Gundersen: Problems at US nuclear plant much worse than authorities are letting on — “It’s time to shut Ft. Calhoun down” (AUDIO)

Published: January 7th, 2013 at 12:46 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
11 comments


Title: Happy New Year 2013
Source: Fairewinds Energy Education
Date: January 6, 2013

At 13:30 in

Nuclear Expert Arnie Gundersen, Fairewinds Energy Education: The NRC just released their inspection report of the facility and the problems at Ft. Calhoun are much worse than the authorities are letting on. […]

They’ve lost control of their configuration management system […]

All of this has come to light now in an inspection report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. […]

For the last 30 years, they have known all along that they can’t find out how it was ever built.

[...] It’s time to shut Fort Calhoun down. [...]

Full report here

Published: January 7th, 2013 at 12:46 pm ET
By
Email Article Email Article
11 comments

Related Posts

  1. Analyst: Florida nuclear plant will likely be closed — Gundersen: “The dominoes are starting to fall” (AUDIO) January 14, 2013
  2. Fairewinds: Website is under verified DDS attack — Another nuclear expert’s site had similar problems — Both involved with San Onofre issue — “What is the nuke industry hiding?” February 1, 2013
  3. Gundersen: Truly appalling nuclear event in Japan — A lot of people are very, very concerned (AUDIO) January 7, 2013
  4. Nuclear Expert: This is just 1st radioactive wave hitting U.S. and Canada; Fukushima pouring into ocean, unstoppable for years and years — Marine Expert: No sign it will stop anytime soon; Plant unstable, potentially worse than Chernobyl (AUDIO) January 21, 2014
  5. Gundersen: Nuclear fuel pool started to heat up at New Jersey plant due to Sandy — They were bringing in fire pumps because of all the problems (AUDIO) November 4, 2012

11 comments to Gundersen: Problems at US nuclear plant much worse than authorities are letting on — “It’s time to shut Ft. Calhoun down” (AUDIO)

  • norbu norbu

    Yes, Mr. Gundersen lets shut them all down. Thank you for all of your time and energy on this issue.


    Report comment

    • moonshellblue moonshellblue

      The Military Industrial Complex will never let that happen and even if you did shut them all down it would take at least five years to cool the rods and then there is all the spent fuel currently which is just swimming in pools just like Fukushima. We have contaminated Iraq, Kuwait, etc. and our own troops with depleted uranium. It's just so frustrating and such a mess. Sorry not having a positive day.


      Report comment

  • Anthony Anthony

    Wisdom to act upon if a bigger problem is to be avoided.


    Report comment

  • PattieB PattieB

    76% of the human body is water, H2O. Radioactive elements heat as they decay. Put them into water, you get H3, better known as Tritium! The only thing than can contain it? Gold. This is why milt. subs coat their reactors in gold. Human skin doesn't keep out H3. Fact: H3 displaces H2O because it's heavier. It accumulates in every cell of carbon based life. There is no fix for this. There is nothing to get it to leave your body except radioactive decay… to H2O. The pools of reactors are up top to aid in H3 escape. No gold coating… do that and your workers all die in the plant. Now add-in the whole Plutonium issue, and genetic damage for 241,000 x 10 years?


    Report comment

  • 16Penny 16Penny

    99 nuclear reactors on the wall, 99 nuclear reactors,
    take 1 down, pass it around, 98 nuclear reactors on the wall!

    98 nuclear reactors on the wall, 98 nuclear reactors,
    take 1 down, pass it around, 97 nuclear reactors on the wall!

    The only path to 0 is long, expensive and to some tediously annoying. I would love to hear a better way. One saying I have heard is that the only way to eat an entire elephant is one bite at a time. Start chomping people of the world. We can take our planet back from the assholes who keep trashing it.


    Report comment

  • jec jec

    Just read the PPT report on the web site Mr. Gunderson refers to..so what is "conservatively neglected"? in reference to the containment vessel? Those beams–after 6 in a row..all they tested I guess–FAILED test they stopped testing. On the report..mostly from modeled data..BUT YOU CAN NOT MODEL WHAT IS NOT DOCUMENTED WITH DATA..does not work! The neglected items..refer to seismic data..like EARTHQUAKEs..GADS.
    From slide:
    Conservatisms in Operability Criteria
    – Increase in concrete strength from age hardening is
    conservatively neglected
    – Ductility and increased damping for the dynamic
    pressure loading is conservatively neglected
    – Higher permissible moment redistribution, which later
    concrete codes permit, is conservatively neglected
    – Stair live loads used are conservatively high
    – Damping and ductility for lateral seismic loads on
    laterally-unrestrained beams are conservatively
    neglected


    Report comment

    • Donna

      Before anyone chews me… Let me state that I am against nuclear energy. But i would also like to see the arguments brought against it to have very solid scientific background, just to ensure a higher likelihood for others to aknowledge them as valid.
      In this light, i would simply like to mention that what is mentioned in this list as "conservatively ignored" are phenomena that, if not ignored, will indeed lead to a reduction in the structural strength. All would positively influence the calculation and REDUCE the values the design is based on.


      Report comment

  • PattieB PattieB

    Umm… we have 154 reactors in the US alone… and that's not counting the 87?… waste sites!

    Like I said… put them in subduction zones… free ride to planets core… out of harms way.


    Report comment

    • 16Penny 16Penny

      Ya Pattie, I do remember you saying that. It sounds like a good idea and should be investigated. I only used 99 because that is usually where you start the song at but if you like I can start at 154.

      154 nuclear reactors on the wall, 154 nuclear reactors…

      Are we there yet?


      Report comment

      • Are we there yet?

        I have been researching and writing about this question and the answer is that we will not know we are there until it is too late.

        Canaries dropping in the coalmine will be ignored until reproductive failures become widespread and undeniable.

        How many generations will that take?

        No one knows because the data on total atmospheric releases are not valid – grossly understating the full extent of contamination from accidents and deliberate releases.

        Genetic mosaicism of germ line cells is a new scientific concern.

        Also, new research on gene expression shows that chemicals can have major adverse effects at low doses during critical periods of development.

        These adverse effects can be substantial without DNA breakage.

        The same effect is probably true for radiation.

        We may be there, and not know it for three generations.

        Here is a more detailed account
        http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/fukushima-and-privatization-of-risk-iv.html


        Report comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.