Stock here: how about a $100M fine for putting Boston at risk?
Pilgrim was very close to being forced to directly vent
radioactive steam into the environment / neighborhood. They used every last
line of defense they had, including dumping radioactive steam into the old BWR
Torus aka Surge Tank.
Even then the heat in the surge tank got so high, they
had to use an emergency heat exchanger to cool the surge tank. Fortunately it
worked. If that last piece of equipment had failed it would have been a serious
accident with radiation exposure to the public.
Pilgrim had the same types of
equipment problems in the last 2 years, and FAILED to fix them, and the NRC
failed on adequate follow up.
Instead of shutting down these most dangerous type of plant the
BWR reactor, similar to Fukushima which is still dumping radiation into the
Pacific Ocean, instead, they attack solar and wind.
Everything
apparently didn't go as smoothly as the folks at Pilgrim would like us to
believe.
Credit
to the folks of Cape Cod Bay Watch.
Freaking nice report! They had multiple failures of critical
emergency equipment, and they kept on reacting from one emergency to the next
until they were dumping radioactive steam into the "torus" the big
round dump tank at the bottom…the last resort before venting to atmosphere.
An old BWR with a history of the same type of
problems….sheesh, that was freaking close. I mean who the heck needs Boston or
the East Coast anyway…..only nuclear can save the planet!
Most "do good" organizations depends on Government Funding, grants, or corporate funding to some degree. How can they express their real opinion without killing the goose that lays the Strontium Egg?
So ya think they might be trying to say "we know" without directly losing their funding?
Kind of a Mark Twain trick, right?
Look how they named the Seals they took in for care...a vast majority are "radioactive names", with a few common elements, and a few musical stars.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are some of the names given to the rescued seals by the marine mammal rescue in Vancouver. I am not kidding. They also use some Band names, and some common elements.
UPDATE JUNE 2015, it seems very odd, they used to have only 1 patient for this year, now they have 4, but look at the whole list in the link below for 2014 it is huge, so did they just give up?
So ya think they might be trying to say "we know" without directly losing their funding?
But there is a problem with dry cask storage: it costs money. The track
record of the atomic energy industry in the United States—less so in
Japan—is to spend as little money as possible and extend the life of old
plants for as long as possible, no matter the risks.
Stock here....I am a big fan of dry cask. It kicks the can down the road, before a terrorist can burn and aerosolize a full inventory of spent fuel. Or a natural accident.
Let's kick the can into a Cask-it, and shut them all down. Mahalo!
OK some real research here. How much Plutonium was aerosolized and how much did the average human breath, and extrapolated to 30 years.
The answer is less than .000001 gram. The calculation are conservative, meaning the actual amount breathed in will be far less. The calculations assume that all of the airborne plutonium goes into human lungs, and not into any other creatures lungs *where it would be kind of sequestered.*
This is good news folks. It means you are not likely to die directly from Fukushima fallout.
In Beagles, inhaling 350 micrograms of plutonium was pretty much a death sentence.
My research shows that fallout of Pu is about 22% a year from the air we breath.
Over 30 years, we are all likely to breath in less than 1 microgram of plutonium, from my calcs. Some people say that even 1 microgram can cause a cancer, I agree. But "can" is a lot different than "very likely to kill you"
I will post the actual spreadsheet later for download.
This is based on Nukepro original work of U and Pu in atmosphere based on EPA data here:
In response to a ProNuke article which states that we are foolhardy for not ramping up nuclear fast to "save the world".
I had this to say:
This would be a useful discussion if :
1) There was global warming at this time, there hasn't been for 18 years. and 2) Manmade CO2 was a large and proven contributor to global warming
Neither one is true, both would need to be true in order to even consider nuclear. If both were true, which neither are true, then considering nuclear would have to consider the
1) Extremely high cost of nuclear in relation to other power supplies 2) Radiation damage to the environment due to standard ongoing releases which are a normal part of plant operation. 3)
Radiation damage to humans, the societal cost of lost production during
treatment of disease, cost of treatment of disease, psychological
cost. What is the cost of permanent damage to the humane genome? 4)
Cost of nuclear plant disasters. It cost Russia their country, now
we are on the verge of WW3 as Russia tries to get a piece of their
country back. Japan, will lose 10% of their GDP for 10 year, and
permanently lose 10% of their country. Japan will change in a
significant way, even if they don't split up or get taken over. It is
estimated that the direct cost of Fukushima will be $600B to $1T. 5)
Long term cost of storage the nuclear waste. There really isn't any
solution. The only "solutions" in place bet on the human race not
even being around for 100 more years. 6) Terrorist threat of spent fuel and plant attacks. 7) Terrorists getting used fuel and using it in a dirty bomb 8) EMP which takes down the grid and causes dozen of plants to melt down 9) CME from sun, aka Carrington event which takes down the grid and causes dozens of plants to melt down.
So
if 1 and 2, were true....then we would have some serious spreadsheets
to make to see if it was all "worth it". But they are not, so just
shut them down now, phase them out, there is a huge economic shot in the
arm by dry casking all the used fuel and decommissioning the plants.
And it is good for us.
"I want to be very clear: We do not expect harmful levels of
radiation to reach the U.S., whether it's the west coast, Hawaii,
Alaska, or the U.S. territories in the Pacific,"
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and public health
experts do not recommend people in the U.S. take precautionary measures
beyond staying informed," Obama said. "Going forward we will continue to
keep the American people fully updated because I believe you must know
what I know as president."
-----------------------------------------------
A qualified Troll decided to "play uranium" at the Hill online journal.
His final conclusion, when I had backed him in every corner, was simply to dismiss 2600% more uranium in air as "consistent with common uranium", even though I had also clearly presented the background data from the EPA to him.
"As it is, the data in the Radnet table would be consistent with small quantities of common uranium"
My response was:
Oh, is that the final conclusion? To simply wave your hands and
dismiss a massive amount of uranium in air, 2600% higher than
background, after 4 nuclear plants blew skyhigh, and say it is natural.
Wow
The background uranium in air in Hawaii is 5 aCi/M3 (FIVE)
On Oahu they measured 160 ACi/M3
On Kauai they measured 190 ACi/M3
Just a coincidence right?
On Guam (much closer to Japan) they measured 300 ACi/M3
In California they measured 30 aCi/M3
Those test results from the EPA are right here http://www.epa.gov/japan011/do...
A number of people have been pretty critical of me for being critical on global warming / climate change.
So here is the Manifesto, haven't had a Manifesto in years, lol
I trust that climates have changed in the past
I trust that the last 90 years have been a period of fairly stable
and increasing temperature and that has helped "development" of the
world
I trust that we are polluting the planet in various ways, one of the
worst is radiation and heavy metals. Air pollution through vehicles
and coal are also horrible.
I trust from models that I have dissected that CO2 is only minorly
correlated with any warming or climate change. It may be a help.
I trust that solar magnetics/cosmic rays/cloud nucleation are by far
the most important factor in earth climate changes and that we have
entered a fairly rare deep minimum of solar magnetics. These are
facts, not speculation. I have been on this since 2006
I trust that pro-nuclear forces are currently using climate change to
manipulate governments and force citizen to keep nuclear around and to
pay double for it.
I trust that even though many "green" people oppose nuclear that they
have been lied to so long that it is hard to consider a paradigm shift.
I have been one of those people, I have devoted my career since
1995 to energy conservation and solar energy partly because of my fear
of global warming and CO2 pollution.
I did the right thing for the wrong reason, lol
I ask for is that you look at the facts, the data.
Climate using C14 and solar and geo magnetism,but submitted by a warmista
Bob Weber
February 4, 2015 at 9:24 am
Patience Matt, cooling is right around the bend according to my solar-based calculations. There has been just enough solar activity and just high enough solar flux to keep temps fairly flat since 2003, when you take into account previous solar warming of the oceans from the higher flux delivered during the last decades of the modern maximum.
You could look at it this way: Arctic ice began regrowing and Antarctic ice has continued to grow since 2006, three years after the solar modern maximum ended in 2003. How could that happen if warming is supposedly “accelerating”?
The small upwards bump in Dr. Spencer’s UAH graphic above for 2013/14 was caused by the weak SC24 maximum.
Since 2003, the daily solar flux has averaged just 100 solar flux units per day, well below the previous lowest cycle #20, when the daily average for the whole cycle was 113 sfu. We’ve seen a daily average of 103.6 sfu during SC24 so far, which will very likely drop below 100 sfu/day by the end of cycle.
This will have consequences, just as lower solar flux did during SC20, when SSTs dropped below the baseline between 1964-1979.
For mid-Nov 2014 to Jan 2015, the daily ave F10.7cm flux was 163 sfu/day – that’s what warmed up the oceans late last year, and pushed 2014 near the top of the records. The Sun caused the warming, not CO2. The yearly daily average for 2014 was 146 sfu/day, and for January 2015, it was 142 sfu/day.
The USAF here http://services.swpc.noaa.gov/text/45-day-ap-forecast.txt is calling for the next 45 days to have an average of 128 sfu/day. Based on that and the fact that sunspots are now getting very close to the solar equator, SC24 maximum looks to be over now.
There’s much more to say, with plenty of hard evidence, but for today, that’s all.
Like the man said, “Enjoy the warmth WHILE IT LASTS.”
The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.
from a nice troll who plays well
Let me see if I'm understanding the scenario you are suggesting. For whatever reason, the control rods are failing to keep the core from going critical, so the only thing holding it back is steam voids in the water, reducing the amount of neutron moderation, dropping it just below critical. Then a hydrogen deflagration up in the refueling bay sends a shock wave down, around, and up through the bottom of the reactor through the control rod access points, pressurizing the water, momentarily closing up the steam voids, and in that instant, the core goes critical in some fashion that vastly exceeds any normal sort of criticality the reactor was designed to handle, and this blows the reactor well cap off, at a low diagonal angle, and then nearly the entire core load of fu el (and presumably almost all of the coolant water) is ejected in some manner that proves not especially damaging to the overhead roof truss structure, and in the process, nearly all of the ejected core load is atomized into fine dust which then disperses through several tens of millions of cubic miles of atmosphere.
Does that pretty much capture it? Were there any of those particulars which you reject?
uh ya, and what about that 100,000 lbs of uranium in the air
I found a good resource for sea ice. I had to parse together the 2013 and earlier data with the 2014 and into 2015 data, which wasn't hard, just surprised the host site hadn't done that after a full month.
OK I am not going to do you homework for you. But please take a look at this Chart of Dementia occurence. Now compare that to countries with large amounts of Nuclear Power Plants. You will have to Google that if you don't know off the top of your head.
If you live in the USA, do you feel exceptional as Mr Obama said.....as he channeled you into the most costly yet not very effective health care system.
TEPCO covered-up the existence of
cracks in the shrouds of three reactors in Fukushima (Dai-Ichi, Unit
4.....
It is not before the informer resigned from
GE, in November 2001, that NISA approached GE and GEI officials and
obtained their cooperation. Besides, METI claimed that before this move,
the investigation did not gather enough evidence to force TEPCO officials
into admitting the falsifications. TEPCO did not set up an internal
investigating committee on the matter before May 2002.
Did you catch that, over 100 people at TEPCO were involved in a massive coverup about the safety of the reactor vessels. These coverups has been going on since the 1980's, and it took a whitleblower from GE after that wihistleblower retired, to break this story.
The scandal will also have severe consequences for
the plutonium industry, as it casts shadow on the development of the
Japanese Pluthermal plan to re-use plutonium arising from reprocessing
of spent fuel in thermal reactors. The news of TEPCO falsifications
broke up just a few days before the company could obtain the last authorization
needed for a major step of the program, with the first introduction
of MOX fuel (mixed oxide of uranium and plutonium) in a Japanese thermal
reactor. TEPCO President admitted that the company was not anymore in
the position to "ask for understanding to continue the MOX
fuel project". (8) Major victims could
be European reprocessing companies, the British BNFL and French COGEMA,
both producers of MOX fuel for Japan. The first constructed a whole
MOX fabrication plant, in Sellafield, arguing of its economic justification
because of forthcoming Japanese contracts; the second constructed a
second line, producing MOX for BWRs, in its Melox plant with the only
prospect of providing Japan utilities.
Strong Flares typically occur in the declining phase of a solar cycle.
In 2012 Stereo A got slammed with what NASA calls "of Carrington Magnitude"
If this Coronal Mass Ejection would have been "earth effective", i.e. a direct hit on earth....we would have been knocked back to the stone age, with 400 nuclear plants melting down.
The pimps of nuke would say....don't worry, we have defense in depth, we have backup gensets. Ya right, when a minor snow storm took Pilgrim off line over a week ago, and it is still down!
And at another Nuke plant, a supervisor shows up drunk on Monday morning, and gets caught. He is sent home, but not otherwise punished.
Early Monday morning, a supervisor at the Saint Lucie nuclear power plant in Florida confirmed positive for alcohol after a random fitness for duty test. The licensee revoked the employee’s access to the plant and notified the resident NRC inspector.
they are arrogant, they know how they are screwing up, yet they refuse to take proper action.
per the NRC
Pilgrim's
performance rating for “Unplanned Scrams (shutdowns) with
Complications” was lowered following the third quarter of 2013. Then, in
the fourth quarter of 2014, its performance rating for “Unplanned
Scrams per 7,000 Hours of Operation” was also lowered. “Something that
occurs if a plant has more than three such shutdowns during the
designated period,” Sheehan explained.
The
inspectors reported that while the company’s “problem identification,
root cause evaluation and corrective action plans were adequate, it
identified deficiencies in the implementation of corrective action
plans, as well as in understanding of the issues’ causes."
- See more at: http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139347/?Start=2#sthash.3m1RmN5N.dpuf
Pilgrim's performance rating for “Unplanned Scrams
(shutdowns) with Complications” was lowered following the third quarter
of 2013. Then, in the fourth quarter of 2014, its performance rating for
“Unplanned Scrams per 7,000 Hours of Operation” was also lowered.
“Something that occurs if a plant has more than three such shutdowns
during the designated period,” Sheehan explained.
The
inspectors reported that while the company’s “problem identification,
root cause evaluation and corrective action plans were adequate, it
identified deficiencies in the implementation of corrective action
plans, as well as in understanding of the issues’ causes."
Pilgrim's
performance rating for “Unplanned Scrams (shutdowns) with
Complications” was lowered following the third quarter of 2013. Then, in
the fourth quarter of 2014, its performance rating for “Unplanned
Scrams per 7,000 Hours of Operation” was also lowered. “Something that
occurs if a plant has more than three such shutdowns during the
designated period,” Sheehan explained.
The
inspectors reported that while the company’s “problem identification,
root cause evaluation and corrective action plans were adequate, it
identified deficiencies in the implementation of corrective action
plans, as well as in understanding of the issues’ causes."
- See more at: http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139347/?Start=2#sthash.3m1RmN5N.dpuf
Pilgrim's
performance rating for “Unplanned Scrams (shutdowns) with
Complications” was lowered following the third quarter of 2013. Then, in
the fourth quarter of 2014, its performance rating for “Unplanned
Scrams per 7,000 Hours of Operation” was also lowered. “Something that
occurs if a plant has more than three such shutdowns during the
designated period,” Sheehan explained.
The
inspectors reported that while the company’s “problem identification,
root cause evaluation and corrective action plans were adequate, it
identified deficiencies in the implementation of corrective action
plans, as well as in understanding of the issues’ causes."
- See more at: http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139347/?Start=2#sthash.3m1RmN5N.dpuf
The town it endangers is Plymouth. most of the town didn't lose power but the Nuke Plant did. one of that plants weaknesses is safe shutdown on loss of power, SCRAM.
The plant has enough fuel onsite to run the emergency generators for 10 days
The
plant has enough fuel onsite to run the emergency generators for 10
days - See more at:
http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139347/?Start=2#sthash.3m1RmN5N.dpuf
Mr Rosen, I really don't understand why their
power supply lines are so vulnerable. This is just a blizzard and not
hurricane or tornado. When I looked at 7am on Nstar power outage map,
Plymouth was experiencing power outage for 2% of its customers. I
understand if 90% of Plymouth is down, but Pilgrim belongs to the 2% of
most vulnerable electric customer within Plymouth? And they have 2
transmission lines into the plant and repeating the same issue they had
in blizzard of 2013? Here is the incident report from 2013: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2013/20130211en.html#en48736.
It says "The loss of offsite power is believed to be weather related.
" They "believe"? They didn't bother to find out and repeat the same
thing this year?
If
that is the case, it is more of the plant's issue rather than
transmission line issue and it makes sense it is local issue to the
plant. I found a NRC document describing exactly this issue for the
plants along the ocean.
The above document has specific comment about Pilgrim.
"The 345 kV switchyard insulators at Pilgrim were coated with RTV silicon
rubber (Sylgard) in 1987. It was expected that the RTV coating, when applied
in 1987, would be effective for a period of 15 years. However, actual
experience at Pilgrim indicates that the coating is effective for a much .
shorter period of time. Consequently, the insulators at Pilgrim were cleaned
and coated with RTV again during the spring 1993 refueling outage. As a long-
term option, the licensee is considering a replacement of the existing 345 kV
switchyard with a modern compactly designed switchyard which would be more
resistant to the coastal environment. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a lot of people are waking up to the lies of Global Warming
OK lets start this discussion with something the failing nuclear industry hates to hear
There is no global warming, AND CO2 is only 3% responsible for warming that occurred earlier in last century.
These are fact, based on real data, and you can actually download the spreadsheets and see the chart derivations here.
And a lot of people are waking up to cancer caused by nuclear......
Two
years ago, during winter storm Nemo, the same two lines went down – one
brought down by a tree, the other by ice. - See more at:
http://plymouth.wickedlocal.com/article/20150131/NEWS/150139347#sthash.3m1RmN5N.dpuf
Maybe even do some more advanced number crunching, or correlate them to nuke bomb testing and sunspots. Have at it!
Bottom line, Global Warming has certainly occurred since 1880, but temperatures go in cycles, and "we" (meaning humans including scientists) do not understand them. There is a lot of complex stuff that affects weather, and yours truly strongly believes that sunspots and other sun magnetic and electric effects and as also related to cosmic ray blocking are WAY more important than CO2 from fossil fuel burning. Most of the Egg Head scientists don't even understand solar spots and are crappy at predicting cycles, and befuddled when there academia programmed minds can't operate to understand a process when it conflicts with their "training".
Bottom line---there has been NO GLOBAL WARMING over the past 17 years. Isn't that an "inconvenient truth" for those who wish to transfer wealth via Cap and Trade type acts. Also pretty inconvenient for those who wish to promote a dying nuclear energy field by stating that it can help reduce global warming.
Fact, we are seeing some more extreme weather months in the last 17 years, BUT the standard deviation is actually going down, see the chart. What does it mean?
Simple. Those in the boomer and post boomer generations have lived through a period of incredible weather stability. In the far known and measured past, weather has been more extreme. Just that fact alone helps the huge economic expansion of post WW2. We had it good. Now we are getting a few extreme spikes. It will be hotter and colder, dryer and wetter going forward. But global temperature has stalled out, and a reversal is likely.
Another big thing that is barely on most peoples radar is the earths magnetic pole shift, I can't deal with that one today, but realize it could be a massive effect on earth weather.
Check out the charts and drop a comment.
A reader at this site contributed a link to his own work, which proves that global warming is a scam, and that CO2 IS NOT a driver for upward temperatures. He is a real engineer with a background similar to mine. He has put real science to what is "know on a gut level".
Carbon dioxide change
has no significant influence
The influence that CO2 has on AGT can be
calculated by including ‘C’ in Equation (1) of Reference 2 as a coefficient to
be determined. The tiny increase in R2 demonstrates that
consideration of change to the CO2 level has no significant
influence on AGT. The coefficients and resulting R2 are given in
Table 1.
Table 1: A, B, C, D,
refer to coefficients in Equation 1 in Reference 2
Quote:
"One of the possible explanations for a link between sunspots and
weather is via cosmic rays. It is accepted that cosmic rays play a part
in cloud formation by encouraging the nucleation of water droplets. It
is also accepted that there is a negative correlation between sunspots
and cosmic rays. Figure 5 demonstrates this link."
And amazingly, on Aug 1, 2014 when I published my proof that Global Warming is a scam, Suspicious Observers had a short comment on their daily video, and the statement that "there has been no warming for 17 years" and a link to a long video that goes deep into Global Warming scam. I haven't watched it yet, but here it is.
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of
inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about
1645 to 1715(38 kb JPEG image). Although the
observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed
during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar
inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age"
when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower
altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the
more distant past.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael V.B.
Sadly I came to the same findings, and it does seem that the
catastrophic man-made global warming theory has been pushed mostly by
people aligned with the nuclear expansion agenda. And some very
well-meaning environmentalistas (with not the best scientific
interpretation skills, imo) fell for the propaganda… .
Using NOAA Annual averages I settled on a conservative "at least 12
years of no global warming", with signs (esp. related to solar activity)
pointing to cooling ahead: https://allegedlyapparent.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/warmest-may-global-cooling-climate-change/
One of the most pronounced examples of using the CO2-scare to push
nuclear has been George Monbiot, who stepped up the nuke propaganda
machine before the data was even in, with, "Why Fukushima made me stop
worrying and love nuclear power" (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
But most "warmistas" in key positions of political influence have
one thing in common (Al Gore, Obama, James Hansen, Bill McKibben, etc.),
they're also supporting the nuke agenda…
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now, some great comments from UK citizens and from the "met" aka the UK Metrological Office.
