Nuclear Specialist: Thousands of times more radioactivity in some US spent fuel pools than what we saw after Chernobyl (VIDEO)

Published: August 10th, 2012 at 5:58 pm ET
By

8 comments


Fukushima in the USA?
Big Picture
August 9, 2012

At 39:15 in

Host: On a daily there’s problems at nuclear reactors all around America, is there one in particular  that our viewers should be most concerned about?

Gunter: We are focused on these GE mark 1’s and 2’s…  where thousands of tons of nuclear waste is sitting up in these roof top pools. These are essentially Chernobyl’s waiting to happen. Tens… thousands of times more than what we saw.

Wikipedia on Gunter: […] An energy policy analyst and activist […] In 2007, Gunter joined Beyond Nuclear as their nuclear reactor specialist.

Published: August 10th, 2012 at 5:58 pm ET
By

8 comments

Related Posts

  1. TV: Nuclear scientists concerned about structural safety of Fukushima fuel pools — 85 times more long-lived radioactivity than Chernobyl (VIDEO) April 23, 2012
  2. Report: Nuclear fuel fragments found over a mile away were “ejected from the reactor cores in those explosions” not spent fuel pools, according to NRC (VIDEO) August 18, 2011
  3. Nuclear Expert: Biggest concern at Fukushima is the huge source of radioactivity from molten fuel and spent fuel pools winding up in ocean — “The health of the entire Northern Pacific is at stake” (AUDIO) September 7, 2013
  4. “Uncontrollable radioactive flow” coming from nuclear plant near NYC — Actual releases are “trillions of times” higher than reported during latest leak — Cracks in multiple spent fuel pools — Intense investigation underway to see if it can be stopped (VIDEO) March 1, 2016
  5. Nuclear specialist: Corium hitting water table is “big concern” — Once fuel hits groundwater the concern is “it just blows right up” (VIDEO) December 7, 2011

8 comments to Nuclear Specialist: Thousands of times more radioactivity in some US spent fuel pools than what we saw after Chernobyl (VIDEO)

  • Also includes… an important message at 39:50.

    Spoiler Alert:
    "There is NO such thing as a safe level of radiation!"

    See the 'foot x-ray' machine. (40:05)
    I am sure it helped to sell a lot of shoes.

  • Or did so on the roof of his home swimming pool for swimming ???
    And if not, then write why …

  • jec jec

    Are any of these reactors one of the 10 from the defunct company who built the failed steel vessel in Belgium? You know, the one with the cracks in the containment vessel around the reactor/fuel cores? Not the outside containment-the internal one. And of course, since company is no more, noone knows who got the similar vessels….oh joy..

  • See they want you to think that the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was caused by a fluke act of nature and not poor design or lack of vision for what nature can do. They want you to think they have everything under control. Then when you do some digging and find out these G.E built reactors actually do have design faults the nuclear cheerleader will say Oh but todays designs are much more advanced and failsafe then those old Mark 1's. Well if thats the case then why do they get re licensed past the designed life? Seems like at least a regulatory problem down in the USA. Which is reason enough to shut them all down.

    Just for a laugh read this,dated March 15 2011 where GE told ABC News the reactors(mk 1's and 2's) have "a proven track record of performing reliably and safely for more than 40 years" and "performed as designed," even after the shock of a 9.0 earthquake.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fukushima-mark-nuclear-reactor-design-caused-ge-scientist/story?id=13141287#.UCW_PXBbmKw

  • dodge

    Should we be surprised? More than 25 years of additional accumulation, in our spent fuel pools. Originally designed to be temporary storage. Time for the quick decay isotopes to decay, and to concentrate, seal, and safely remove store and guard the more serious long lived isotopes. Reality, the plan has never been put into action — we don't even talk about it. The dangerous elements simply accumulate, the quick decay items somewhat decay, and the problem gets worse. We do have an idea how long the radiation takes to decay, the bigger question is how long do the cooling pipes, the concrete walls, the crumbling foundations last?

  • omniversling

    Estimated 70,000 tonnes of acutely toxic waste in SFPs in the US. Search 'Into Eternity' a film by Michael Masden about Finland's attempt to store their nukepuke 500m underground at Onkalo for 100s of 1000s of years. If you cant find it online (copyrights being enforced), well worth buying it.

    Excellent report by Robert Alvarez, an Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar, served as a Senior Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton administration.

    http://www.ips-dc.org/files/3200/spent_nuclear_fuel_pools_in_the_US.pdf

    Even if every NPP were closed tomorrow, we still have 1000s of years ahead of us to keep this deadly DNA disruptor cool and 'safe'…why oh why oh why are we adding to the magnitude of this timebomb? Insane…