Author Topic: Nukes in the back yard.  (Read 401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline xj35s

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 1810
  • If I go missing, carladerby at gmail for info.
Nukes in the back yard.
« on: November 08, 2017, 02:09:38 PM »
Yup. I don't know how many of you live in an area with nuclear power plants, we have two. One of which is spent and falling apart.

Entergy applied for a shut down with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It was approved and the plan was to take a full 12 years to complete. It was big local news, job loss, power fees increase, and Safety/future use of remaining property.

Then all of that changed. Excelon purchased it and planned a refuel and we're good to go again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._FitzPatrick_Nuclear_Power_Plant

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Mile_Point_Nuclear_Generating_Station

However it's not okay. It's still OLD. They Won't have 12 years to shut it down once it's refueled.It would take much longer with fresh rods.

It's leaking. I think I need to book from NY before it melts down. My property is too close and in the "plume exposure pathway zone" ( Kind of like how shell shock became P.T.S.D., they mean Fallout!) I hope no one considers the nuke plant while shopping for a home.

http://cnycentral.com/news/local/oil-leaks-from-fitzpatrick-nuclear-plant-into-lake-onterio

http://cnycentral.com/news/local/feds-report-violations-including-leaks-of-radioactive-waste-at-fitzpatrick-nuclear-plant

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/minor_radiation_leak_at_fitzpatrick_nuclear_plant_has_gone_unfixed_for_4_years.html

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/radiation_from_mysteriously_leaking_fuel_rods_leads_oswego_nuke_plant_to_power_d.html

Notice how well down played it is that there are leaks. No problem that area is radioactive anyway.??? um it's still a leak!!

I know I'm over reacting a bit. I don't trust the government and really wish they did the 12 year shut down plan.


pessimist complain about the wind. optimist expect the wind to change. realist adjusts the sails.

Offline Unknown

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2754
  • Alcholocost of Gibberish
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2017, 03:15:41 PM »
Overreacting? How so?

I didn't follow the links. It's not that I don't care- just don't want to get bummed out right now.

Also don't think I can trust the official story from the authority much myself. Stay safe

Offline crashdive123

  • Vendor
  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2017, 04:43:08 PM »
No nuke plants here, but I slept between the missile tubes on boomers for over 20 years.  Well.....the nearby base has a few nukes if you count the reactors on the ships or the missiles in the tubes.

Offline hayshaker

  • Whetstone +
  • **
  • Posts: 634
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2017, 05:02:12 PM »
XJ if i were you and had opertunity i'll bug out fer sure.
but for me i don't have that  ablity.
and what is to the west of me?
yellow stone
ellsworth,afb
emeldorf,afb
malestrom,afb and grand forks afb.
all boomer bases.
gotta love it.
and that's the ones I know of :(

Offline imnukensc

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 3008
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2017, 05:06:24 PM »
Worked in the nuclear power industry for 30 years and live within 20 miles of the place I worked all that time.  Nothing I read in any of the references surprises me nor does it cause me any concern.
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, and morons.

Offline xj35s

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 1810
  • If I go missing, carladerby at gmail for info.
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #5 on: November 09, 2017, 08:14:13 AM »
I'm glad to hear from you on this. I have been reading a lot about the aftermath of an event. Seems very nonchalant since the early 70's. Take a pill a each day for a few weeks and go about your business.

I'll stock up on some KIO3!
pessimist complain about the wind. optimist expect the wind to change. realist adjusts the sails.

Offline imnukensc

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 3008
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2017, 08:53:32 AM »
xj, other than probably the airlines, I know of no other industry that is more safety conscious than the nuclear power industry to include personal, industrial, radiological, and most importantly the safety of the public.  For about the last 8 years, the tag line on every one of the multitudes of e-mails I sent over that time was, "Nuclear power produces safety.  Electricity is a by product."  That doesn't mean no one should be concerned.  Bad things can happen.  Uncontrolled radiation or contamination is not a good thing.  The NRC website and INPO website are the two best sources I know to get information on how well or poorly nuke facilities in this country are operated.  Poke around them a bit.  You can drill down to individual, plant specific stuff.  It's all public record.  WANO is also good, but it covers the world.

https://www.nrc.gov/
http://www.inpo.info/
http://www.wano.info/en-gb
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, and morons.

Offline xj35s

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 1810
  • If I go missing, carladerby at gmail for info.
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2017, 03:52:17 PM »
Thank you. I will read and learn and spread the word.

 We have 4 major hydro electric plants on the Oswego river. They are not maintained and are under staffed. I am friends with two plant managers and it's appalling. Right now that River is ripping and ONE plant is online.  Sometimes I wonder how this country just fell apart.   Where is all this tax money going? Now Cuomo wants to borrow against our 401k. He'll pay it right back...

Didn't we take this country to get out of being taxed to death? NY sucks.
pessimist complain about the wind. optimist expect the wind to change. realist adjusts the sails.

Offline OffGrid9

  • Supporting Member
  • Mill File+
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Too soon old, too late smart
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #8 on: November 10, 2017, 04:57:01 PM »
...I know of no other industry that is more safety conscious than the nuclear power industry to include personal, industrial, radiological, and most importantly the safety of the public.  For about the last 8 years, the tag line on every one of the multitudes of e-mails I sent over that time was, "Nuclear power produces safety.  Electricity is a by product."  That doesn't mean no one should be concerned.  Bad things can happen.  Uncontrolled radiation or contamination is not a good thing....

As to safety measures for ongoing use of nuclear power, and operation of nuclear facilities, I think I can agree with you...at least to some degree.  ...Yeah, the purchase and refueling of the old Fitzpatrick site (which xj referred to) may be a disaster waiting to happen...I don't know.  I've read the facility was shutting down with 20 years remaining in its estimated life-span, not because the plant was decrepit or failing, but more due to weird fluctuations in the price of uranium (anybody care to guess the impact of the "Uranium One" fiasco on the price of U-235???).  If the plant is carefully refurbished and well-managed, you may get another 20 or 25 years of safe operation.  OR, old concrete and steel could slowly disintegrate until we get another Five-Mile Island.  We aren't going to have another Chernobyl.  Not here, anyway.  Different reactor types, different personnel training requirements, different operating protocols...and a lot more careful oversight.  But if the structural integrity of an old plants deteriorates, it's not always easy to detect and correct.  I have no idea what measures our atomic energy overlords now mandate...I hope they are good enough.

But it's not operation of existing facilities that worries me.  It's what to do with all the spent fuel.  I'm guessing that most of our members have no clue how much spent nuclear fuel is already out there.  If you have time, please access this link:
   https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC50/GC50InfDocuments/English/gc50inf-3-att5_en.pdf

It's an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) paper labeled "Storage and Disposal of Spent Fuel and High Level Radioactive Waste", issued about 2006.  It's not too long, 11 pages, and it will open your eyes.  And please note, the IAEA is an unasham?d supporter and promoter of nuclear energy.

On page 3, section C, it states:
    "...The total amount of spent fuel generated worldwide in the 52-year history of civilian nuclear power is over 276,000 tHM," (metric tons of Heavy Metal waste) "of which roughly one third has been reprocessed, leaving around 190,000 tHM of spent fuel, mostly in wet storage pools but with an increasing amount in dry storage...."

It's hard to wrap your head around those numbers.  190,000 metric tons = a bit more than 209,000 U.S. tons, or about 418,470,000 pounds.  ...What?   Yup.  That's 418 MILLION POUNDS!  If you parked two of our biggest aircraft carriers, the USS Gerald Ford and the USS Ronald Reagan, side by side in an unimaginably huge dry dock, they would weigh about 193,000 U.S. tons, or 386 million pounds.  So the heavy metal waste that had accumulated from 1954 to 2006 outweighed two carriers.  Oh, and more good news:  production of radioactive waste has already doubled since the beginning of the third millennium.  Oh, JOY!  The same IAEA report projects that there will be 324,000 tHM by 2020.  That's right:  194k tHM in the first 52 years, and another 130k tHM in the next 14 years.  I think I see a trend, here....

Can you see why I'm not a huge advocate of nuclear power?  This waste material gets cooled in water baths for a required period to allow the radiation and heat levels to reduce.  This mandatory water-cooling period can last from one year up to 20 years, and then (while it's waiting for a permanent storage facility) it can either be moved to dry-storage vaults or remain in wet-storage.  And of course, countries all over the world are clamoring to become permanent dump sites...NOT!  We can't dump it in the oceans (containers deteriorate, and all marine life gets a free forever-Xray treatment).  We can't dump it anywhere there are active (or potentially active) earthquake faults (obviously), and more serious fault-lines are being found every year.  As of right now, the six big ones in the U.S. (fault systems, subduction zones, and seismic zones) are the San Andreas, the Cascadia, the New Madrid, the Ramapo, the Hayward, and the Denali.  And no one wants to bet that the quake-gurus won't find another big one in their area.  So nobody wants the hot-stuff buried in the backyard.

That same report soft-pedals the problem with failure to create permanent storage, but at one point it addresses it directly:
  "...as delays are incurred in implementing plans for geologic repositories " (that's permanent storage) "and for reprocessing, storage of spent fuel for extended durations of several decades is becoming a reality. This trend of more storage for longer durations is expected to continue, and some countries are now considering storage periods of 100 years or more."

Even after a miracle occurs and they find a place to stow the hot-stuff, its half-life will still be in the thousands of years.  But of course, once it's in the ground, nothing can go wrong...go wrong...go wrong... (somebody jog the turntable, please).

OK.  I admit, I truly am no expert.  I just googled up some reports, and pulled out some numbers and facts, the worst kind of instant-pundit and high likelihood of faulty analysis.  And yes, my opinion about nuclear power may seem to lean awfully heavy on that one report.  Granted.  So what the heck, don't pay me any mind, just go on eating your Wheaties and drinking your iced capuccinos and riding your Ski-doos.  But keep one eye open for the sudden death of all your houseplants -- the trucks hauling the hot-stuff may be rolling by your house on it's way to "Faulty Acres Permanent Hot-Stuff Storage".  ;D
From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away.  ― Raymond Chandler, from The High Window   [ LSHISM ]

Offline imnukensc

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 3008
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2017, 05:13:56 PM »
You'll get no disagreement from me, OG, on the storage of spent fuel.  That's a huge fly in the ointment/turd in the punchbowl of nuclear power. 
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, and morons.

Offline wolfy

  • Supporting Member
  • Belt Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 17685
  • "You want a toe? I can get you a toe." -Sobchak
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2017, 06:14:29 PM »
I know France has been big into the nuclear generation of electricity for a long time and, as far as I know, have never had any major foul-ups.  What in the world do THEY do with all of the nuclear waste they must have churned out in past decades?  It ain't that big of a country. ???
The only chance you got at a education is listenin' to me talk!
Augustus McCrae.....Texas Ranger      Lonesome Dove, TX

Offline hayshaker

  • Whetstone +
  • **
  • Posts: 634
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2017, 06:51:29 PM »
just a little thought one possibly more of fukushimas reactors
finally slid into the pacific ocean a few weeks ago,
how much press did that recieve not much i'm sure.

Offline wolfy

  • Supporting Member
  • Belt Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 17685
  • "You want a toe? I can get you a toe." -Sobchak
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2017, 07:10:50 PM »
Site selection for a nuclear power station, I would guess, is paramount in insuring against future disasters.  Japan, being directly on 'the ring of fire,' might not be the primo spot to build one on.  Just sayin'..... :shrug:
The only chance you got at a education is listenin' to me talk!
Augustus McCrae.....Texas Ranger      Lonesome Dove, TX

Offline xj35s

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 1810
  • If I go missing, carladerby at gmail for info.
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2017, 07:15:14 PM »
I remember the panic when the Hanford tunnel collapsed.

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-06-30/high-risk-for-2nd-tunnel-collapse-at-nuclear-waste-site

It wasn't even a risk of leaking radiation.

There is a dump near you! Yuuca is the end all of all waste is it not? After it's cooled in the other dumps?


pessimist complain about the wind. optimist expect the wind to change. realist adjusts the sails.

Offline imnukensc

  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 3008
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2017, 08:55:26 PM »
just a little thought one possibly more of fukushimas reactors
finally slid into the pacific ocean a few weeks ago,
how much press did that recieve not much i'm sure.

Can you provide a link to that info?  I can't seem to find any news about that at all.
The universe is made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, and morons.

Offline hayshaker

  • Whetstone +
  • **
  • Posts: 634
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2017, 04:54:48 AM »
nuke i look that piece up and post it here.

Offline OffGrid9

  • Supporting Member
  • Mill File+
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Too soon old, too late smart
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2017, 05:15:13 PM »
just a little thought one possibly more of fukushimas reactors
finally slid into the pacific ocean a few weeks ago,
how much press did that recieve not much i'm sure.

Can you provide a link to that info?  I can't seem to find any news about that at all.

False report -- HOAX -- check out this Snopes article:  https://www.snopes.com/fukushima-reactor-falling-into-ocean/
From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away.  ― Raymond Chandler, from The High Window   [ LSHISM ]

Offline OffGrid9

  • Supporting Member
  • Mill File+
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Too soon old, too late smart
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2017, 06:03:11 PM »
Hey, sorry, I didn't mean to pour cold water on things -- the story about a Fukushima reactor sliding into the ocean was false, but the Fukushima disaster was no hoax.  Much of that large city is now uninhabitable, and some areas will remain so for decades, if not centuries.

Cleanup efforts have cost billions of dollars, and are somewhat effective in reducing radioactivity to almost-habitable levels in areas farther away from the event, but in effect, the city of Fukushima no longer exists...its people have been forced to move away.

My wife's sister was the principle at an elementary school just west of Fukushima.  For almost a year the Japanese government continued to say it was safe to stay there.  But people didn't believe it:  thousands bought radiation measurement devices, and forced authorities to come clean.  Her school closed, and she moved away.

An NPR story from 10 March, 2016, had some interesting information --

    "Perhaps the biggest problem is water, Klein says."  [Dale Klein is a former chairman of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission who now consults for the Tokyo Electric Power Company, or Tepco, which owns the plant]  "Groundwater from nearby mountains constantly seeps through the ruined building before spilling into the ocean. Tepco has tried a number of different approaches (including a massive underground ice wall) to try to slow the incursion, but so far efforts to stop it have been only partially successful.
    "Instead, the company must send the groundwater through a complex filtration system that removes radioactivity. The system is effective at removing some of the most dangerous elements, but one isotope of hydrogen, called tritium, can't be removed because it's literally embedded in the H2O of the water molecules.
    " 'Tritium is part of the water itself, so how do you filter water out of water?' Klein says.
    "The best solution might be to dilute the radioactive groundwater and then release it into the ocean. But fishermen and the public would have to be convinced. For now, nearly a million tons of water is being stored all over the site.
    " 'There are about a thousand containers, steel containers that hold this water,' he says.
           ...
    "...The land around the plant was also contaminated by the accident. Azby Brown is with the nonprofit organization Safecast, which independently monitors radiation levels in Fukushima prefecture.  He says readings by Safecast and the government show that radiation levels in the region around the plant have fallen by roughly half.
    "Some of that drop is due to the natural radioactive decay, but there has also been a huge cleanup effort. Workers across Fukushima have been scraping up contaminated topsoil and storing it in bags. And that's created its own problem, Brown says.
    " 'There are now about 9 million bags of decontamination waste from all over the prefecture that are being consolidated into these vast fields with these pyramids of radioactive waste,' he says.
    "Just like with the water, regulators aren't quite sure what to do with all that soil."

A final note, from that same NPR report of 20 months ago --
    "Tepco doesn't really have any firm ideas about how to get the melted fuel out. ...In fact, the company hasn't even been able to look inside to see what needs to be done.  ...The radiation is so intense that it's fried the circuits of several robots sent in to investigate."

This Thanksgiving, as my family take turns listing things for which they are thankful, when it's my turn, I may give thanks that none of us live in or near Fukushima.

From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away.  ― Raymond Chandler, from The High Window   [ LSHISM ]

Offline hayshaker

  • Whetstone +
  • **
  • Posts: 634
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2017, 06:42:31 PM »
my understanding is the story i mentioned is apearently an old one from feb,
it was posted at zero hedge.com & yournewswire.com.
i apologize for any bad info, it was passed on to me.
I'll try to better vet my sources in the future.

Offline OffGrid9

  • Supporting Member
  • Mill File+
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Too soon old, too late smart
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2017, 05:07:09 PM »
...i apologize for any bad info, it was passed on to me.
I'll try to better vet my sources in the future.

No worries, hayshaker.  All of us have been taken in at one time or another by the detailed, elaborate hoaxes these razzenfratzer framwunkles like to generate.  If my sister-in-law hadn't been in the mix, I wouldn't have kept up on the Fukushima disaster.
From 30 feet away she looked like a lot of class. From 10 feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from 30 feet away.  ― Raymond Chandler, from The High Window   [ LSHISM ]

Offline John Van Gelder

  • Supporting Member
  • Water Stone
  • ***
  • Posts: 2554
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2017, 04:43:09 PM »
Having spent part of my Naval career as reactor operator, I know how safety conscious the military is, not so sure about the private sector.  The real draw back to fission plants, is disposing of the spent fuel rods.  Short of firing them into the sun or dropping them at a plate boundary, sooner or later the residue can come back to haunt us.   

I have been out of the business, since 1972 so my information is out of date, I do know that they had an incident at one of the storage facilities over in Washington this year.

Offline Area FiftyOne

  • Mousepad and Sandpaper
  • Posts: 3
Re: Nukes in the back yard.
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2017, 09:35:40 PM »
I spent 27 years in both design and technical maintenance at the Diablo Canyon Power Station.  I retired from that place about 10 years ago.  I can tell you that safety was a prime effort.  That plant will be shutting down soon and the county is worried about the financial impact on the county.  Where I live is not downwind from the plant and there are 2 mountain ranges between the plant and me.  I'm not worried about the nuke.  I am more worried about Vandenburg AFB which is about 50 miles south of me.  I can see the missels when they launch.  I am 70 years old so I don't have too many years to go before I don't have to worry any more.  I have had a pretty good life so far.