Published: February 10th, 2012 at 5:32 pm ET
|
Title: Laguna takes stand on San Onofre
Source: Coastline Pilot
Author: By Barbara Diamond
Date: February 10, 2012 3:58 p.m. ET
Laguna Beach will back San Clemente’s appeals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that San Onofre doesn’t replicate last year’s disaster in Fukushima, Japan.
The City Council on Tuesday voted 4 to 1 to send a letter to the commission requesting the resolution of public concerns before any consideration is given to extending San Onofre’s operating license due to expire in 2022.
The letter had been requested by San Clemente Mayor Lori Donchak, but the action might be moot.
“Southern California Edison has not made a decision on whether we’ll apply for renewal,” said Edison spokesman Christopher Abel. [...]
Abel verified that 4,000 tons of high-level, radioactive waste are stored there. [...]
Read the report here
Published: February 10th, 2012 at 5:32 pm ET
|
sending...
Leave it to the MOB. Make lots of cash and then get out while the going’s good! Next, we’ll see them bailing-out on the responsibility of cleaning up this facility. They’ll hire themselves to cleanup the nightmare and we’ll be honored with the bill…
Report Comment
Don't put much weight on that statement, “'Southern California Edison has not made a decision on whether we’ll apply for renewal,'” said Edison spokesman Christopher Abel." It's a PR puff meant to disarm us. He has no power, no authority, other than managing our responses by playing into our dreams. Let's keep pushing the financial angle until they are convinced that they can't afford nuclear… because NO ONE can afford nuclear.
Report Comment
Yep, sounds like the old cut and run game has begun. I wonder just how much high-level radioactive waste we have on this planet right now…………..
Tom
Report Comment
@blackbeer: exactly. They’ve been doing this for decades. The use the pretext of environmental protection to scam the taxpayers into thinking it’s our responsibility to clean this sites up! IT ISN’T!!! It is not our responsibility! We agree to pay for a service up front. We’re not told that what we’re getting in the way of a service is actually going to cost us and future generations thousands-of-times its supposed value. So what some think is so cost effective ends-up costing an astronomical amount in the far future. I’m so sick of the pro-nuke pundits always decrying renewables as not being cost effective solutions to our energy needs. They’ll raise the spectre of Solydra, as though that scam is somehow an example of how renewables are unworkable ventures. So tell me then, hows the economics of nuclear power working out then?!
Report Comment
We pay for it. From the minute they start building it. Then we pay for them to decommission it. Then we pay for it some more when we get cancer
Report Comment
We pay for accepting their lies,
We need to shut them down and keep them down
that is very basic!
Report Comment
At some point, if the nuclear energy industry is allowed to go about business as usual, the amount of radioactive waste that will continue to be generated will cover every square inch of this beautiful planet.
We have to remember that NO ONE wants the already existing waste anywhere within their vicinity.
We could send it off on a space shuttle to get rid of it but chances are it’ll drop back down on our collective heads.
Report Comment
@Alice: I’ve addressed this issue (in prior posts) of removing nuc-waste from the planet. I’ve proposed reusable (hardened) gliders that are initially brought up to lift-speed on magnetic rails. The waste would be encased in glass (frit) and loaded onto the gliders before launch. The mag-rails would be placed on stable terrain with equatorial regions. The ‘waste-loads’ would be moved to hypersonic speeds before release up-into the atmosphere. Waiting up-above would be robot-retrievers, which would then remove and repack the glass containers into barges, which are then pushed-off into the Sun. The primary danger is in errant gliders. You’d want to launch out-over the ocean for starters. You’d also want the sealed-glass containers to be able to survive high-temperature reentry, with minimal damage. I’ve also suggested the use of space-elevators for the slow removal of the ‘waste-loads’. They’d take much longer to get the loads into space and not necessarily be less dangerous if they lost a load…
Report Comment
Join us? Aftershock, Alice all you guys…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/federal-regulators-approve-nuclear-reactor_n_1266100.html?ref=green
I’m about DONE…getting sick to death of all these Pro-Nukes.
Report Comment
Not kidding. Many NEW Trolls have arrived.
Tell them what you think!!
NIGHT!
Report Comment
HIT IT WHILE IT’S HOT!!
Report Comment
Oh, Whoopie, I would if I could but I gotta punch a timeclock and it takes most of my time. Besides, I might get into a fingertyping fight with one of those (shudder) ‘pro-nukular’ nutjobs and tell them to eat their own waste.
Heh.
Report Comment
@aftershock
I can’t let that one pass unnoticed! Humanity needs to keep it’s mess on this planet. We have no right to send any radioactive material into space. We have no right to burden future generations with this problem. And, those who generate nuclear waste must be willing to keep it where they are–not ship it anywhere else. If you do that, there should eventually be enough people protesting nuclear waste to stop creating it altogether.
Report Comment
I once mentioned to a nuclear engineer I was interviewing about John Lilly's (the dolphin guy's) concept of shooting the radioactive waste into the sun, which is an ongoing nuclear reaction. He said it would take over 10,000 space ships to get rid of what we've got now, if there were even a way to safely package it for shipping out. And just one accident would nuke the planet for eternity. No, we're stuck with the radioactive waste on this physical plane of existence. Where's the Nobel Prize for solving this problem?
Report Comment
http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/images/sanonofre-25mi.jpg
take a look at the 25 mile evacuation zone for San Onofre. Of course this should give no one
in Southern California peace of mind knowing there is 4000 tons of spent fuel in Earthquake
country down there. The entire region of Southern California will be a no go zone if that
M.F. ever goes. How many millions of people down there? Shut that plant down NOW.
Begin the process of encasing the spent fuel as they did in the closed Sacramento Ca.
nuclear plant–will take time but not to do so is criminal negligence.
Report Comment
@Sam: curious as to where you sourced that image from. It looks photoshopped; as though someone merged a google-map-sat-image with a circle, then air-brushed the red no-go zone into it. What’s up with this?
Report Comment
The image comes from Nuke Times website. You are right, it is a google sat image with
an airbrushed red no go zone. This site has plume maps for all the nuclear installations
in the United States, listed by state. Check it out.
Report Comment
@Sam: not doubting the validity of the graphic. I’ve done a lot of image processing / graphics work, so I have an eye for such things. Usually, the overlay is supposed to be a composite of data. In truth, I was just reading a report (on a French news service) where the evac-zone would be much larger than is being shown in the Nuke Times map…
Report Comment
* It should be noted that the Radiation Plume Maps on these pages are no indication of any safe areas within a 50 mile radius of any operating Nuclear Power Plant, leaking retired Nuclear Facility, Nuclear Reprocessing Plant or Nuclear Waste Storage Facility.
The above quote is from the Nuke Times site about the no go zones around nuclear plants.
‘the 25 mile zone is not an accurate mapping of the potential radiated areas around nuclear
installations. Go to the site and read their methodology for the plume mapping.
Report Comment
@Sam: yeah. I was reading in the followup link to this article how the Laguna Beach residents were being told to sit-it-out, while the surrounding areas were being evacuated. It’s obvious, the NRC approves operating licenses for these plants, while being fully aware that if they fail in containment, everybody in the surrounding region are screwed. The more you read, the more you realize that they’re all incompetent…
Report Comment
Shut them all down.
I will teach them solar energy
Report Comment
The San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant has the worst safety record of all U.S. nuclear reactors (per Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) safety allegation data). http://is.gd/wkjeQV
Many GREAT links on this site: http://sanonofresafety.org/
Report Comment