Firefighters called in to U.S. nuclear plant after alert — Overheating in turbine room — “Further details not immediately available”

Published: May 20th, 2013 at 8:53 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
205 comments


WXTK, May 20th, 2013: Firefighters called to Pilgrim nuke plant [...] after 4 a.m. According to reports, a motor overheated in the turbine room. That is in a non-nuclear section of the plant. Further details were not immediately available.

The Patriot Ledger: Twelve hours after the protest, at 4:20 a.m. Monday, Plymouth firefighters went inside the plant to check an overheated turbine lubrication pump. Fire Chief Edward Bradley said an electrical overload tripped a plant circuit breaker, automatically sending an alert to the fire department. Bradley said the pump is one of a number of pumps that keep turbine bearings lubricated during production. The pumps are located in a building adjacent to the reactor building.

Excerpt from anonymous tip: “fire in turbine bldg of pilgrim nuclear plant….4 fire trucks respond”

Published: May 20th, 2013 at 8:53 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
205 comments

Related Posts

  1. Fire at New York nuclear plant burns for hours — Outside firefighters called in to help — Reactor goes into shutdown November 12, 2012
  2. Floodwater enters turbine building at Ft. Calhoun nuclear plant June 27, 2011
  3. Emergency declared after fire at U.S. nuclear plant — Lasted almost 30 minutes April 16, 2013
  4. NRC Report: New York nuclear plant entered emergency plan because it couldn’t extinguish fire — FEMA, DHS were notified — Fukushima-type reactor November 13, 2012
  5. Fire knocks out spent fuel cooling at nuclear plant near Omaha — Operating under heightened alert level because of nearby flooding on Missouri River June 10, 2011

205 comments to Firefighters called in to U.S. nuclear plant after alert — Overheating in turbine room — “Further details not immediately available”

  • norbu norbu

    "Firefighters called to Pilgrim nuke plant"
    PLYMOUTH – "Plymouth firefighters were called to the Entergy Pilgrim Nuclear Station …after 4 a.m. According to reports, a motor overheated in the turbine room…..a non-nuclear section…..details were not immediately available".
    Non Nuclear section of a nuclear plant?…is that possible?
    Shut them All Down Now!
    N


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    Every day now another fukushima in the making

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Nuclear_Generating_Station

    The cabal just continues doing what it wants wherever it wants to no matter who stands in the way.
    http://plymouth.m.wickedlocal.com/wkdPlymouth/pm_31722/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=SvnqdKue


    Report comment

    • Lion76 Lion76

      Licence expiration June 8, 2032

      apparently, it was just "inspected and approved" for another 20 years of use… God help us all


      Report comment

    • Anthony Anthony

      My faith increases everyday that none of their bad deeds are going unnoticed. Likewise I believe we who are drawn here and to the truth are also being accounted for as well. A positive aspect of Fuku is that closer to 311 a shill would beat us about the head with their **Great Overall Industry Safety Record**.

      A lot has happened to that safety record in the meanwhile. Maybe, even as awful as that really is, it was necessary to effect real change.

      Have you noticed how rarely a shill speaks here these days? I find that telling.

      As for us, our message has not changed a bit since 311. And much of what was said around here to be ahead of us has really come to fruition.


      Report comment

      • Lion76 Lion76

        We were certainly on the verge of the "nuclear renaissance" happening quickly and quietly which, in hindsight, would have been a hugely terrifying prospect.


        Report comment

      • Sickputer

        Anthony writes: "Have you noticed how rarely a shill speaks here these days? I find that telling."

        SP: They pretty much stay to their own little self-righteous blogs now. They can't defend the global releases from Fukushima so they just ignore it and hope the 15-second attention span of humans will wipe that memory away.

        Too bad for them the Internet remains a constant source of information and they can't bury the news like TMI and Chernobyl. They have already lost key allies in banking and that will probably begin to shut them down in progressive countries.

        Unfortunately the American/French/British/Russian/Japanese nuclear construction enterprises are persuasive to dictators in energy-starved countries and promote nuclear energy relentlessly. Money interests have no social conscience…just self-preservation of their company.

        How many more countries will be destroyed like Japan before nuclear power goes away? Probably at least 1 or 2 more. It will take a metroplex the size of Dallas evacuated from nuclear contamination before people will get a wakeup call. I would like to think 50% of the 8 million around Dallas would leave if a nuclear disaster belched from the west. Even without government encouragement. Tokyo residents did not feel the same. Cultural differences perhaps…the highly regarded homogeneous obedient society. Great for social harmony, but lousy for self-preservation.


        Report comment

        • Anthony Anthony

          Agreed. You have to ask yourself if the benefits are worth the risks right? I would. I have gotten into it with the Pro Nukers many a time on places like HuffPo and they slam me with that I am just an ignorant hick, a stone age thinking buffoon, you name it. They have me exactly wrong; I love all the things that technology including energy technologies have brought to us in life. I would have never met people like you without it. But it can and has to be done safely. And if it cant, then we need double duty to get it how it needs to be. For me, it always comes back to the nuke industry being honest and forthright and if they are lacking those qualities I feel they should have their dangerous toys taken away until they learn better.

          I also further believe no ONE industry has the rights to interfere with public health; for us and the other earth lifeforms.


          Report comment

        • pronuke

          The reason that there are normally no pro nukes "shills" is that like most anti web sights, reason need not be applied. The problem with this site is that there is no recognition of risk. The traditional definition of risk is consequences times probability. Most here will not believe that an electrical fire in an auxiliary system has a high probability but for a shutdown plant has zero consequence. Thus the "nuclear risk" is zero. The fact is that civilian nuclear power is the safest industry in the US. This is supported by OSHA statistics. There have been 0 deaths attributed to civilian radiation exposures since the first reactor came on line. The reason you see reports like this Pilgrim report is because the US nuke industry is the only 100% transparent industry in the country. I have visited natural gas plants, coal plants and ethanol plants. The place that I am most comfortable at is a nuke plant. I may be a shill but it is based on risk recognition.


          Report comment

          • Anthony Anthony

            At least you are honest about who you are.


            Report comment

          • Jebus

            That kinda sorta makes you a gambler…

            I'm sure the probability of a nuclear plant melting down, exactly like the three at Fukushima, is probably low but, the result of those events are forever.

            You can't deny that.

            It's not just about an electrical fire or a minor leak today.

            I'm sure you understand our food chain and internal emitters…


            Report comment

            • pronuke

              A good gambler bases the decisions on the "risk". Nuclear has insignificant risk as compared to any other electrical production. If you look at the deaths per kilowatt (slightly morbid but statistics don't lie) generated, nuclear is the lowest of all. I will agree that the potential consequences are high but the probability is low. Reality has proven this correct. Any time you leave your house, you are gambling that you will return safely. Based on 60 years of experience, the most dangerous thing I do when I leave for work as a nuclear power plant worker, is to drive to work. Based on stats, I have a better chance coming home safe from working at a nuclear power plant then working as a data entry clerk in a computer firm. A good gambler understands the odds. I have reviewed the odds and based on actual stats, I am safer as a nuke worker then an automobile driver.


              Report comment

              • Jebus

                Based on that industry shill drill, it amazes me that people work at these plants with no real knowledge of what the effects on this planet and our genome that this outdated technology causes.
                It's the safest job in the world!
                It goes to show that even my dog can boil water if someone puts the pan of water on the stove and lights it…


                Report comment

                • pronuke

                  Please explain to me what is safer. This is the main objective of my argument. There is no basis for the antis other then you are an industry shill. Please show me your facts. Show me your numbers. Don't just shout louder and louder that "you are wrong" I can give you stats and numbers and scientific testimonies. But I cannot counter the idea that "you are wrong because I am right"


                  Report comment

                  • Jebus

                    "Please show me your facts. Show me your numbers"

                    Kinda silly saying that when you have given no support to your previous opinions…

                    What is safer?

                    Practicing a 15% reduction in electrical usage, across the board and shutting down all these aging relics, putting you to work, for the rest of your life BTW, decommissioning them…

                    Then when you get that all cleaned up you can work on figuring out what to do with millions of tons of lethal spent fuel rods, just sitting around waiting for something to happen.

                    The only way that I could gain an ounce of respect for an Industry, claiming to be green, that's hell bent on thrashing as much of our environment, as possible, at one time, is that you stop, shutdown, and clean up your mess.

                    Those are my facts fellow human…


                    Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      Please refer to section 2.2 and 2.3 for the short summation.
                      http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html
                      Basically, the numbers do not support higher death rates as based on dose.
                      But I am sure that with so many references, this was not well researched and is an industry cover up.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      Hmmm, pronuke says radiation increases health, just as Razz predicted he would.

                      I enjoyed the Kyoto University paper, and now they can test the theory first hand. Sure you saw that up to 44% of fukushima children have thyroid nodules at this early stage. Thats the thing about data; seems like the final word on truth, but apparently it leads to incorrect assumptions all too often. In other words, an inadequate substitute for an ethical and discriminating mind. There is data that shows CT scans cause 29 000 cancers a year. Seems like hormesis doesnt work in hospitals then? Pronuke, I think theres something to hormesis upregulating some biological defense, but so what? How can that possibly justify poisoning the earth because at some low level, there may or may not be an upgrade in glutathione for a while? What percent of human energy requirement is being provided by nuclear? Whats the chance that fukushima alone is an extinction level event?


                      Report comment

                  • Anthony Anthony

                    Numbers don't matter to you and your crowd. We have learned and have THOUSANDS of posts here that CLEARLY demonstrate why NO REASONABLE PERSON would even take the bait of your **show me the numbers mind game**.

                    I'm glad Pronuke you are here because I was worried about other good heart and soul posters here who have expressed lately how they feel low and wounded with **the numbers** we DO know about.

                    I believe your journey to thinking right and having at least some measurable compassion for other humans,the planet and LIFE will be a painful one. I used to hurt about 311 and I have healed my heart and mind about it. A side effect is that I see much better through the lies and the liars today and I doesn't hurt me anymore.

                    I also learned it is not my responsibility to **convert** your thinking because you should know better by now yourself.


                    Report comment

                • pronuke

                  There are 5 processes that the human body has to detect and eliminate rogue cells prior to cancerous production. These are enhanced by low levels of radiation. The most prevalent issue is a single DNA break that is easily repaired. Multiple single DNA breaches are easily corrected in fast repair sights of the cells. If this is not possible then the cells mutate and die. If this is not possible, neighboring cells send out distress signals. If this is not possible, then the white blood cells attack the rogue cell. No I do not have any idea of the physiological response of the human body or the cellular response to low levels of radiation. (sarcasm for those that do not recognize it) please provide sources and facts and I may re-consider.


                  Report comment

                  • Jebus

                    The cells that are DNA damaged and not recognised by the body as such, are the ones that, if viable, go on to be mutations, in the case of reproductive cells, or cancer, if a cell is triggered to replicate.
                    In the case of more intense radiation or continous low level radiation, there is much more chance that more of these damaged cells will be viable and give the results above.


                    Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      Agree and disagree. "In the case of more intense radiation.." The legal limit is 5 Rem/ person per year (NRC Limit) for radiation workers. There are no discernible effects below 25 rem per year. So the case of more intense radiation is mute. In the case of continuous low levels, if the body did not do the required repairs, then area of the world with high background radiation SHOULD have a shorter life expectancy. This is not the case.


                      Report comment

                    • Jebus

                      Hey pronuke, news flash, when radionuclides are in the environment, they easily become internal emitters.
                      It becomes a whole new ballgame when you are eating and breathing even the slightest amounts of radionuclides.

                      When I asked if you could say it, I meant, "internal emitters"


                      Report comment

                  • connectdots connectdots

                    pronuke said:

                    "…a single DNA break that is easily repaired."

                    Wrong.

                    If DNA breaks were so easily repaired there wouldn't be so many cases of cancer and mutations.

                    In addition, nuclear radiation in particular is more damaging to DNA >>

                    "In contrast, beta and gamma radiation
                    are more severe and act across
                    much greater distances, as has been
                    apparent in the aftermath of nuclear
                    tragedies such as Hiroshima and
                    Chernobyl. Ionizing radiation snaps
                    the DNA backbone as easily as we
                    might break a hair. One break is sufficient
                    to kill a cell."

                    http://www.dna-repair.nl/DNA_Repair.pdf


                    Report comment

              • Anthony Anthony

                Your industry's activities have put the worlds food chain at great risk. You own that fact and I don't.


                Report comment

            • Anthony Anthony

              And on the other side of his **reality** is the simple reality of our ruined Pacific Ocean. How does one overlook such an obvious catastrophe while applauding his industry is beyond me. He maybe accounting human impacts but what Pronuke and his crowd doesn't seem to understand is I am furious with what they have done to this beautiful planet OF OURS.

              I know a higher power totally agrees with me on this. Like I said, at least he says he is a shill. This light really is bring the truth of things to the surface, isn't it?

              From here on out I am always going to side with the animals we have hurt and destroyed and see things first and foremost through the eyes of nature. As Pronuke made his statement I could only think of the sea lions. Instead of attacking him for not showing his conscience I just accept he lacks that. And I think him thanking me for that confirms things.


              Report comment

          • Try quantifying health, economic and environmental risks from Fukushima

            Try quantifying transgerational genomic instability

            Try quantifying extinction

            Those are the real risks


            Report comment

            • pronuke

              I have. The only, only, only (get my point) is economical. This is based on an irrational fear of radiation. The survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl have and continue to live longer an in better health then the general public. The fact is that people that live with higher background radiation live longer. The fact is that the babushkas, that returned despite the evacuation orders, live longer then the relocated population should display that minor levels of low dose radiation is beneficial to the immune system. The problem here is anti-nukes are pre-biased so that any scientific evidence is discarded as Shill bias. Please review the data. Of course, I am biased. I have my opinion and what I believe is numbers to support it. I am always interested and will listen to counter arguments. But they must be supported by facts and not feelings.


              Report comment

              • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                It's really difficult listening to dick heads like you bang on. Piss off tosser. We don't need your crap around here…


                Report comment

                • pronuke

                  Once again well thought out arguments are deflated with "Piss off tosser" This goes back to my original thesis that respect is only provided to those that agree with you.


                  Report comment

                  • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                    I'm more than happy to agree with those who disagree with me…usually…tosser…


                    Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      noted. negative stereotype applied.


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      Your assessment is right on eatliesndie. Do your homework pronuke and stop relying on false and misleading industry propaganda for your arguments. Radiation kills. You propagate the deaths of countless lives across every facet of life on this planet for thousands of years to come. How can you possibly know the impact of your deeds? The final tally won't be in until you and I are long gone. Stop your attack on life. You would be better off scrapping gum off sidewalks outside a sports stadium or mopping the floors of an adult theater.


                      Report comment

              • Jebus

                I have reviewed mountains of data and the fact that I see is that there is no low dose threshold for damage from low level radiation period. All radiation harms cells and mutates DNA.
                All radiation, from sun, from space, and from manmade radionuclides spread into the environment.
                The kicker?
                The manmade radionuclides can be internal emitters.
                Internal emitters. Cancer. Can you even say it?
                Ya, the wildcard in the little nuclear game of probabilities…


                Report comment

                • pronuke

                  WHAT????? Based on your review, how has life been sustained this long???? It is possible that any radiation can damage a cell. If this led to imminent death bacteria never would of made it out of the primordial ooze.
                  Yes I can say cancer.
                  I can also review facts.
                  The people survivors of Hiroshima an Nagasaki live longer the the average Japanese resident.
                  Fact: the average low level nuclear worker from the development of Great Britain's nuclear weapons lives on average 3 years longer then the non-nuclear workers from the 1950s through 70s.
                  Please provide data contrary to this so that I may reconsider my stance.


                  Report comment

                • pronuke

                  Thank you for the post however on short review this report identifies that there is a "potential" effect of 0.4% to 0.6% for the data identified that there MAY be a detrimental negative impact. Please refer to page 118 which states "namely, that at low doses the genetic risks are small compared to the baseline risks of genetic diseases." This means that there are no statistical significance found in this report.


                  Report comment

                  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                    Happy you got data! A request; How much increase in cancer since the invention of nuclear? This is not to prove a relation, I simply want the data for other purposes.

                    Perhaps you are aware of the tipping point principle. In the case of cancer, its something like this; Cancer cells are always forming but the body can eliminate them with complex efficient systems. Start adding low levels of chemical carcinogens, stress, immune system suppressors, hormone disruptors, pathogens, and radiation, and at some point the system is overloaded. Its the tipping point from no tumor to tumor.

                    The problem with data is that its extremely difficult to get it! Some professionals have said the large increase in cancer is due in part to nuclear. Are you and your data up to defending against that painstaking analysis and conclusion?

                    A friend from the Ukraine died from cancer, another friend from Bulgaria had his entire family lose their thyroids. Yet no data exists that Chernobyl was cause or they victims. You would say then, no relation?


                    Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      Women who wear bras have a higher rate of breast cancer. Could it be that the majority of women that wear bras live in developed countries where 1)there are more chemicals in the food chain 2)there are more pollutants in the air (mainly from coal and oil) 3) There are higher background radiation levels (mostly from medical, televisions, appliances, etc,) 4) they live on average 15-20 years longer. I would believe that Bras have little to do with the statistic. Using all the arguments of the dissenters, you should be up at arms at the brassier industry as well.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      I think you missed the point pronuke, but I take responsibility for it; poor argument. In fact you unwittingly supported the argument which was that statistics dont always prove reality, as in your doubt about bra statistics. You take the idea that because you dont have statistics showing a million people died from Chernobyl, therefor they didnt. But thats not scientific is it? They have died and you may not have the right data. This much we know; radionuclides are extremely poisonous and a lot of them have been released. Even without statistics, doesnt it strike you as ignorant to assume no life was harmed?


                      Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      There was harm done. I will not deny that. My point is that the harm that will be or was caused by Fukushima, is and always will be below the known statistical harm that other forms of power have and continue to do. Coal kills thousands a year and inflicts asthma on millions. Yet there is no mass hysteria against Coal. There are 37 confirmed deaths from windmills (last stat I saw and don't have a source, sorry) Some of these were civilians. There has never been a radiation induced death from a US nuclear power plant. This is all an issue of relativity.


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      But you dont know if people have died in the US or not. Isnt that the truth? A study indicated some 18000 have died in the US from fukushima alone. The point is not to argue the veracity of the study, since that applies to your data as well, but to realize that massive contamination from an unnecessary industry will create massive suffering, one way or the other. Coal is no good, Im with you. Scientists ASSURED US, ASSURED US they could figure out safe storage of nuclear and how to keep power plants from blowing up. Even you have to admit they were wrong on those counts. If they had focused on solar and wind, we likely could be free of coal and nuclear by now. Theyre smart enough for nuclear but too dumb to figure out solar? What percent of energy is supplied by nuclear?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      pronuke, heres the thing; you say nuclear is the way to go, that its safe. yet Fukushima is in steaming ruins, out of control and uncontainable for the foreseeable future. A Japanese ambassador and many scientists have said if SFP 4 falls over, not at all unlikely, the ecology of the northern hemisphere will be ruined (if it isnt already), enough radioactive material has been released to kill every man woman and child on earth a few times over, but with sheepish grin they hope it only effects sea life, and professional institutions like CRIIRAD have said even European exposures are not negligible and you better not eat broad leaf salads and milk and stuff.

                      We fail to understand how these fantastic facts dont cause people with your ideas considerable cognitive dissonance. The salient point is that your MINDSET, including logic, where you put faith, over all comprehension…this mindset is what got us in this horrific level of uncontrollable ongoing worldwide contamination. Perhaps you can imagine why we view your camp with extraordinary incredulity, and even the SOURCE of world wide destruction. Try to grasp this


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      Joseph Mangano, Author of Mad Science: The Nuclear Power Experiment
                      http://capitoilette.com/tag/idaho-national-lab/

                      Americas First Nuclear Power Accident – Sl1
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrYDNbn6Gzs


                      Report comment

                    • 16Penny 16Penny

                      Coal exhaust can be cleaned by using algae culture filtration. When you turn off a coal plant it is off. If it blows up it blows up and not nearly comparable to a nuclear accident. Responders can get in and help people or clean up, not so simple with nuclear accidents. Stop trying to even compare, it is a ridiculous argument. You are foolish to continue to try this line of thinking. You are wrong in so many ways.


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      “The SL-1 accident was the first fatal nuclear accident in the United States. The men killed in the incident were two Army Specialists, John Byrnes, age 25 and Richard McKinley, age 22, and Richard Legg, a 25 year old Navy Electricians Mate. Richard McKinley was interred in Arlington National Cemetery. John Byrnes and Richard Legg were buried in their hometowns in New York and Michigan….”
                      http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      At 8.14, “This is probably the greatest threat to humanity is the loss of intelligence as a result of brain damage from radioactive fallout from Chernobyl,” US toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD
                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsbKzt1UPCQ


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      Chernobyl – The Real Story (2011): Nuclear-Devil Lobby Lies Are The Risks of Radiation Propaganda
                      http://www.vidlist.com/video_show/chernobyl-the-real-story-2011-51293


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      pronuke, i hope you review annes video links and also get back with us on your view of the pacific ocean contamination, the sad CRIIRAD information, and your thoughts on uninhabitable land…what do you say to Japanese who have lost the north half of their island (I hope its not that no single person was killed…its uninhabitable), and your thoughts on why a pro nuke mindset continues to repeat nuclear is safe after multiple reactors have blown up or melted down and contaminated the northern hemisphere. Thanks. Do you think Michio Kaku and others are right that SFP4 can cause destruction of half the earths biosphere? We want to know


                      Report comment

                    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

                      @CodeShutdown

                      "Happy you got data! A request; How much increase in cancer since the invention of nuclear?"

                      According to Kate Brown, the author of "Plutopia…." Oxford University Press, 2013, the increase in cancer is 85% since 1951 to 2001. I highly recommend that everyone on this site read it. She is a Professor at the University of Maryland and has very many footnotes to back up all the facts she presents. The publisher's name alone ought to tell you all you need to know.


                      Report comment

                    • pronuke

                      No link to the extensive amount of extra mercury in the water, no link to the number of additional pesticides, herbicides, no link to the idea that people live longer, no link to the extra particulate in the air, no link to the additional smoker cancers, etc, etc, Yes all of the cancers must have been directly tied to nuclear radiation.


                      Report comment

              • combomelt combomelt

                You cant be serious lol


                Report comment

              • Anthony Anthony

                OMG Pronuke how can you confuse the will to survive and overcome in my people in the Ukraine and Japan and credit this to radiation?

                What you are saying is **We have poisoned you and its good for you because we say so?**

                Who knows what helped to give both examples of RADIATION VICTIMS what it took to overcome, but you better not count your chickens so early because Japan is about to paint a vivid radiation picture for the world.

                Have you talked to a Japanese mother of a child with thyroid abnormalities about how lucky she is that 311 happened in her country?

                Wake yourself up before its too late.


                Report comment

              • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

                pronuke said :

                "I have. The only, only, only (get my point) is economical"

                ———————————-
                This is your big big big problem ! Meaning you use/ obey the logic of a stockholder .


                Report comment

              • norbu norbu

                pronuke, no fear of radiation you say? please go to fukushima and help them, clean up. You wont even need a hazmat suit, no fear right!
                N


                Report comment

          • We Not They Finally

            Comfortable around the nuke plant? Go live downwind. If you get bored, go read the cancer statistics for downwind. Good luck.


            Report comment

          • HoTaters HoTaters

            You sir, are utterly full of B.S. about the statistics on deaths related to nuclear reactor accidents in the U.S. Shall I educate you? Idaho National Labs? Santa Suzanna? Hanford? Or would you prefer some stats on deaths and cancer statisitcs from U.S. military forces exposed to radiation testing during the 1950's? Hmmn?


            Report comment

            • pronuke

              Once again, research for weapons sited as the compelling reason to be anti-commercial nuke. The mindset 60 years ago in the arms race is different then the safe reliable running of an electric plant. Someone asked earlier why there are so few pro nukes. Being called "utterly full of B.S." might be the reason.


              Report comment

              • combomelt combomelt

                One again deaf dumb and blind monkey. Go live in Iwaki, and farm rice and eat the fresh persimmons.You lie argue and hide behind nonsensical rantings about the glories of nuclear power. LOL I can't get out of the chucklepatch when you post your garbage here. Or go to Chernobyl where you say its so safe.
                If nuclear is so safe,
                why are the cores surrounded by so much steel, and cement?
                Why do workers at Fukushima have to use robotic cranes to move radioactive debris?
                Why are they trying to store all this water from the plant and preventing it from entering the ocean because its so safe?
                Why do workers put on hazmat suits at Daiichi?
                A cup of plutonium inbetween us, before I can type the end of this post, we are both dead.
                Whats your point? Once again smugness, go live in Chernobyl or Fukushima for the next year, farm and reproduce your disgusting progeny, if you are still fertile, THEN GET BACK TO ME ABOUT THE GLORIOUS SAFETY OF YOUR NPPS. Oh and btw, Im still in the chucklepatch when i think about how confident you are with your silly opinions. LOL youre gonna need em.


                Report comment

          • combomelt combomelt

            I havent had to listen to anyone this blindly arrogant and stupid since Hillary said, "What difference does it make?" Hey pronuke, what co is paying your shillness? lol. You are so adamantly for nuclear power. Like others here have stated, you are a fascinating anomaly, that we rarely get to see. Someone so full of something he is blinded to all other things. Dude, I think you need to quit Pilgrim and get out for a bit, maybe get laid, see the sights, have a glass of wine, smoke a doob, something FFS!!!! cuz your ridiculous postings are simply depressing as they reveal no one has learned a g-d thing in the last 50 years of nukepower. Oh and btw, if you ever come back to this site, I want you to explain the current plan of safe waste disposal your "industry" has figured out. That way I can meet you in the chucklepatch again. Keep posting your drivel, its fun to try and make sense of such a perverted mind and soul.


            Report comment

          • connectdots connectdots

            pronuke said:

            "The problem with this site is that there is no recognition of risk."

            Wrong.

            This site, more than any other site, understands perfectly the RISKS inherent with nuclear energy.

            pronuke said:

            "…civilian nuclear power is the safest industry in the US."

            Wrong.

            Read "Nuclear Roulette: The Truth About The Most Dangerous Energy Source on Earth"
            http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Roulette-Dangerous-Energy-Source/dp/160358434X

            Read "Ten Urgent Reasons to Reject Nuclear Power Now"
            http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14461-ten-urgent-reasons-to-reject-nuclear-power-now

            Read "Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power"
            http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html

            Read "All U.S. nuclear reactors are too dangerous, says former nuke-safety chief"
            http://grist.org/news/all-u-s-nuclear-reactors-are-too-dangerous-says-former-nuke-safety-chief/

            Read "7 Reasons why nuclear power is bad for the environment and the nation"
            http://www.examiner.com/article/7-reasons-why-nuclear-power-is-bad-for-the-environment-and-the-nation


            Report comment

  • Proton

    Where is your local Fallout Shelter??


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    If these companies running the plants had to be responsible, financially and legally, then we would NOT see these accidents. There would NOT be anyone to run/build nuclear plants. Since the current environment is for the governments to fund/cover accidents costs (with fake money) the nuclear power companies make a literal "killing" off the profits. Now,what about the used fuel rods/cells? Oh.."don't worry, some day in the future we will fix about that!" The venting and leaking of radioactive materials,"no worry, some day in the future we will fix damaged DNA and cure the diseases/cancer." SOME DAY. If we have enough time…in a few thousand years..maybe..but I doubt it.

    These broken and old plants will continue to leak and break until there are no more people to fix or work there..


    Report comment

    • pronuke

      I prefer the fact that the nuke plants do not spill their toxins into the environment but retain them for burial. If every industry were like this, there would be no mercury in the fish (coal plants) Uranium in the food chain. ( I know this will get blamed on Nukes but the emitters of the most uranium is coal and gas plants) or toxic chemicals that NEVER decay (solar bi-product) Not to mention acid rain, Cross State Air Pollution or smog.


      Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        pronuke, did you see that study showing contaminated plankton from fukushima east of Hawaii? Doesnt it strike you that virtually the entire Pacific has been poisoned by one power plant? I cant figure out why having large tracts of land permanently uninhabitable and now the ocean desperately contaminated doesnt somehow make you pause for retrospection….

        http://enenews.com/kyodo-highest-levels-of-fukushima-contamination-already-east-of-hawaii/comment-page-1#comment-354305


        Report comment

        • pronuke

          Yes I saw this. What I see is numbers and not conclusions. Any one can supply numbers. What do the numbers mean? What is the point?


          Report comment

          • 16Penny 16Penny

            Here's a conclusion for you:

            "“This was a very deliberate cover up and I will use the word that we were lied to. There’s no two ways about it, we were lied to,” said state Rep. [Gerry] Pollet. [...]"

            Here's the link:
            http://enenews.com/amazing-plutonium-leak-at-u-s-nuclear-site-hidden-from-public-official-a-very-deliberate-cover-up-i-will-use-the-word-that-we-were-lied-to-video

            This is the problem, standard operating practice in the nuclear industry, military or civilian makes no difference, is the flat out lying and obscuring of facts related to releases and leaks. You can't claim how safe the nuclear industry is as long as your industry is policed by it's own people. I have a voice and I have rights. I feel like it is my right to say your industry has and never had any right to cause harm on untold thousands of people. You can't separate depleted uranium from the discussion, it comes from what you call peaceful nukes. What is peaceful about causing cancer, killing babies and mutating genes? I call it a weapon of mass destruction and terrorist activities.

            How many babies do you kill every day you drive to work? How many cases of breat cancer have you caused? Hyperthyroidism? The truth is you have no clue. How many will die after your long dead? Your contribution to the death and destruction will survive you.


            Report comment

          • combomelt combomelt

            Ah yes PN, you mean the same "useless" pesky numbers you use to spin "safe" radiation. What a joke. The Numbers work for my side not yours. Lol at you pn. Oh please go away, and leave your shilling on the nuke death tithing tray. Ciao


            Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        The numbers mean that the Pacific ocean is so contaminated from one nuclear power plant that thousands or millions of sea animals will suffer and die with humans following. The data was good, the levels are given, and the effects of radiation are known (much anyway) therefor, its easy to conclude that this is one major serious event. Why dont YOU extrapolate a conclusion? We know that Cs-137 in children from 10-30 Bq/kg…leads to a doubling in the number of children with electrocardiographic disorders, and foods containing between one and 10 Bq per kg or more, can result in the reference level of 10 mSv within two to three weeks. Really, make a conclusion from this pronuke


        Report comment

        • pronuke

          We know that the CS-137 electrocardiograph issue you identified has not been supported by independent scientist but only Dr. Busby. You made the conclusion not the article.


          Report comment

          • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

            glad youre here pronuke. Now give us a conclusion from this shocking data that puts it in perspective. You could start with the EPA levels if you like EPA max conaiminant level is <2pCi/day. Now, if you dont care to run numbers, you can just use common sense or intuition even and tell us what a 10 times increase in radiation over vast areas of the Pacific ocean are likely to do. And dont start your thinking with "10 times almost nothing is still almost nothing" For example 50-100 micrograms of plutonium [3.3-6.6 uCi Pu-239] in the skeletal system is the lethal dose, a very small amount. We know that 76 trillion becquerels of Plutonium-239 released from Fukushima


            Report comment

          • combomelt combomelt

            Yes, PN, yes, pay attention, you are getting sleepy, so quietly keep those evasive answers coming as the dark circle closes ever tighter around you, and you hide yourself in the shame and obfuscation of truth your existence has become.

            btw PN's rebuttals to some of the hard data just presented are getting shorter and less biting, as his "points of fact"(lol) crumble, and his berms give way…


            Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          Right, Pronuke, but I didnt say the article made a conclusion, I said the data was good and nuclear effects are known, then asked YOU to make a conclusion. But you didnt. Do you think you are able? Have enough peer reviewed unbiased factual data at hand to figure out just what were up against when the ocean radiation is 10 to 20 times higher than it was before Fukushima? In fact the studies and debates would go on without resolve, as we can glimpse here. However, an epidemiological study in 100 years ought to be pretty interesting. Ironically, cancer and autism have reached epidemic levels and nobody cares, no one tried to figure out why, so there is a defect in response somewhere, do you agree?


          Report comment

      • connectdots connectdots

        pronuke said:

        "I prefer the fact that the nuke plants do not spill their toxins into the environment but retain them for burial."

        Wrong.

        Nuke plants release radioactive toxins into the environment during their daily operations.

        That's why the NRC keeps track of them in their Radioactive Effluent and Environmental Reports.

        http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/plant-specific-reports/pali.html

        Let's use Palisades npp as an example.

        ** In 2012 Palisades released into the environment these gaseous radioactive effluents:

        Ar41, Kr85m, Kr87, Kr88, Xe131m, Xe133, Xe135, Xe138, I131, I133, Co58, Co60, Cr51, Sr92, Mn56, Zr95, Ag110m, C14, Cr51, Tritium

        ** Also in 2012 Palisades released into the environment these liquid radioactive effluents:

        Mn54, Co58, Fe55, Co60, Nb95, Ag110m, Sb125, I131, Cs137, Ni63

        ** Radiation was found in test goats as far as 2.62 miles from Palisades, and on the site boundary, garden and residence

        Maybe pronuke might want to keep his windows closed as he’s driving to work at his “safe” job.

        Remember, there is NO safe dose of radiation:

        http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/insights/04/01/11/nuclear-radiation-there-no-safe-dose

        And less cancer is found when nuke plants are closed:

        http://www.ca.allgov.com/news/controversies/less-cancer-found-after-rancho-seco-nuclear-plant-closes-130402?news=849611


        Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @jec

      "Since the current environment is for the governments to fund/cover accidents costs (with fake money) the nuclear power companies make a literal "killing" off the profits."

      If the government uses fake money, it's properly called "quantitative easing". If the populace does it, it's called "counterfeiting." So the U.S. is printing money and paying our bills with it. And not just those for nuclear power.

      People don't seem to understand where the bankers (and nuclear power) derive their money with government handouts and quantitative easing–it is coming from the pockets of the taxpayer (inflation) and enriching their pockets. Nobody attempts to stop it.

      Naturally, the government does not count the cost of food or gasoline in calculating the rate of inflation and so the report issued to the public is that inflation is negligible. If they counted those two items and publicized the true rate of inflation, you'd all be up in arms at what they are doing to you with quantitative easing. In other words, there is welfare for the powerful and capitalism for the rest of us. Just MHO.


      Report comment

  • moonshellblue moonshellblue

    I cannot believe they are forging ahead with these two nuke plants in Georgia.
    WASHINGTON–A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected an environmental challenge to licenses the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued for the construction of two nuclear reactors at a Georgia plant run by Southern Co. (SO).

    Citing the 2011 nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan, environmental groups argued the NRC should have reconsidered licenses for new reactors to be built at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in eastern Georgia. The groups also challenged the NRC's certification of the design by Westinghouse Electric Co., a Toshiba Corp. (TOSYY, 6502.TO) unit, for the nuclear reactors.

    The reactors, now under construction, are the first to be built in the U.S. in decades.

    After the Japan disaster, the NRC created a task force to study the Fukushima accident. The task force in July 2011 made recommendations for improving the safety of nuclear reactors, but it also concluded that a Fukushima-like accident was unlikely to occur in the U.S.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in an unanimous ruling Tuesday, rejected several arguments by environmental challengers and ruled that the NRC acted reasonably.

    A Southern Co. spokesman said the company was pleased with the ruling and said the review and approval of its licenses "has been a thorough, thoughtful and detailed process by the NRC staff and commissioners…


    Report comment

    • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

      "Too big to fail" is out of fashion moonshellblue , now its ,
      Too Big To Slow Down Teh Corruption !!!!
      by something Futile like an ELE …
      There minds are more dangerous then that of a cold turkey junky towards an easy victim…


      Report comment

    • pronuke

      Citing the Fukushima event, we should supply all of our electrical means via nuclear power. Almost 19,000 people died due to the tsunami, 1800 homes destroyed due to a hydro failure and no deaths due to radiation. Based on the empirical data, all hydro-electric plants need to be dismantled as soon as possible due to their potential seismic failures. Risk=consequences times probability. Consequences is zero radiation deaths. Therefore in hind sight, there was zero risk. Do not get me wrong. This was traumatic and tragic but there was no radiation induced deaths.


      Report comment

        • pronuke

          Why, I have supported my bases with numbers. What numbers do you have?


          Report comment

          • Sickputer

            I'll give you 1.8 billion dollars worth of numbers why radiation kills:

            http://www.justice.gov/civil/omp/omi/Tre_SysClaimsToDateSum.pdf

            http://www.justice.gov/civil/common/reca.html

            We have some on the list who collected on behalf of their dead parents. Nuclear Crime does pay at times!

            My dad died of myeloma in 1996 and he was a downwinder.


            Report comment

            • pronuke

              Thank you for some evidence. I can commensurate with your feelings. However,the evidence you provide is for victims of above ground testing of nuclear weapons and does not correlate to civilian nuclear electrical production. One of the misgivings that I have is that people correlate deaths and health issues related to nuclear weapons testing with nuclear electrical generation. I understand the distrust with all things nuclear if you have an emotional tie to previous testing. I am sorry to hear of your dads death from melanoma. But this does not link cancer to civilian nuclear electrical generation.


              Report comment

              • Sickputer

                Multiple myeloma, not melanoma (not covered by the act, although I suspect it is an equal culprit).

                Better reread your history…how do you think the AEC-controlled (and later the NRC) American commercial nuclear plants got their uranium pellets? You can't buy that fuel at Walmart.

                Yep…American millers, miners, and transporters. All covered by the compensation act. 6,285 so far got the biggest $100,000 settlements for their illnesses. Check back tomorrow and you will see that Award page updated…every day.

                http://www.justice.gov/civil/omp/omi/Tre_SysClaimsToDateSum.pdf

                Sorry for calling you Atomic Rod…he would have known that stuff. :-)


                Report comment

              • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                pronuke, great to have you here. Im sure you do have lots of data. I love data; information is power. We had a discussion going on, of all things, Angelina Jolie and the merits of preemptive breast amputation. There are some parallels regarding statistics and logic. Turns out Jolie had an 87% chance of breast cancer. I bet you can guess what the chance of getting breast cancer is if you amputate them. Less than 5%. So based on this sound data, it was logical; no breast= no breast cancer. But dig deeper and even without data you can see the fallacy in thinking.

                So taking it to nuclear, Data doesnt always tell the story. If nobody tests the mass die off of sea life going on from Alaska to S. California for radiation, or is unable to, or the data is suppressed, then the data will show nuclear is safe. In fact its a painstaking science to ascertain radiation cause and effect. An expert like Dr Busby could walk all over your data, as good as it appears to you. If you REALLY wanted to know, seek Busby.

                But I wonder how you feel about Chernobyl and Fukushima being uninhabitable essentially forever? About the large number of deformed and retarded children in Belarus post Chernobyl. About the deformed moths, animals and plant life they are finding in Japan? The large birth defects going on in Iraq since DU munitions? I guess your data says its ok, just like Ms Jolies breasts are safe now…


                Report comment

                • eatliesndie eatliesndie

                  wait, wait, let me answer! The WHO, UN and all those other nuke sucking…organisations said all that stuff about chernobyl was non-existant. Only a few workers died in the initial stages…apparently… and after that it was clear sailing. yipeee!, Go nuclear – and you guessed it – clean safe and green.


                  Report comment

                • pronuke

                  From what I was able to find on DR. Busby, his work on the CERRIE project was rejected by a vote of 10-2. He was one of the two negative voters. The only information I have found is that he has some basis for a mechanism of minor increase of radiation damage given the proper physical conditions, however he was unable to establish a significant health risk from this theory. The majority of what I read is that his theories have not gotten credible positive critical reviews. Kind of like Dr. Caldicott.


                  Report comment

                  • Time Is Short Time Is Short

                    There are only two kinds of studies involved here, nuclear-funded studies and independently-funded studies. No independent study has ever found any level of radiation to be beneficial.

                    Even the National Academy of Science has stated the same.

                    We can argue over micro-views for years, but there is no debating the macro-view that the levels of radiation coming out of Fukushima, Chernobyl and other soon-to-fail NPP's, along with all the other sources of radiation contamination, are going to cause lethal damage to the bioshpere for thousands of centuries, far longer and far worse than any lifeform alive to day can withstand.

                    We may all live long lives, but our great-grandchildren won't, and not much past that.


                    Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  pronuke, so you looked at Busby and decided he was a quack, perhaps insincere, perhaps not qualified or just stupid? You see, I dont get that impression at all. Quite the opposite; he appears intelligent, thoughtful, sincere and qualified. Did you see a video or anything? Here he talks about science and policy which is I think relevant to the discussion here

                  http://candobetter.net/node/2744


                  Report comment

      • Sickputer

        There are no gun residue tests for the murderers when a tiny cesium bullet enters your heart and stops it cold.

        There are no DNA tests to see why my friend got leukemia from his plutonium pacemaker.

        There are no autopsies when a patient dies during radiation ablation or chemotherapy.

        There are no official reports of deaths when doctors in Japan take deformed babies to the dump bin.

        There are no insurance payoffs when a poor yakuza debtor dies of a heart attack at Fukushima Daiichi.

        The nucleorats have invented the near-perfect crime except for one thing…they will not escape the verdict of history.

        Big Brother's atomic reign from 1941-2011…the veil of lies has been lifted….never again will they hold sway.


        Report comment

        • pronuke

          Plutonium pace maker, radiation ablation neither deal with civilian nuclear power production. Chemotherapy?? is the process of using chemicals to combat physical ailments and has absolutely nothing to do with radiation. Please if you are arguing against civilian nuclear power, keep your arguments relevant and not against medical or chemical processes.


          Report comment

          • Sickputer

            The very first chemotherapy was radium used by Marie Curie.

            :-) Time for you to go to bed Atomic Rod. Bone up on your history. It's going to be a long nuclear summer.


            Report comment

            • pronuke

              I appreciate being referenced back to Atomic Rod. Alas, I am not him. Once again CHEMOTHERAPY is the use of CHEMICALs and not radiation. Bone up on your medical technology. However bed sounds like a good idea. Good night. Thank you for the discussion.


              Report comment

              • combomelt combomelt

                Lol. Don't forget who you're talking to sometimes folks. You cant teach s"%$#d. Pn said he works in a npp. Once again excuse me while i enjoy myself in the chucklepatch


                Report comment

              • Sickputer

                Pronuke goes to bed, but leaves another error to be corrected:

                "Once again CHEMOTHERAPY is the use of CHEMICALs and not radiation. Bone up on your medical technology"

                SP: Better read the 2nd paragraph here then…
                4th sentence to be exact:

                http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/16/7/2295.extract

                Cheers PN…have good dreams…they won't in Fukushima.


                Report comment

              • Pronuke seems to shorten to PUKE very readily. Leave, we don't like you.


                Report comment

                • Jebus

                  No no, I would really like to see him come back and post one supporting link, that nuclear power is anything but detrimental to this earth's environment.

                  From the heated tritium laced water to the support of nuclear weapons and every Fukushima in between, nuclear power is anti-earth…


                  Report comment

                • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                  Yes, we are fascinated to hear from someone who thinks nuclear is the safest thing, even in light of fukushima. Its a glimpse of an alternate universe; a fantastic heteromorphic jubilee. Pronuke is a dicotomocon, who would want to miss this opportunity?


                  Report comment

                  • Anthony Anthony

                    I agree. For me he paints a picture of the distance in character there is between his type and ours. How would and objective and impartial fair outside person see us compared to each other? I know the planet thanks us for our conviction and simple desire that we try to restore its paradise and health. We will not stand by and allow its deliberate destruction.


                    Report comment

              • razzz razzz

                You will have to become familiar with Pronuke's talking points, not smart enough to come up with the information by himself. Handlers feed him all kinds of kool facts and will walk a thin line at all times until failing the handlers and disappear.

                One of the favorite talking points is that the military complex caused the bad name for nuke power and uses Hanford has an example. But Hanford is a large site and still operates military research and production of nuke arms under the guise of public nuke power generation (like all NPPs). A convenient cover while ignoring the facts.

                In time Pronuke will have to come to grips with anything nuke not being cost effective, he will dodge that fact all day long and claim Yucca mountain is still feasible and a safe storage site.

                Pronuke will rely on NRC and WHO publication and ignore Euroland, Canadian, etc. findings, medical or otherwise against his position esp. those recent living within a certain radius of a nuke power plant results besides continuous rising radiation background levels.

                Pronuke is a fossil in his thinking as the death and cause rate statistics favor radionuclide(s) in the short history of splitting atoms.

                Wait until he claims low radiation is good for you (and he will only a matter of time).

                Pronuke is a socialist at heart because without public brainwashing and public funding, NPPs couldn't exist. Pronuke should know that being part of it unless practicing psychic numbing is a forte.


                Report comment

                • Cisco Cisco

                  Razzz…Agreed with 1 exception

                  "In time Pronuke will have to come to grips with anything nuke not being cost effective, he will dodge that fact all day long and claim Yucca mountain is still feasible and a safe storage site."

                  Psychopaths aren't capable of "coming to grips" with anything that assaults their pathological lies.

                  Psychopaths live in the realm of, "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind". You can't reason with a psychopath. You might as well teach pigs to fly.

                  Ignore this creep. Don't reply to him and he will eventually go away. Psychopaths need to feed their disorder by constantly pushing their corrupt agenda; starve the beast.


                  Report comment

                  • pronuke

                    Once again support of why no industry people will post here. Called Puke, psychopath, etc. Well sorry if you only want people to post here that agree with you. You win. Treat people without respect and watch them go away. There are answers available to deal with problems but uneducated people don't want to listen to reason. Refer to the credentials of Jebus that was quoted as an expert above. Claim this minor victory, raise your glass and keep using coal to power your world.


                    Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      pronuke…solutions to pacific wide radiation polution? I would REALLY LIKE TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS! thanks


                      Report comment

                    • Anthony Anthony

                      And maybe perhaps it is you who needs to listen and learn? This is not really about nuclear versus coal as much as it is about the health of the Planet and her Lifeforms. For you to keep arguing about your position with Fukushima continuously spewing in the background makes a curious picture for those who can see.

                      The, Our Planet would not agree with you that everything is okay with how man is running nuclear plants. Can you really not see where our anger is born?


                      Report comment

                    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

                      pronuke, you were treated very rudely, apologies from me and on behalf of the others, if I may. Realize that most of us believe fukushima has three melt THROUGHS, with corium somewhere deep in the ground, forever polluting the ground water and environment. Its something beyond tragic…no way you can clean this up. If there is a reason for people rudeness, it would revolve around this. But I for one would invite you to stay on and expand the dialogue as you can. Its almost ridiculous to complain amongst the same folks…whats the point of it. So your views are welcome, and the rude (me at least) will make way for it


                      Report comment

                    • Jebus

                      Rude is coming to this forum, in a condescending manner, requesting data and credentials and not providing either.
                      He basically walked in and proclaimed, you are all stupid and wrong because you are not experts with credentials.


                      Report comment

                    • combomelt combomelt

                      On the one hand pronukes views are ignorant at best, and on the other hand his posts are absolutely vital for showing the lack of empathy for everything nuklear "power" has damaged and irradiated. If PRONUKE could simply tell everyone here of how simple it will be to decontaminate hanford and/or one of the several fuku reactors. Then after that detailed explanation please enlighten us all as to the safety and permanence of waste fuel storage over the next 1/2 million years. He cant do it and neither can any of his pro radiation friends on all those pretty pronuke sites.
                      Aww, poow wittle pwonuke cant stand to be called names when he defends an industry of DEATH. I personally couldnt care less if he leaves or not, he will not answer the 2 questions i have asked, or anyone elses for that matter, how convenient! A few petty insults keeps the puker from having to formulate some more excuses for his "job". So he slithers away confident that our insults are the reason he will leave and withhold his sick twisted "truths". Go away or stay, makes no difference. He might as well be presenting his "fact-based" nonsense to helen keller. So keep running away from yourself and ene by blaming the folks here for your leaving rather than the real reason you are leaving….. you have RUN OUT OF SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS FOR POISONING THE EARTH. I posited 2 question propuke. Do you have the guts to answer them or are you another wimp blowhard hiding behind that screen in moms basement


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      The dichotomy isn't between coal and nuclear. It's between coal and nuclear in contrast to solar, wind, and geothermal. With nuclear, which also contributes to climate change with the heat sent out to our streams and Krypton 85, etc. There is no place for nuclear with climate warming. As the oceans rise, all the nuclear plants will be taken out by seawater floods. Krypton 85 causes the devastating storms. The radionuclides being released and the methane from shafts near neaclear plants dug deep into the ground are destroying everything including the radiation shield around the earth and the ozone layer. Near term extinction is just around the corner. It is the nuclear energy run by uneducated people who just have to steal the taxpayers money because they don't know how to support themselves any other way.

                      The government (which is supposed to represent the people) should refuse to insure these unsafe plants and should refuse guaranteed loans.

                      It is worse than Russian roulette. It is guaranteed death for everyone because no one in the nuclear industry knows anything about medicine and biology. When nuclear engineers become whistleblowers and learn biology, they are all against nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They have become "destroyers of worlds."


                      Report comment

                    • VanneV anne

                      It is the nuclear industry who has become "destroyer of worlds", not the whistleblowers or those against the nuclear industry. The MIC only knows about power and death. They know nothing about compassion or life.


                      Report comment

      • Anthony Anthony

        This is highly disrespectful to the people that have been affected by the plant failure.


        Report comment

      • 16Penny 16Penny

        how about the nuke plants in the paths of flooding following dam failures. These plants need to be mothballed now that word is out and they are at higher risk of terrorist attacks. Very poor planning by the builders. Very poor planning all together in the industry. How is that elusive solution to long term storage of nuclear waste coming along. It seems the only answer put forth so far is to dump it in the oceans. Disgraceful.


        Report comment

      • connectdots connectdots

        pronuke said:

        "…there was no radiation induced deaths" from Fukushima

        Wrong.

        [1] The cancer deaths will come.

        At the Health and Ecological Effects of Fukushima Symposium, the World Health Organization predicts:

        * a 70% increase thyroid cancer risk in females exposed as infants
        * 6% higher risk in breast cancer in females exposed as infants
        * 7% higher leukemia risk in males exposed as infants

        http://www.totalwebcasting.com/view/?id=hcf

        [2] In the U.S. the death rate rose 3.2% (14,000 additional deaths) in the time period between March 11 and June 19, 2011, attributed to Fukushima radiation. (See Mangano/Sherman)

        [3] "Fukushima Resident: “It seems there are already many cases of mysterious illnesses” — “I hear that malformed babies are born”
        http://enenews.com/already-many-cases-mysterious-illnesses-fukushima-hear-malformed-babies-born

        [4] "Professor who met with Fukushima physicians: Thyroid diseases already apparent — Diseased newborns and Down’s syndrome still kept secret"
        http://enenews.com/doctor-meets-with-fukushima-physicians-very-surprised-to-see-young-patients-with-myocardial-infarction-diabetes-and-eye-diseases-thyroid-diseases-are-already-apparent-diseases-of-the

        [5] "A Nun’s Warning: “I just came back from Japan and Fukushima and I hear already many children start getting sick”
        http://enenews.com/nuns-warning-came-japan-fukushima-hear-already-many-children-getting-sick-video


        Report comment

    • NoPrevarication NoPrevarication

      @moonshellblue:

      There is only one real argument that can be raised to cause the NRC and it's minions to stop: There is absolutely no safe place to store nuclear waste and there never will be–it will be dangerous for thousands of years and incalculable generations. What is it they do not understand about that? Do they really think 40 generations from now people (if they survive nuclear power) will want to foot the bill to dig it up and deal with it again and again? Not a chance. This generation takes the lives of future generations without giving it a serious thought, and the government is complicit in this.


      Report comment

  • palisadesnpo

    Just read the CR…one of their aux oil pumps tripped on thermal overload, a security officer reported smoke in the lube oil room, fire brigade responded, found one of the aux oil pump motors on fire, and using CO2 had the fire out in 11 minutes. By the time the fire department got there the fire was out and reflash watch set.

    Great job by the Fire Brigade at PNPS! I'm sure we will learn more about this incident at our next Fire Brigade training and I'm sure a fire drill in the lube oil room is in our near future.


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    Hey pronuker, can you go back to the collective and see if it's ok to call you guys pukers, instead of pronukers. It's easier to blog and besides lately it describes those old radiation plants to a tee…


    Report comment

    • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

      HA! Pronuker, you can see that your every post will be followed by incredulity or downright hostility. But try to understand thats how people feel when they see photos like those provided by 16penny above. Did you look at them? But dont think its just anti nukers that lack decorum; an anti nuker gets pounced on with a latreenload of pompous denigration when visiting a pronuke site. Fukushima; not a SINGLE human has died, and all is well? You might as well say the moon is made from blue cheese. It IS amazing they can still work around one of the most toxic places on earth, where even a minute in some locations there is a fatal dose


      Report comment

      • 16Penny 16Penny

        He is probably right when he says it is safer in the plant than driving. Inside the plant they have all kinds of protection, filtration and shielding. The air intakes for the ventilation system are designed to draw air from safer locations than where the releases occur. Downwind is a different story though.


        Report comment

      • 16Penny 16Penny

        "Fukushima; not a SINGLE human has died, and all is well?"

        Has anyone seen an update on the plant manager that was too sick for authorities to interview? If he didn't pass on yet I am sure it will be soon. No one is counting the babies lost. How are we even supposed to measure the impact on the workers with their shielded radiation badges. Is it ok to act like Russia did with Chernobyle and deny it until 25+ years later when the impact is so obvious that no one in their right mind would accept another accident anywhere close to the same scale. I don't think so.

        The results and failures at Fukushima are 1 plant. Imagine the reality after something impacts a whole region. There were several close calls during and after Sandy, and that was relatively local. Imagine a large scale failure of the electrical grid or a major earthquake effecting dozens of NPP's at once. It was difficult for response teams to bring a few plants back from the brink, think they can save dozens or more at the same time? How many spare parts are laying around? How do you source and deploy enough back up generators and pumps to keep multiple reactors spread across a region cool. How do you keep the employees from abandoning their posts to care for their own families needs during a crisis. I'd suggest shutting them all down until every eventuality is fully explored and resolved. Tomorrow just might be the day we face one of these "unforeseen" catastrophic events and the consequences.


        Report comment

        • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

          Yeah, isnt it funny how pronukers tell us there is NO CHANCE of disaster, that we have an irrational fear, while the common sense of a 10 year old who says disaster is imminent because shit happens is vindicated by the mega disasters that are unfolding? The plant lay smoldering in utter ruins, the data analyst insisting the thing will never fail; some kind of uber tragicomedy. Every nuke plant should have a 10 year old with common sense in control


          Report comment

  • Sickputer

    The Emperor's Clothes story comes to mind when we hear the same lame old defenses by nuclear proponents. Except in this case they really do know they are naked.

    "Excuse me lady…your child just dripped nose blood on my Gucci suit! Can't you control your kids?"

    "That's not a dead bird…it's sleeping!"


    Report comment

  • WindorSolarPlease

    So you want Nuclear Plants.
    Let me introduce you to the danger of them

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfKm0XXfiis&list=PL974B6D3582C77CFA


    Report comment

  • wideawake wideawake

    heh heh.. brilliant..Newser's 10 pukemaker 0…..that's zero, zilch, nadar,zippo'..(who said that!?).. That's seen them' off… Tail between legs no doubt(grin).. I did get the distinct impression pukemaker could just have easily, and if paid enough argued alongside you guys..Hey pukemaker'..Want a good argument? …It's £1 for a five min.argument or only £8 for a course of 10.. Monty Python's Argument clinic..Hilarious. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y


    Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

    pronuke?……pronuke?….Im sorry I insinuated that your mindset was the cause of global catastrophe, but I thought we were….you know, friends and stuff….I was really hoping you would tell us about your feelings concerning the Belarus deformed, or the pacific ocean 10x contamination….pronuke…..you there?? I…Im sorry if I offended you. I missed your response about the 33 to 44% thyroid damage, the uninhabitable land, radioactive milk and stuff…. …..hello?


    Report comment

    • pronuke

      Sorry but I will stop posting here. I actually thought that you presented some salient points. However, the treatment that some one with a different opinion gets here is why I am not going to post again. I do not know if any of you go and visit pro-nuke blogs, but if you do please recognize the fact that all contributors are treated with respect. The last thing I will say is that there is an environmental movie coming out on June 12th called Pandora's Promise" Go see it.


      Report comment

      • DisasterInterpretationDissorder DisasterInterpretationDissorder

        Wait a minute… thank you for staying polite in so far as i followed your first interactions here..
        And i apologize for my fellow Truth-Warrior's here ..
        The level of evil and destruction your "side" generates as a whole , as a controlled organisme , forced with power lies and murder upon the public, makes it sometimes difficult to see that on a personal level , not every human that is NOT against nukes is an evil spirited humanoid mutant , instead just tricked to wander of the road that leads to improvement for Everything..


        Report comment

      • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown

        pronuke, I apologize for being rude or snide. Yes, deplorable to get such a negative reaction here. Please stay on, if you would, thanks


        Report comment

      • Jebus

        Thats OK pronuke, because you have brought nothing to the discussion but your pronuclear point of view. You have not supported any of your pronuclear words with data. Not one single link to back up your tired old pro nuclear rhetoric. Are you sure it's your opinion?
        You see, you missed the fact that you stumbled into a group of individuals that have developed their opinions by researching the data. They have seen the negative side of nuclear power firsthand. The rewards of the 15% of our energy needs, is a pittance, for what we pay in human suffering, environmental destruction, genome mutations, cancer, and our children being born with defects and being born into this nuclear madness.
        We are parents and grandparents that have seen the truth of nuclear power. We will spread the truth, as long as it takes to wake up the rest.
        We will never allow someone, pronuke or otherwise, to lie to us again. We don't bat an eye at opinions. The nuclear facts speak for themselves.
        So if you can't man up and prove, with facts, not opinions, that eating radionuclides is good for you, go back to your pronuclear roundtable and thell them, the truth is out…


        Report comment

        • combomelt combomelt

          Jebus so correct. PN provided 0 links to support any of his postings while lecturing us all about the meaninglessness of factual numbers which he himself uses for his own lies. Absolutely hypocritical pathetic spineless nukeshill who runs away and hides when he has nothing left but obfuscation and thin skin. And PN wonders why he gets attacked.lololol.
          once again if PN is still trolling behind the scenes, please answer the 2 questions i asked before you go if you can troll.


          Report comment

      • IMO – Nuclear Power by definition IS a dupe.
        The BIGGEST dupe of all time!

        dupe: To deceive (an unwary person)

        Nuclear Power cannot solve climate change or anything else.

        The long term high risks of these Death Machines is not calculable in dollars or 'sense'.

        The number crunching and death comparisons to other things is a short sighted misdirection of the truth.

        The truth is, a thousand years from now YOU, (Mr. pronuke), won't be here. A thousand years from now, the planet and any life left will still be feeling and dealing with the insidious devastation to life caused by a few arrogant experts who deceived themselves and others into believing they could outwit mother nature, make bombs and profit at the same time.

        Well guess what?


        Report comment

      • From the Pandora's Trailer…

        1. "Can you be an environmentalist and pro nuclear?"

        2. "In light of climate change can you be an environmentalist and not be pro nuclear?"

        YES/NO word trickery.

        ;) Don't fall for this line of 'marketing' strategy. (propaganda)


        Report comment

      • norbu norbu

        pronuke, If you stay here much longer I will have to put on my rubber boots, the bullshit is getting deep.
        N


        Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        Dont be sorry. Take your silly apathetic insular diatribes and scoot. Oh and btw could you post links to the criminal pronuke sites you adore posting on? I need to read some good nukecomedy. Nevermind. Hes gone good riddance. We will have to find another punching bag. He was fun though.


        Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        An environmental movie! Oh thats rich!!!!!" What a pos ! I saw a screening and ive never seen payola used in such a blatant way. How can these "former" enviros live with themselves after turning tail against all they have fought against for their entire careers. TWO WORDS DEATHTHREATS, & MONEY. TRUCKLOADS OF CASH.A promise from pandora indeed. Everyone should see this this disgusting last gasp of nukepower propaganda to see the incredible lies set forth in it. Nazi germany would be so proud of its newfound reifenstahl production company. One of the worst "films" ever. But go see it so you are aware of the lies and deception coming down the pipe.


        Report comment

      • combomelt combomelt

        ProNuke said "everyone is treated with respect" on pronuke sites. Except for the fact the nukrs have disrespected EVERYTHING for the last 75 years. Bs blowhard


        Report comment

        • 16Penny 16Penny

          I have seen conversations to the contrary. Pronuke needs to sit back and read if he wants a free education, research his arguments if he wants to make claims or support his opinions and quit his job if he doesn't hate babies and boobies and everything else that is good about life.

          Humans lived a very long time before nuclear power, proving we can live without it, How long can we survive with it? Not looking good so far.


          Report comment

      • Sickputer

        Pronuke… See our comments from April about Pandora's Promise:

        http://enenews.com/shock-cnn-to-air-nuclear-power-propaganda-irrational-fears-of-nukes-systematically-debunks-the-myths-and-misinformation/comment-page-1

        SP: Pronukers can't fool everyone and we are here to gain allies to stop the toxic industry. We don't have the deep pockets of GE, but we have something better…the truth. When the health of your family becomes more important than your career as a NPP worker… You will join us in spirit, if not in deed.


        Report comment

  • haizedustrium-1234 haizedustrium-1234

    He uses the statistic of 37 and forgets these deaths are at home

    http://www.ehow.com/list_6833182_top-10-fatal-accidents-home.html

    died at home, unclassified, uncertain, unspecified, not related, or unknown or no instruments to measure

    CAUSES: something electrical, something mechanical, something fire, something pipe leaking, something negligence, something storm, something poison, something cancer.

    full investigation takes seven months, victims may appeal


    Report comment

  • Well hats off to Pronuke for a job well done. A shills first job is to detract from the story at hand. Instead of discussing the fire in the American nuke plant he had you arguing over cancer statistics, a fruitless task at best. Cancer agencies don't even gather occupation discriptions with cancer type as they are not interested in that. Their research is for a cure not prevention. Cancer rates have gone up with industrialization. All pollutants, nuke included contribute to cancer deaths. If he even works at a nuclear plant he could be a paid blogger working out of his Mums basement. Why was there a fire in this nuke plant? How can they be safe if they can't even get their lubrication system right?

    Getting back to Pronuke. You don't know who is lurking. Meeting his arguments with simple name calling makes us all look like wankers. Its not cool. Reasoned debate shows our truth.
    Pronuke is arguing about health risks which cannot be determined as there is no in depth investigation to a cancer death and officially no known cause besides cigarettes and lung cancer.
    Look at TEPCO. The fourth largest power company in the world. Check Wikipedia.
    Now bought out by the government as it is broke 2 years after the melt throughs. Ongoing maintenance to keep over 6,000 spent fuel bundles (of rods ) from burning up. Could cost a trillion dollars and the people of Japan now burden the expenses.


    Report comment

    • This is the template of a modern nuclear disaster. Many of these old plants still running in USA. Should we get upset when one of these catch fire? Absolutely. The American taxpayer is ultimately on the hook as is the Japanese right now. Can Pronuke give evidence that any nuclear accident is underwritten by insurance? No insurance company is that dumb. Investors are abandoning nuclear. Fukushima shows what happens with a major accident. Financial meltdown, you can't even sell the real estate. I welcome all Pronuke types on this web site for reasoned debate. No name calling needed. Nuclear power is a bad idea from a business perspective alone and without generous government financial support is simply dead in the water.
      Don't take my word for it do your own research. Nobody wants to invest in nuclear without government support, usually part of a weapons programme. Bottom line nuclear energy is a money pit with no future. Then there is the unresolved problem of what to do with the spent fuel. Another money pit.


      Report comment

    • 16Penny 16Penny

      Mark, I strongly disagree with this statement:
      "Pronuke is arguing about health risks which cannot be determined as there is no in depth investigation to a cancer death and officially no known cause besides cigarettes and lung cancer."

      There have been many studies. I found this paper that directly speaks to health risks and cancer related to ionizing radiation in humans.

      http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/infobase/eisler/chr_29_radiation.pdf

      Start in about page 79,

      "Radiation is carcinogenic. The frequency of death from cancer of the thyroid, breast, lung, esophagus, stomach, and bladder was higher in Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb than in nonexposed individuals, and carcinogenesis seems to be the primary latent effect of ionizing radiation. The minimal latent period of most 80cancers was less than 15 years and depended on an individual's age at exposure and site of cancer. The relation of radiation-induced cancers to low doses and the shape of the dose-response curve (linear or nonlinear), the existence of a threshold, and the influence of dose rate and exposure period must be determined (Hobbs and McClellan 1986)."

      Page 81 goes back to nature. Page 110 it gets good again: "The risk of the induction of cancer is a recognized somatic effect of low doses of ionizing radiation, as judged by epidemiological studies of Japanese survivors of the U.S. nuclear bombs (Coggle and Williams 1990)and of Marshall Islanders, underground miners, and radium watch dial…


      Report comment

      • 16Penny 16Penny

        Keep going, there is a whole chart past that correlating different dose amount and long or short term exposures with the statistical increases in health problems. The author of the paper gives citations for the information he puts forth in his text. Nuclear workers owe it to themselves to be educated, not my responsibility and I have no sympathy for Pronuke. He/she knew what they were getting into. What Pronukle did accomplish is motivating the ENE community to put a crapload of undeniable evidence speaking to the dangers of the nuclear industry and the health problems worldwide and across all species which they are contributing to every day they drive to work.


        Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer.
      http://www.nirs.org/press/06-30-2005/1

      Mark, you have shown a slick aptitude for spreading disinformation about radiation and health effects. There have been very many peer reviewed studies proving that radiation causes cancer. How about the radiation from the sun causing skin cancer? Radionuclides from nuclear power plants and depleted uranium are man made sources of radiation that never before existed on the planet. Cancer studies are very much concerned with causes for cancer because if people can avoid the causes of cancer, the chance for preventing cancer go up and the chance for avoiding a recurrence of cancer also goes down. Much fine work has been done by physicians and scientists who had cancer themselves or family members had cancer and who wanted to be cured indefinitely.


      Report comment

      • VanneV anne

        Sorry, the chance for avoiding recurrence also goes up.


        Report comment

      • 16penny and Anne. Pardon me for not explaining myself correctly. I'm not saying radiation doesn't cause cancer what I was saying is that to actually prove (in a court of law especially) that a cancer was caused by any one thing is difficult. There are no data bases of foods ingested, victim occupation, proximity to nuclear power plants, etc etc. The official explanation is we don't know. With that in mind, every time an argument for shutting them down is health related, somebody comes up with some study that radiation is good for you or no one died at Fukushima Etc Etc. It makes for a poor arguing point when radiation is invisible and average people want 10 second soundbites to make a decision. But you can't hide the fact that TEPCO has been bought out by Japan and what was once a profitable company is now a huge liability Also my main reason for commenting was to observe that the shill had in fact derailed the conversation. The subject at hand was the Pilgrim reactor having a fire. A model of the same design as Fukushima and nobody really talked about nuclear safety vis a vis allowing a proven failed model to continue running past its designed life. The shill won and thats sad. But if the argument is why should we shut them down you don't need to go any further then nuclear energy is a money pit. There are many other good reasons including health but everything Mr Pro Nuke says is meaningless when you realize that on the most basic level it is a poor business…


        Report comment

        • Its a poor business model. Look yes there have been many studies and again I'm not saying radiation doesn't cause cancer but when someone dies of cancer celebrity or not there is no Crime Scene Investigation usually. Even if that victim lived and worked at a nuke plant it is pretty hard to make a Workers Comp claim. I'm not saying that its right I'm pointing out the reality as I see it. We all want to see nuke plants shut down but we have to convince those that are unsure or uneducated. I think the money angle works thats all. And I'm sad that one shill who calls himself a shill can derail the conversation so easily.
          Finally you should know that I live in BC Canada lowest cancer rate in Canada. Attributed to lifestyle and diet however no one mentions we have no nuke plants anywhere close and have a moratorium on uranium mining and our biggest city Vancouver is in a low radon area. My gut tells me that has something to do with the low cancer rate but you never hear that from the experts. Sure I believe my gut but how would you prove it in a court of law?


          Report comment

  • What Pronuke doesn't want us to discuss is that Pilgrim is the same type of GE boiling water reactor as Fukushima, built in 1972. Its licence was to expire 2012 but they extended it by 20 years the only person disagreeing being NRC chairman Gregory Jaczko. See. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Nuclear_Generating_Station

    for an interesting read. No wonder Pronuke shill was so busy.


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    Pronuke be damned….

    http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

    We need to END ALL NUCLEAR SUBSIDIES which will eliminate 20% of our energy supply. While reappropriating these nuclear subsidies to Renewables and geothermal generation until nukpower generation is dead and the alternatives propel us all ahead. Then we make ge, westinghouse, hitachi etc and all their lackeys pay for the waste cleanup/storage and research into a real solution


    Report comment

    • VanneV anne

      Sorry, nuclear is less than 10% of the total energy in the US.

      “…The majority of this energy is derived from fossil fuels: in 2010, data showed 25% of the nation's energy came from petroleum, 22% from coal, and 22% from natural gas. Nuclear power supplied 8.4% and renewable energy supplied 8%,[4] which was mainly from hydroelectric dams although other renewables are included such as wind power, geothermal and solar energy.[5]…”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States


      Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    Im calling for gigantic nuclear size subsidies in order to double or even triple the electrical generating capabilities of renewables and geothermal NOW.


    Report comment

  • combomelt combomelt

    The link i provided above is 2012 data. quite a nice doubling of capacity in those 2-3 years then? Is that possible?


    Report comment

  • Jebus

    Thank you anne,
    10%, that is an even more well rounded number and it still gives the benefit of doubt, graciously.

    The fact is that it would be very easy to remove nuclear power from at least the US energy mix today. The gap would imediately be filled by the rest of the mix. It would imediately create millions of jobs in those sectors that are more in the middle class range.
    Wind, solar, storage technologies, geothermal, hydro and fuels have come a long ways in technology. Nuclear is the same as it always was. Nuclear Power = Nuclear Weapons
    We should be expanding on those that work, and eliminating those that threaten our planet.

    Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/15/renewables_study/

    Wind power surpasses hydro for the first time ever in Northwest region

    http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/10/wind_power_surpasses_hydro_for.html


    Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.