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.
I presume that by "were located", you mean on the ocean near an earthquake fault, just like the San Onofre Nuclear Plant between San Diego and LA? Which in a disaster could easily cause 10 million people to get cancer.
I don't know what the building standards and safety mechanisms are in that plant, do you? I guess all nuclear plants look the same to you people....
Quote:
Which in a disaster could easily cause 10 million people to get cancer.
You people just love to live your lives in fear don't you?
You know, when a Tsunami wave hits the west coast it could kill upwards of 5 million people?
You know, if the dikes all collapse in New Orleans upwards of a million people could drown?
You know if a large enough meteor hits the Earth almost 7 billion people could die?
You know if a terrorist dumps poison in the lakes that supply NYC with water upwards of 7 million people will die?
So based on pure logic if the plant has not been operating nor currently operating for the past few months how can it (using your words) "easily cause 10 million people to get cancer."...??? Plus I don't see anywhere in the article you posted where the NRC said the tube rubbing is or shall cause a "disaster"
Be afraid, be very very afraid of what might happen at some place some time to something....
Pacific Gas and Electric Litigation The case alleged contamination of drinking water with hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium (VI), in the southern California town of Hinkley. At the center of the case was a facility called the Hinkley Compressor Station, part of a natural gas pipeline connecting to the San Francisco Bay Area and constructed in 1952. Between 1952 and 1966, PG&E used hexavalent chromium to fight corrosion in the cooling tower. The wastewater dissolved the hexavalent chromium from the cooling towers and was discharged to unlined ponds at the site. Some of the wastewater percolated into the groundwater, affecting an area near the plant approximately 2 by 1 miles (3.2 by 1.6 km).The case was settled in 1996 for $333 million, the largest settlement ever paid in a direct action lawsuit in US history.
A study released in 2010 by the California Cancer Registry showed that cancer rates in Hinkley remained unremarkable from 1988 to 2008. An epidemiologist involved in the study said that the 196 cases of cancer reported during the most recent survey of 1996 through 2008 were less than what he would expect based on demographics and the regional rate of cancer.
If nuclear power was safe,
why have other countries closed their plants due to safety concerns?
If nuclear power was safe,
why is the US investigating the cancer correlation (because they're already aware that previous studies - in the US - weren't performed accurately, and also have enough evidence to be concerned)?
If nuclear power was safe,
why has a correlation between nuclear plants and disease already been made?
I don't believe many on this thread have enough unfiltered scientific information on the topic to create a well thought out argument. There is nothing wrong with that. There are many topics I don't know about.
I suppose, if anything, some of the responses here show me that the reason some people don't care is because they don't know enough about the topic. I suppose step one is to educate. After all, until people were educated, they argued until they were blue in the face that the world was flat.
Thank you. Believe it or not, you've already been a big help.
P.S. I don't fear nuclear power. I fear large bugs and ignorance.
Exactly. And for them to have serious concerns says a lot because we all know who they're tied to and what their motives are.
What is astonishing is that this is essentially a self-regulated industry, and it's backed by legislation that has a concern in seeing it succeed due to the almighty dollar.
So, unless you know enough about the topic and the science behind it to know the truth, all that most Americans know is what they've been spoon fed by those that have their hands in the pockets of this money maker.
But hey, someone is getting rich (and it's not the people that are at risk), so really, that's all that matters, right?
As the eyes of the world have focused on the nuclear crisis in Fukushima, Japan, Americans have begun to raise questions about the safety of nuclear power plants in the United States.
American nuclear power plants are not immune to the types of natural disasters, mechanical failures, human errors, and losses of critical electric power supplies that have characterized major nuclear accidents such as the one at Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan. Indeed, at several points over the last 20 years, American nuclear power plants have experienced “close calls†that could have led to damage to the reactor core and the subsequent release of large amounts of radiation.
These incidents illustrate the inherent dangers of nuclear power to people and the environment, and demonstrate why the United States must move away from nuclear power and toward safer alternatives. On four occasions since 1990, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has rated a reactor event as a “significant precursor†of core damage – meaning that the chance of an accident that would damage the reactor core, and possibly lead to a large-scale release of radiation, increased to greater than 1 in 1,000. These events had a number of causes, including operator error, primary equipment degradation or failure, failure of emergency backup systems, and loss of offsite power.
• In 2002, in perhaps the most dangerous nuclear incident in the United States since Three Mile Island, workers at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Generating Station in Ohio discovered that boric acid leaking from a cracked nozzle had eroded away six inches of carbon steel on the reactor vessel head, leaving only 3/8 inch of stainless steel to contain the reactor’s highly pressurized steam. Rupture of the vessel head could have resulted in the loss of coolant and damage to the plant’s control rods, creating the conditions for rapid overheating of the reactor core and possible release of radiation.
• In 1996, critical systems at a reactor at Catawba Nuclear Station in South Carolina were without power for several hours when the plant lost outside power at the same time that one of its emergency generators was out of service for maintenance.
• In 1994, workers accidentally allowed 9,200 gallons of coolant to drain from the core of a reactor at Wolf Creek nuclear power plant in Kansas. The plant’s operators estimated that the condition – had it persisted for five more minutes – could have led to the plant’s fuel rods being exposed and put at risk of overheating.
• In 1991, valves and drain lines in an emergency shutdown system failed at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant in North Carolina. Had an emergency occurred during that failure, the plant may not have been able to be shut down safely. At least one out of every four U.S. nuclear reactors (27 out of 104) have leaked tritium – a cancer-causing radioactive form of hydrogen – into groundwater. Among the accidental releases of radioactive material from U.S. nuclear power plants in the past decade are:
• The leakage of radioactive material into groundwater at New Jersey’s Salem nuclear power plant – a leak that was discovered in 2002 after it had already been going on for five years. Subsequently, a similar leak of tritium was discovered at New Jersey’s Oyster Creek power plant just one week after the plant received a 20-year license extension.
• The leakage of radioactive tritium into groundwater at the Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station in Illinois.
• The leakage of both tritium and radioactive strontium from the spent fuel pools at the Indian Point Energy Center in New York, which are located just 400 feet from the Hudson River.
• The discovery of tritium in groundwater near the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, even though the plant’s owner, Entergy, had stated several times in sworn testimony that the plant had no subterranean pipes capable of leaking radioactive material.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just goes to show that we are not always getting the truth. Then, also, lots of people like to look the other way and not face up to reality--ignorance is bliss, they feel better. I saw another article about how tritium was getting into the drinking water. Yes, it's hard to PROVE that people get cancer from a specific cause and it's even harder when Big Money is trying to cover it up. People need to face reality and get involved.
These are the things we don't hear about---------------------
Excerpt from Fine Print:
Yankee Rowe, a nuclear facility in Massachusetts, was one of the first facilities to request a license renewal. However, it didn’t meet the NRC’s standards for renewal at the time: it was not even in compliance with its existing license, which was one of the two requirements for license renewal. The rejection alarmed the nuclear industry and operators of another plant in Minnesota, who fought back, claiming the NRC’s renewal requirements examined a time period that extended beyond relevancy, making license renewal uneconomical.
“[The NRC] realized if Yankee Rowe couldn’t meet [rules for extending licenses], other reactors couldn’t meet it either,” Olson said. Yankee Rowe, just scathed by the NRC’s blade of rejection, ended up shutting down. This close call was a little too close, and the NRC became introspective.
In 1995, the NRC went in and tinkered with their rules a little bit. Just a tad. One new, albeit very easily overlooked, amendment found its place in a mere footnote. In said footnote, the NRC acknowledged that per each commercial nuclear reactor granted its 20-year license extension, 12 people are expected to die from cancer as a direct result of normal operation and radiation releases. ---------------------------------------------------------------
So even the NRC can admit that some cancer is caused by nuclear reactors. The Rowe plant was shut down for safety reasons and now the NRC has become more secretive and sneaky about the truth.
I lived not too far from the Rowe Plant and everyone knew of kids who lived along the river getting leukemia at much higher rates than normal.Probably the NRC didn't bother to study that -- it would have made them look bad.
Ordinary people need to start paying attention and not believe everything they are spoon fed. BIG MONEY conducts the studies and makes them turn out in their favor. a few misleading statistics here, a few misleading statistics there...........
As usual I am astounded by the ignorance surrounding nuclear energy. I am amused when some of our well informed TV journalists always show the cooling towers, not the reactor containment structures, when spouting hysterical nonsense about the facility.
I do know more than a little about both nuclear power and the environment. I think nuclear power is the most valuable achievement of the 20th century. It makes huge amounts of electric power with no air pollution and less radiation than the coal piles at most coal fired power plants.
I believe our nation, and the rest of the mechanized world, should start on a program of developing and installing a grid of moderate sized (1,000 MWe) gas cooled nuclear reactors to replace the existing coal power plants. In most cases only the firebox (hot gas source) would need replacement as a gas cooled reactor would recirculate hot gasses over the steam generators. That would allow the steam engines, generators and the rest of the facility to be used for the rest of its nearly unlimited lifetime.
These new reactors should be part of a complete nuclear fuel recovery, breeding and recycle system where used reactor fuel is used to "seed" new fuel and includes more fuel transmuted from non fissile materials. If properly done this system would not only supply nearly unlimited electricity but it would generate, by transmutation and breeding, more fuel than it used.
The primary environmental advantage of a complete nuclear power system is it would eliminate the production of the huge quantities of CO2 created by coal fired power plants (aside: a coal fired plant burns coal in air to create very hot CO2 which transfers it energy to boiling water to create steam to turn the turbines connected to the spinning rotors of the electrical generators.) The cooled CO2 is then dumped into the atmosphere through the tall smokestacks) that has a deleterious effect of making the atmosphere more heat retentive. The fly ash that is discharged from the stack filters can reduce visibility enough to reduce the scenic attraction of many parts of the country. In addition this fly ash also captures the uranium that was part of the original fuel and renders the fly ash pile more radioactive than any part of a nuclear fueled power plant. This inadvertent uranium recovery may prove to be an already mined and concentrated source of future nuclear fuel.
In addition the mining of nuclear fuels, uranium and thorium, does not require the disturbance, and sometimes destruction, of square miles of land with the resulting problems with polluting acid mine runoff and huge amounts of fugitive dust. Moving unused nuclear fuel requires the use of far less oil than mile long coal trains.
This nuclear power system would not reduce the coal mining because coal could be converted, with the aid of the heat from gas cooled nuclear reactors, into liquid transportation fuel (diesel oil, jet fuel and gasoline) and petrochemical feedstock. One result is we would no longer be dependent on the good will of our current petroleum suppliers. That would save us a huge amount of treasure currently wasted on our Petroleum Wars.
So even the NRC can admit that some cancer is caused by nuclear reactors. The Rowe plant was shut down for safety reasons and now the NRC has become more secretive and sneaky about the truth.
I lived not too far from the Rowe Plant and everyone knew of kids who lived along the river getting leukemia at much higher rates than normal.Probably the NRC didn't bother to study that -- it would have made them look bad.
Ordinary people need to start paying attention and not believe everything they are spoon fed. BIG MONEY conducts the studies and makes them turn out in their favor. a few misleading statistics here, a few misleading statistics there...........
I couldn't agree more. C-D won't let me rep. you again just yet, but if there were a 1,000 times rep. button, I'd hit it 200 times just for you.
Like I said, what are the odds that we live either near or down stream from not one but 10 nuclear plants within 50 miles, and what are the odds that an entire family of varying ages would all have cancer, three generations over, on two sides of a family, not even considering the exorbitant amount of cancer in people I know in this region compared to other places I've lived. There must absolutely be a correlation, in my opinion, based on what I know about nuclear power.
Last edited by SunnyTXsmile; 10-26-2012 at 09:23 AM..
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.
