Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

Taichiliberal

Taichiliberal

Shaken, not stirred!
U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation



share this story
5871343911,093Get Green Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this storydigg reddit stumble LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...&icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl2|sec3_lnk2|216523
 
Taichiliberal said:
U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation



share this story
5871343911,093Get Green Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this storydigg reddit stumble LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...&icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl2|sec3_lnk2|216523
Click to expand...

Much of the reason why so many power plants have remained in operation rather than being replaced is due to the hysteria generated by people like you. Politicians of both persuasions have felt it easier to do nothing rather than incur the displeasure of the electorate, that is an undeniable fact but no doubt you will deny all the same.
 
tom prendergast said:
Much of the reason why so many power plants have remained in operation rather than being replaced is due to the hysteria generated by people like you. Politicians of both persuasions have felt it easier to do nothing rather than incur the displeasure of the electorate, that is an undeniable fact but no doubt you will deny all the same.
Click to expand...
Clearly we should just pay more in our electric bills for coal with emits about 50x as much radiation.
 
Sterling Archer said:
So the only result so far has been an increase in fear? Why shouldn't previously unknown information about nuclear energy effect regulations?
Click to expand...


It's more than fear, Archie boy. The information was "unknown" because it was being hidden via an act of collusion by lowering standards.


The AP reviewed 226 preliminary notifications – alerts on emerging safety problems – issued by the NRC since 2005. Wear and tear in the form of clogged lines, cracked parts, leaky seals, rust and other deterioration contributed to at least 26 alerts over the past six years. Other notifications lack detail, but aging also was a probable factor in 113 additional alerts. That would constitute up to 62 percent in all. For example, the 39-year-old Palisades reactor in Michigan shut Jan. 22 when an electrical cable failed, a fuse blew, and a valve stuck shut, expelling steam with low levels of radioactive tritium into the air outside. And a one-inch crack in a valve weld aborted a restart in February at the LaSalle site west of Chicago.

_One 2008 NRC report blamed 70 percent of potentially serious safety problems on "degraded conditions." Some involve human factors, but many stem from equipment wear, including cracked nozzles, loose paint, electrical problems, or offline cooling components.

_Confronted with worn parts that need maintenance, the industry has repeatedly requested – and regulators have often allowed – inspections and repairs to be delayed for months until scheduled refueling outages. Again and again, problems worsened before they were fixed. Postponed inspections inside a steam generator at Indian Point allowed tubing to burst, leading to a radioactive release in 2000. Two years later, cracking was allowed to grow so bad in nozzles on the reactor vessel at the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio, that it came within two months of a possible breach, the NRC acknowledged in a report. A hole in the vessel could release radiation into the environment, yet inspections failed to catch the same problem on the replacement vessel head until more nozzles were found to be cracked last year.



Let me put it in terms you understand....if it was your car that experienced similar problems and you found out your dealer's mechanic was in cahoots with the man office dictums to lower standards, you'd sue their heads off.

You should actually learn to read carefull and comprehensively before you type, Archie.
 
tom prendergast said:
Much of the reason why so many power plants have remained in operation rather than being replaced is due to the hysteria generated by people like you. Politicians of both persuasions have felt it easier to do nothing rather than incur the displeasure of the electorate, that is an undeniable fact but no doubt you will deny all the same.
Click to expand...

Stop lying Tom.....the REASON this stuff happens is because the SAME mentality that caused nuke power plants to be caught with flawed and faulty systems in the first place want to continue to operate as if NOTHING happened.

Case in point, here on Long Island you had Shoreham start constructing a nuke power plant a little before Three Mile Island. Well, the people (who didn't vote for it in the first place) starting investigating, and caught faulty cooling pipes being used, and other "corner cutting" tactics being used that essentially would have put the damned thing at risk of serious failures and such. After much legal wrangling, it was stopped...the kibosh being that Shoreham nuke folk could NOT come up with a viable evacuation plan in the event of an emergency.

Now spare me all the rehash of the pro-nuke smokescreen, Tom..and DEAL with the FACTS of this article. I don't see you taking the wife and kids on a jaunt to vacation in Tokyo, Japan, now do I? If YOU want to live with the risk, Tom, that's your fucking business. I'd rather not.
 
Sterling Archer said:
Clearly we should just pay more in our electric bills for coal with emits about 50x as much radiation.
Click to expand...

No, clearly we should invest in applying solar, wind, geo-thermal when applicable, so coal and oil would be auxillary, and NOT the prime source. Oh, and please provide the proof of all the folks suffering from radiation poisoning regarding coal plants....I find it fascinating how nuke power wonks will bend over backwards to deny ANY radiation leaks or emissions from nuke plants as having any negative effects on people or environment, yet they indirectly swear that coal plants are radioactive dynamos....which of course ALL is just harmless, right? All those physicians and scientist who can PROVE otherwise are just being irrantional, right?

Get it together, Archie.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, clearly we should invest in applying solar, wind, geo-thermal when applicable, so coal and oil would be auxillary, and NOT the prime source. Oh, and please provide the proof of all the folks suffering from radiation poisoning regarding coal plants....I find it fascinating how nuke power wonks will bend over backwards to deny ANY radiation leaks or emissions from nuke plants as having any negative effects on people or environment, yet they indirectly swear that coal plants are radioactive dynamos....which of course ALL is just harmless, right? All those physicians and scientist who can PROVE otherwise are just being irrantional, right?

Get it together, Archie.
Click to expand...

So we should instead use methods that are not as efficient and require far greater materials (the exception is hydro, but we're almost at peak capacity for that)?

Oh, and since you asked...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
 
Sterling Archer said:
So we should instead use methods that are not as efficient and require far greater materials (the exception is hydro, but we're almost at peak capacity for that)?

Did I say or imply that? Nope. I for using methods that DON'T run the risk of irradiating a population or the eco-system, or leave us with a shitload of deadly waste that is NOT being reclaimed or recycled efficiently.

Oh, and since you asked...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Click to expand...

Oh, maybe you missed this


Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

Oh, and maybe you should get informed on this:

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/plutonium.htm

That's just for starters. Perhaps you should research as to what is being released and it's potential long term effects. Then maybe you can honestly address what the posted lead article of this thread is addressing.
 
Sterling Archer said:
Clearly we should just pay more in our electric bills for coal with emits about 50x as much radiation.
Click to expand...

The trouble is you are dealing with people who are illiterate scientifically and believe that emotion and over reaction are valid substitutes for objectivity and calm rational analysis.
 
tom prendergast said:
The trouble is you are dealing with people who are illiterate scientifically and believe that emotion and over reaction are valid substitutes for objectivity and calm rational analysis.
Click to expand...

The chronology of the posts here shows that pompous nuke power wonks like YOU and Archie just IGORE facts that don't fit your ideology. As I demonstrated in posts #6 & #10.

You're no nuke power expert Thomas, as I demonstrated time and again with simple research and critical analysis of the mantras you consistently spew. Like I said, let me know when you and the wife & kids get back from that week vacation in Tokyo. ;)
 
Taichiliberal said:
Oh, maybe you missed this


Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

Oh, and maybe you should get informed on this:

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/plutonium.htm

That's just for starters. Perhaps you should research as to what is being released and it's potential long term effects. Then maybe you can honestly address what the posted lead article of this thread is addressing.
Click to expand...
Didn't miss it at all. If the radiation from coal is 50-100x greater than that of nuclear waste, then the health effects of nuclear waste are 50-100x more negligable. And since nuclear energy has no risk of producing dangerous gases, smog and acid rain are not an issue as well.

As far as your link goes, you understand that's it's a collection of reports that have been cut and pasted from whole documents, i.e. it is worthless without the entire piece or context.
 
Last edited:
Sterling Archer said:
Ori
ginally Posted by Taichiliberal
Oh, maybe you missed this


Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

Oh, and maybe you should get informed on this:

http://www.frankmckinnon.com/plutonium.htm

That's just for starters. Perhaps you should research as to what is being released and it's potential long term effects. Then maybe you can honestly address what the posted lead article of this thread is addressing.
Click to expand...


Didn't miss it at all. If the radiation from coal is 50-100x greater than that of nuclear waste, then the health effects of nuclear waste are 50-100x more negligable. And since nuclear energy has no risk of producing dangerous gases, smog and acid rain are not an issue as well.

As far as your link goes, you understand that's it's a collection of reports that have been cut and pasted from the whole document, i.e. it is worthless without the entire piece or context.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, but we're not talking about ALL radioactive waste/emissions from nuke plants in this comparison to coal, are we Archie? Evidently, you IGNORED the link I provided regarding plutonium....I could provide more information regarding radiation leaks, releases and emissions from nuke plants and their by products, but obviously your mind is closed to such information. So be it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Ahhh, but we're not talking about ALL radioactive waste/emissions from nuke plants in this comparison to coal, are we Archie? Evidently, you IGNORED the link I provided regarding plutonium....I could provide more information regarding radiation leaks, releases and emissions from nuke plants and their by products, but obviously your mind is closed to such information. So be it.
Click to expand...
Will you be including whole documents and reports in this? because if not I can cut and paste words together from your posts to create any image I want to portray, which is what the link you gave does. And yes, we are. The reports I showed have no distinction between the radioactive particulates emitted from coal and from nuclear waste (though they are different at certain levels)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top