Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This might be a valid conclusion, except that Fukushima II, a 4 reactor complex located closer to the epicenter of the quake and on the coast and hit by the tidal wave, and of the same design, does not have the same issues. They locate these things near water because it provides an easy way to cool the plants. In this case, heat exchangers dump the excess heat into the ocean.
In NC, Progress Energy owns a reactor complex, that is of the same design as Fukushima right, on the coast of NC. You can see this reactor if boat right off the coast. This is Nuke is right in the middle of hurricane alley. I should imagine that a direct hit of a CAT 5 hurricane would cause the same issues. Duke Energy is in the process of merging with Progress Energy.
6 reactors at Fuku I is 50% larger then the 4 reactors at Fuku II and 4 is 100% larger then the 2 reactors at the Brunswick plant in Southport, NC. More reactors mean more spent fuel rods, more risk, etc, etc... Brunswick is tiny compared to Fuku I where all the issues are right now.
Also of note is that specific NC complex on the coast received updates in 2005. It's also not even on the list from your OP article... I'm still looking to find out why Catawba is "5th most dangerous" as there's nothing in that article or anywhere to indicate why except for "security", which may be disconcerting in its own right, but not design or maintenance issues. I guess that point has been completely forgotten?
Frankly I don't think anyone is "ignoring the nuclear issue" - it just gets exhausting rather quickly playing the worst case scenario game... Because that's what you're talking with a CAT 5 hurricane (I mean you do understand the power of a Cat5 hurricane) as it would be devastating on so many levels. If you want to open that can o worms then we're abandoning the article from your OP. In that regard I'd like to see some actual research quoted since from what I've seen recently is that there's countless other nuke plants at more risk due to be built directly on fault lines in the US. That Brunswick plant wouldn't make any of those lists.
For some reason it seems you're trying to make this a NC specific issue when honestly I'd be much more worried about Indian Point or a West coast plant.
(I mean you do understand the power of a Cat5 hurricane) as it would be devastating on so many levels.
Yes, I understand the power of a Cat 5 Hurricane. I had family in the Charleston area when Hugo hit. My sister in laws house in McClellanville, SC was washed into the ocean though they lived a mile from the beach. My brother's home in Mt. Pleasant on the river, not on the ocean, was similarly destroyed. Here in Charlotte, that Cat 5 Hurricane devastated the entire city of power, closed uptown due to damage to the skyscrapers, and made living here a challenge even though we are 180 miles from the coast.
So yes I know. This is why I am concerned. If you have no worries, then there is no need for you to respond to my posts.
Yes, I understand the power of a Cat 5 Hurricane. I had family in the Charleston area when Hugo hit. My sister in laws house in McClellanville, SC was washed into the ocean though they lived a mile from the beach. My brother's home in Mt. Pleasant on the river, not on the ocean, was similarly destroyed. Here in Charlotte, that Cat 5 Hurricane devastated the entire city of power, closed uptown due to damage to the skyscrapers, and made living here a challenge even though we are 180 miles from the coast.
So yes I know. This is why I am concerned. If you have no worries, then there is no need for you to respond to my posts.
I keep reading updates to this thread because I still want to know why "Catawba Nuclear Reactor ranked 5th most dangerous Nuke in the USA" - you know, the subject here in the Charlotte forum... I don't see why or how it should be and I think it misrepresents the "safety" of this area.
We all have stories of personal touch with disaster and many reasons for concerns on so many levels - so truly sorry for your family and I understand where you're coming from. But, you shouldn't lose track of the thread you started here and if you're ultimately looking to discuss "nuclear safety in general" as your primary agenda, you'll get many more replies by finding the appropriate forum for it.
I simply posted an article in the press of a well known periodical and offered my opinion of what happened. As a result of that you have referred to me as a chicken little. I recommend that you take your own advice on this.
Just because something is the "x-most dangerous" doesn't mean it's actually dangerous. Tallest midget, most luxurious hotels in Somalia, etc. I hate it when the media uses inflammatory statistics without substantiation. It's like saying that deaths related to being hit by a leaf that fell from a tree increased 500% because 5 people in millions died from it last year as opposed to 1. It's practically insignificant even though it sounds like a ton.
"Near miss" ?? If no details are available, what did they use to rate it #5? All the others on the list have details about a specific issue.
If you care to read the full 2010 report it says (in regard to the fact that it was a security problem)
Protection against sabotage that aims to release radioactivematerial into the environment, which can include gates,guards, and guns. After 9/11, the NRC removed discussion of this cornerstone from the public arena.
So the UCS do have the details of the security problem, however I don't believe that they are ranking the near misses in their report.
Another report (? how robust it is) ranked the plants
The Daily Beast ranked the country's power plant sites based on three, equally weighted metrics: risk of natural disaster, safety performance assessments, and surrounding population. In other words, which nuclear power plants are located in the most dangerous physical locations, have the weakest relative operating conditions, and would affect the greatest number of people should an unforeseeable emergency occur?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
