238) Showed up "ready for work", but were legally drunk.

Note that (105) workers refused to take the random tests when they came up.

This is in ONE YEAR Folks!!!

That's a total of 851 Drug and Alcohol busts at US Nuclear plants in 1 year!   And another 105 who refused so obviously they were guilty.

But have no fear, the NRC gives them 14 days off (they don't state if it is paid or not) and gives them some counseling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
stock here: A pro-nukist was trying to minimize the damage of my publishing this information, his efforts really didn't pay off.   The deeper you dig, the more appalling is the reality.

 Lie Maker Michael Mann


From your link "According to numbers compiled by the NRC, a total of 137 employees across the country tested positive for an illegal substance or alcohol in 2013: 65 for alcohol, 44 for marijuana, 16 for cocaine, and eight for amphetamines" It doesn't match your comment.
So the pro nuker tried to minimize by quoting stats on only the direct employees, not the service organizations, suppliers, hired maintenance, and subcontractors.

The response to him was

screw you, you provide intentional deception. This is a direct quote. You try to squeeze out the real stats by quoting only the direct employees.....its employees and contractors. Everyone subcontracts. They are even more dangerous, you have less control, but its a "greed plan" I mean business plan to make more money.
QUOTE
Meanwhile, Burm pointed out, more than 900 contractors and vendors
serving American plants failed drug and alcohol testing during that same
time: 436 tested positive for marijuana and 173 for alcohol, 107 tested
positive for cocaine, 76 for amphetamines, and nine for opiates. One
hundred two refused to be tested.
Then the pro nukist tried to pretend the stats were less because some people got caught before they got into the plant......i.e. "pre access testing" and provided this link.    They always hang themselves with their own links once I data mine the link.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1424/ML14246A440.pdf

And look at these "harsh penalties" for the pre-access testing, before they got into the building.....

A positive pre-access test for any individual prevents that individual from gaining access to the NRC-licensed facility for at least 14 days.



So 2 weeks later, the nuke workers try again, after cleansing their system with some purchased drug removal kits.....

The NRC and the Radiation Cartel needs these workers who have expensive and specialized skills, even more so now that nuclear is dying.     Therefore they tolerate drug abuse and let them keep coming back.
----------------------------------------------------------
And its not just the operations of the plants were the workers are routinely busted for drugs.   Its the construction of the plants, in particular, Vogtle the so called "next generation nuke".

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/morning_call/2012/01/80-workers-at-georgia-nuclear-plant.html
Eighty contract workers at Plant Vogtle, near Waynesboro in eastern Georgia, failed drug screenings in 2011 and were denied access, or evicted from, the nuclear facility, reports the Augusta Chronicle.
The information was obtained by the newspaper from reports filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Most of the workers at the nuclear plant were associated with the construction zone where site work is being done for the planned addition of Vogtle’s Units 3 and 4, a spokeswoman with Southern Nuclear told the Augusta paper.
“It shows the process is working as it should,” she said, adding that 3,933 vendors and contractors were evaluated for access during 2011.