Two United States nuclear power plants are on alert!

reply to post by JJShinobi


I'd be more than happy for all houses to run on solar power if it wasn't incredibly expensive and unreliable, maybe once the technology improves it will be a viable solution though. In the meantime, nuclear seems the way to go.

Originally posted by Nosred

The Three Mile Island accident killed exactly zero people, and the amount of radiation people in the area were exposed to was less than you get from a commercial airline flight. The only reason Three Mile Island even got any media attention was because a fictional movie about nuclear power had been released a few days before the accident.

That is what is officially claimed, however you may want to consider this statement in BOLD

The official figures have been disputed by a number of insiders, who have suggested figures hundreds or thousands of times higher (see Three Mile Island accident#Radiation release). According to the American Nuclear Society, using the relatively low official radiation emission figures, "The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in a year."

en.wikipedia.org...

In fairness I also included the part that claimed that the dose was relatively low. I take their statements with a large grain of salt considering the potential for bias.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Sparky63
You may like to investigate this before you reach that conclusion.

I did, and like I said not one person died or was even seriously injured. Moose have literally hurt and killed more people than Three Mile Island did so it kind of seems like you're grasping at straws here.

So I take you dismiss out of hand the research I cited in my post?

that reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident

How could you reach such a conclusion so quickly? Did you even take time to examine the source and methodology? Or did you simply dismiss it because it contradicts your claim?

reply to post by Nosred


There are renewable resources, but they don't fly with the government. The nuclear wastes have to be dumped somewhere. Last time I heard on here that nuclear wastes will be put on the moon.

reply to post by Sparky63


Yet again you leave out an important part of the article, wikipedia cites several sources that prove those disputes about the health effects wrong including,

www.nytimes.com...

ehp03.niehs.nih.gov...:doi/10.1289/ehp.6200

www.threemileisland.org...

Please stop distorting the facts to suit your agenda.

Originally posted by Sparky63
How could you reach such a conclusion so quickly? Did you even take time to examine the source and methodology? Or did you simply dismiss it because it contradicts your claim?

See above post, I cited three sources that disputed your claim.

Edit: Dammit, the second citation won't link, hold on.


Edit: It's number 9 in wikipedia's references for that article so you can click the link there. For some reason it won't work when copied and pasted here.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by loam
That's what the Japanese government and TEPCO said.

The crisis at Fukushima was not as bad as media hype made it out to be either, and this is much much less severe. The two nuclear power plants in question are not having any kind of emergency, they've been put on alert due to flooding and they were prepared for this and have the situation under control.

Greetings:

While all participation is certainly appreciated, outright dis-info will be met with facts, sources, links - you know, the kind of stuff you so conveniently leave out.

The crisis at Fukushima was not as bad as media hype made it out to be...

Perhaps this will interest you also:

... who can say that and keep a straight face?

19 May 2011
At this time, there is no public health threat in the U.S. related to radiation exposure. FDA, together with other agencies, is carefully monitoring any possibility for distribution of radiation to the United States.

At this time, theoretical models [color=limegreen]do not indicate that significant amounts of radiation will reach the U.S. coast or affect U.S. fishing waters.
source

Perhaps this will interest you also:

23 April 2011
Japan Nuclear Iodine Radiation In San Francisco Milk Over 2600% Above EPA Drinking Water Limit
source

10 May 2011
Hawaii Farmers Treating Milk With Boron After Finding Radiation 2400 Times Above Safe Levels
source

This was only a week after the EPA stopped Fukushima nuclear radiation tests on milk, drinking water and rainwater, saying the levels of radiation were constantly dropping and posed no health risks.

EPA officials, however, [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions or make staff members available to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California.

Margot Perez-Sullivan, a spokeswoman at the EPA’s regional headquarters in San Francisco, said the agency’s written statement would stand on its own.

IMHO, these people theoretically work for we, the people, and this type of behavior should not be tolerated!

Where are those people that actually are aware (and care)?

From the lackluster response to many threads dealing with this subject, one might surmise that there are not enough of us - or that we are not connecting in a collective voice to shout from the rooftops:

America's Being Nuked - Can we Together Stop the Madness?

In the unlikely scenario that pollutants could affect fish that have traveled to the U.S., FDA will work with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to test seafood caught in those areas. Together, FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.

The FDA has claimed that there is no need to test Pacific fish for Japan nuclear radiation reports the Anchorage Daily News but when drilled on details by the reporter, the FDA [color=limegreen]refused to answer questions and gave the reporter the run-around.

The FDA says there will be no testing of fish until NOAA testing finds cause for alarm but NOAA [color=limegreen]refuses to answer questions on what kind of monitoring has been done.
source

25 April 2011
New EPA Radiation Tests Show Cesium in California Rainwater at Highest Level Since Crisis Began
source

3 May 2011
Hot Radioactive Particles in Seattle at 50% of Levels Seen in Tokyo
source

OK... 50% of what? Are we, the people, to be the least bit alarmed? Do the EPA and FDA have the best interests of the American people at the forefront of decision-making? Are we really screwed? Does anyone read this? Does anyone really care?

On CNN Arnie was asked, “So should people on the West Coast be worried?

Gundersen side-stepped just a bit saying, “Well, the average person breathes in about 10 cubic meters a day, and the filters out there for April show that they were breathing in, per day, about five particles.

It only takes one of these particles to trigger a cancer.

Now these are charged, which is why we call them ‘fuel fleas’ since they latch onto lung tissue. [color=limegreen]We’re at a point now where you just can’t run from the particles that are still in the air. We call them ‘fuel fleas’ also because they’re incredibly small, smaller than the thickness of your hair.”
more

Interesting. As we write this, David Morrison (NASA mouthpiece) is in the History Channel talking about ELE's - specifically doomsday asteroids (1,100 1 kilometer or larger). 6,000 to one odds. (More on this buffoon in Cometgate2).

Space Guard Survey promoted heavily as a "... not to worry, feel good" piece. (Bangs head on desk and reaches for Vice-Grips).

But we digress. Meanwhile, back at the ranch:

3 April 2011
140,000 Times More Iodine-131 Released at Fukushima Than Three Mile Island… Using March 22 Estimates
source

3 May 2011
Radiation In US Food Will Be Nationwide Problem, Not Just Regional, From Fukushima Nuclear Radioactive Fallout
source

3 June 2011
5.77 microsieverts per hour of radiation measured near Tokyo at ground level — Government “is desperately trying to keep it quiet...”
source

And from our friend Alexander Higgins:

U.S. Radiation Map

Updated With Real Time EPA RadNet Japan Nuclear Radiation Monitoring For Every Major City In America On A Single Page

In Peace, Love & Light

tfw

Originally posted by Nosred
I so firmly believe in the safety of nuclear power that I'm willing to take that risk. If any nuclear disasters happen at a nuclear power plant in Europe I'll eat my hat.

That's right, because that's the only thing that will be edible..

Originally posted by thorfourwinds
Greetings:

While all participation is certainly appreciated, outright dis-info will be met with facts, sources, links - you know, the kind of stuff you so conveniently leave out.

You mean like the one I posted several hours ago? If you're going to try to argue with me without reading my posts, you're not worth listening to.

Originally posted by Nosred

You conveniently left out this part of that same wikipedia article,

Among the errors were: small sample sizes used to draw far-reaching conclusions; no control populations; no other cancer risk factors considered; no environmental sampling and analysis; cherry-picking of data to fit the conclusion; and an incorrect half-life used for strontium-90. As such, the results have not changed the opinion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that there is no excess cancer risk from living near nuclear facilities.

I think you are confused. This quote you provided addresses a Leukemia study that I never referred too in my post.
It is on the same page though so that may be why you accidentally associated it with my quote regarding the Radiation and Public Health Project. This was a totally different study that is not associated with the Leukemia study.
I suggest you slow down and take the time to read the posts carefully and look at the sources. We are all capable of being too quick on the trigger, myself included.
There is a lot of contradictory studies, information and claims. Thanks for providing sources for your claims. It is very helpful.

Originally posted by Freezer
That's right, because that's the only thing that will be edible..

Tell that to the 994 people who have been injured by wind turbines in Europe in the last 15 years alone.

reply to post by Sparky63


It doesn't matter, the tests were performed by the same organization that performed the tests that you are referring to therefore they are an unreliable source. How could you possibly think an organization that blatantly lies about experiment results has any sort of value as a source of information?

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by Sparky63
How could you reach such a conclusion so quickly? Did you even take time to examine the source and methodology? Or did you simply dismiss it because it contradicts your claim?

See above post, I cited three sources that disputed your claim.

Thanks for going back and adding the sources. I look forward to considering them.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Sparky63

 

It doesn't matter, the tests were performed by the same organization that performed the tests that you are referring to therefore they are an unreliable source. How could you possibly think an organization that blatantly lies about experiment results has any sort of value as a source of information?

edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

I am not surprised that the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Nuclear Regulatory Commission did not endorse the findings of either of the studies, especially since the studies were highly critical of these institutions and contradicted the conclusions they reached.
Just because the National Cancer Institute claimed that they believed there were flaws in their methodology does not mean that the results were invalid. Both were peer reviewed.

Originally posted by Nosred
Tell that to the 994 people who have been injured by wind turbines in Europe in the last 15 years alone.

Sorry dead people can't talk, well actually some can, but I would need a px device which I don't have.

Anyways if you think wind turbines are worse than people, animals, food supply, plant life and the earth being poisoned by toxic deadly radioactive particles, I feel sorry for you. Maybe you should take a trip to Fukushima and see how well you like living in a radioactive zone. You see when a turbine is shaken to the ground and stops working, people can still breathe the air, plant food in the ground, and drink the water.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by Sparky63

 

It doesn't matter, the tests were performed by the same organization that performed the tests that you are referring to therefore they are an unreliable source. How could you possibly think an organization that blatantly lies about experiment results has any sort of value as a source of information?

edit on 22-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

How do you reach the conclusion that "flaws in methodology" equals "blatantly lies"? Can you provide a quote for that phrase in your sources? I am highly skeptical that such language was used by by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They may not have approved of the methodology but that in itself means little when you consider the source.

Originally posted by Sparky63
How do you reach the conclusion that "flaws in methodology" equals "blatantly lies"? Can you provide a quote for that phrase in your sources? I am highly skeptical that such language was used by by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They may not have approved of the methodology but that in itself means little when you consider the source.

edit on 6/22/2011 by Sparky63 because: added comment

cherry-picking of data to fit the conclusion

lie
1    [lahy] noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.

dictionary.reference.com...

reply to post by Nosred


You crack me up! You must be the most sarcastic person on this forum.

This whole situation seems stable at the moment to me, the only strange circumstance is the FAA putting a no-fly zone around the plant... that kinda scratches my head and wish my hi-def, satellite camera's batteries weren't dead :\ otherwise I would investigate.

I hope only positive updates on the situation from now on!

In my opinion, current nuclear power is safe like an undetected and undetonated land mine is safe. It can produce no harm for 30 or 40 years until one day the unthinkable happens. The results can be devastating and unexpected.

Granted, land mines are meant to kill and Nuclear power plants are designed not to kill, but as we have seen in Japan and in Russia, the unthinkable and unexpected sometimes happens. In the case of aging nuclear power plants, the consequences can be far reaching.

I live in Central Florida and we benefit from Nuclear energy, but if I ever get cancer you can bet I am going to doubt any claims of safety made by the Nuclear Industry or it's regulators.

reply to post by Nosred


The claim was made that the data was cherry picked. Not proven...just a claim. Take that for what it is worth. Personally, I do not trust their self serving claims. But that is because I am a hopeless skeptic.
I tend to doubt self serving statements made by government institutions who have a dog in the fight.