It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by litocean
Chrissy,
I cut and pasted your emails to some one in Miami from 1978/ 1979/ that thinks she had worked with you in the FAA .And really wants to chat with you .Her first name was Barbara at Tammi Airport .And Barbara said there were only 4 women as air traffic .So i gave Barbara all your pages here and Barbara thinks she knows you. And think your right on the mark of what your posting .You the stuff and bag of chips ~~~ Please send me email at Litocean @aol.com .And if your the person Barbara knows she would like to say hello / So send email to that aol~~~ Thanks we are backing you here good luck ~~ And let me know on my aol account if your Chrissy who Barbara knows .Thanks Litocean~~~ Do not break Chrissy hold your ground ~~~
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you people serious?
Now I'll freely admit I underestimated just how unstable she was, but it was clear from the very beginning, that XGG was a little off the deep end.
Now what was worse, the fact that I pointed out a few glaringly obvious problems with her theories or the fact that many of you are just encouraging and enabling her?
Anyone that hypersensitive on an internet forum is clearly needs help.
Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized
A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.
The report concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools and ought to expedite the removal of the fuel to dry storage casks that are more resilient to attack. The Bush administration has long defended the safety of the pools, and the nuclear industry has warned that moving large amounts of fuel to dry storage would be unnecessary and very expensive.
The report was requested by Congress after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as homeland security officials sought to understand the potential consequences of a Sept. 11-scale attack on a nuclear facility.
Because the report is classified, its contents were not made public when it was delivered to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last summer. Even a stripped-down, declassified version has remained under wraps since November because the commission says it contains sensitive information.
However, the commission made excerpts of the report public when Chairman Nils Diaz sent a letter to Congress on March 14 rebutting some of the academy's concerns. His letter also suggested that the academy had largely backed the government's views about the safety of existing fuel storage systems.
E. William Colglazier, executive officer of the academy, said the letter was misleading and warned that the public needs to learn about the report's findings.
"There are substantive disagreements between our committee's views and the NRC," he said in an interview. "If someone only reads the NRC report, they would not get a full picture of what we had to say."
Although the commission said it is keeping the report under wraps for security reasons, some officials who have seen the document suggest that the NRC is merely suppressing embarrassing criticism.
more...
www.nmcco.com...
...The lack of a repository has placed nuclear power plants in the position of storing more used fuel than expected for longer than originally intended. The result is that many nuclear plants-which each produce an average of about 20 metric tons of used fuel annually-are running out of storage capacity. By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools, and by the end of 2010, 78 will have exhausted their storage capacity...
During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Because what she is suggesting is a MASSIVE conspiracy to break federal, state and local laws, as well as to put hundreds, if not thousands of lives at risk.
"College Park, Md.: I was in Harrisburg during the meltdown. The local news media told us nothing. What information we could get on the serious nature of the accident came from the national television news in the evening. It has been a continuous stream of lies and evasion, from the beginning to the present. "
"... But they NEVER TOLD US THAT IN 1979!! The reality of just HOW bad it was has really only recently come to light. The utility company lied through its teeth all through the crisis, when the lives of people living in the area were at stake! How do we know that they won't do that again, if there is another crisis? "
Originally posted by loam
Even a cursory review of the first of your positions ("Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.") produces the following:
Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized
A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.
(edited a long C&P)
Read that again, Howard....By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools...
Hmmmm? How many months are left? 15? Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006?
Originally posted by loam
Why would we need any of these companies... Private Fuel Storage, LLC ???
Originally posted by loam
From the same source above:
During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.
Gee, Howard, if everyone is storing onsite as you suggest, why the shipments above? Just taking them for a friendly country drive...a breath of fresh air??
All of the country's nuclear power plants together produce about 2,000 metric tons of used fuel annually. Today, this used fuel is stored at the plant sites, either in used fuel pools or dry storage.
Originally posted by loam
Even a cursory review of the first of your positions ("Waterford 3 did not store used fuel rods off site. No nuclear reactors in this country do.") produces the following:
Storage of Nuclear Spent Fuel Criticized
A classified report by nuclear experts assembled by the National Academy of Sciences has challenged the decision by federal regulators to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water.
(edited a long C&P)
Read that again, Howard....By the end of 2006, about 60 units will have no more storage space in their used fuel pools...
Hmmmm? How many months are left? 15? Do all 60 of these plants run out of space simultaneously on December 31, 2006?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
So what part of that states that these facilities have been shipping used fuel rods off site?
Originally posted by loam
Why would we need any of these companies... Private Fuel Storage, LLC ???
Originally posted by HowardRoark
They have not received their license yet, and therefore have not recieved any fuel rods yet.
Originally posted by loam
From the same source above:
During the past 30 years, more than 3,000 shipments of used fuel have been safely completed in the United States, and 10 times that number in other countries. While vehicle accidents have occurred, there has not been a release of radioactive materials or a single injury attributed to the radioactive nature of the cargo. When the federal government finally opens an interim storage facility or a permanent repository, the number of used fuel shipments is expected to range from 300 to 500 per year.
Gee, Howard, if everyone is storing onsite as you suggest, why the shipments above? Just taking them for a friendly country drive...a breath of fresh air??
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yes, occasionally some fuel from comeercial power plants WAS shipped off site. This was generally a small piece of a larger fuel rod that was sent to a facility like Argonne National Labs for research programs. (they have a number of ongoing research programs into fuel rod and reactor safety as well as nonproliferation research). In addition, prior to 1979, most power plants shipped used fuel rods off site for reprocessing. However, that is no longer done.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
The majority of used fuel rod shipments today involve Navy reactor fuel and have nothing do do with commercial power plants like Waterford 3.
Radioactive Leakage At Indian Point 2
Sep 20, 2005 3:57 pm US/Eastern
A small amount of slightly radioactive water has leaked from the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, officials said Tuesday.
Spokesmen for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, owner of the Westchester County plant, said the water was found several feet underground and was no danger to the public or to plant workers.
Less than a pint a day has been collected since the water was spotted in late August and soil samples show no radioactivity a few feet away, the officials said.
``We see nothing at this point that indicates any widespread contamination,'' commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said.
He said there was ``nothing to the extent that anyone exposed to it would suffer any severe health effects.'' Nevertheless, the NRC launched a special inspection, he said.
Indian Point's critics said the leak was another indication that the plant should be closed, and Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano said he should have been informed long before Tuesday.
``It's absolutely unbelievable that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy would keep us in the dark,'' he said. ``This leak could be small; it could have reached the Hudson (River); it could have been going on for years.''
more...
New York state chides NRC for late notification of Indian Point leak
September 21, 2005, 5:26 PM EDT
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) _ New York state is demanding "a full and open investigation" into the discovery of radioactive water outside the spent-fuel pool at the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant.
James Tuffey, director of the state Emergency Management Office, complained in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about not being notified of the leak until Tuesday, "well after it was initially discovered."
"At a time when the public is expecting the highest level of coordination between and among all levels of government and their agencies, this failure to share and coordinate this information is unacceptable," he said.
...
Other officials, including county executives Andrew Spano of Westchester and C. Scott Vanderhoef of Rockland and Rep. Nita Lowey, also have complained about the lack of notification.
Tuffey asked the NRC to send him copies of all its reports on the leak and said that after consulting with Gov. George Pataki's office, "I am calling for a full and open investigation."
more...
Originally posted by litocean
Why was Chris banned ?
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Are you people serious?
Now I'll freely admit I underestimated just how unstable she was, but it was clear from the very beginning, that XGG was a little off the deep end.
Now what was worse, the fact that I pointed out a few glaringly obvious problems with her theories or the fact that many of you are just encouraging and enabling her?
Anyone that hypersensitive on an internet forum is clearly needs help.
Although the vast majority of U.S. spent fuel has never been moved from the reactors that generated it, numerous shipments have taken place. Utilities have transported spent fuel among reactor sites for storage, and some has been shipped to commercial reprocessing and storage facilities. During the 1980s, spent fuel debris from the ruined Three Mile Island 2 reactor was shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. DOE also has transported significant amounts of spent fuel from naval and research reactors. No known radiological harm to the public has resulted from those shipments, according to NRC:
The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material. (See Endnote 33.)
NRC statistics show that 1,335 metric tons of spent fuel was commercially transported in the United States from 1979 through 1995, in 1,306 separate shipments. A total of 356 metric tons were transported in 1,168 highway shipments, while 979 metric tons were carried in 138 rail shipments. The highest amount commercially transported in one year was 193.4 metric tons in 1985. During that period, the distance traveled by all commercial nuclear waste shipments totaled 839,000 miles.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
This data seems a little more accurate
Although the vast majority of U.S. spent fuel has never been moved from the reactors that generated it, numerous shipments have taken place. Utilities have transported spent fuel among reactor sites for storage, and some has been shipped to commercial reprocessing and storage facilities. During the 1980s, spent fuel debris from the ruined Three Mile Island 2 reactor was shipped to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. DOE also has transported significant amounts of spent fuel from naval and research reactors. No known radiological harm to the public has resulted from those shipments, according to NRC:
The safety record for spent fuel shipments in the U.S. and in other industrialized nations is enviable. Of the thousands of shipments completed over the last 30 years, none has resulted in an identifiable injury through release of radioactive material. (See Endnote 33.)
NRC statistics show that 1,335 metric tons of spent fuel was commercially transported in the United States from 1979 through 1995, in 1,306 separate shipments. A total of 356 metric tons were transported in 1,168 highway shipments, while 979 metric tons were carried in 138 rail shipments. The highest amount commercially transported in one year was 193.4 metric tons in 1985. During that period, the distance traveled by all commercial nuclear waste shipments totaled 839,000 miles.
www.ncseonline.org...