Breaking News.. Brownsville Levee Near Cooper Nuclear Plant in Nebraska Just Broke! Here We Go !!!!

reply to post by kissitgoodbye


I found a news video here:

Gamut News - Levee Breach

reply to post by kissitgoodbye


Thank you for the thread and thanks to all of the ATSers who have posted updates and links to more information.

This is a really good thread and it puts the mainstream media to shame. There are many ATS threads like this, and that's why I come here all the time. You folks sure are on the ball quite often, let me tell ya.

This is a good topic worth discussing and researching, and so don't let the critics get to you.

I cannot offer any links at the moment, but I will offer encouragement and support to all of you. I want you to know that what you are doing and fighting for is worthwhile and it matters to me a lot. I am proud to be a part of a group with you fine people and always look forward to learning new things from you guys/gals.

Just always remember, what actions we take today, and what we fight for today; will ultimately directly affect the lives of our great great great grandchildren. It is up to us to make a better world for them.

Things may seem hopeless right now but they are not. The tide is finally turning in our favor. The pendulum always swings back and forth.

Information Revolution indeed.

Can anyone update me?

Good luck Nebraska!

Looks like the Nuclear Reactors are getting a reprieve.

Nebraska nuclear plant gets relief from levee breach

www.kansascity.com...

Originally posted by Papa Sierra
reply to post by SFA437

 

its a levee on the Missouri side of the river
second line

Sorry- been spending 99% of my time on the Fukushima thread. It figures I know more about that than what is going on in my own backyard...

reply to post by JoeDaShom


It was a nail biter for a bit. It was looking like about 24hrs before the water rose high enough to kill off the control room and pumps and motors at one of the nuke plants. Then at the last minute when two more feet of water were coming a levee broke on the opposite side of the river and drained several feet and gave a place for the additional water to go.

Looks like its all in the clear for the Nuke plants for the next week to 10 days when more water comes.

For the people.....the flooding is bringing devastation. And its going to last for the entire summer.

Originally posted by SalientSkivvy
reply to post by Shura

 

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the same guy was claiming wind turbines are more dangerous to people then nuclear plants... lol.

Which is true, I've already provided several links that prove this claim in both this thread and others so this is the last time I'm going to post these.

nextbigfuture.com...

manhaz.cyf.gov.pl...

www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk...

Looks like it broke Thursday night...

Nebraska State Paper

Originally posted by thorfourwinds

Originally posted by Nosred

Generation III reactors have been operational since 1996 and not one person has ever been injured or hurt by one. Hundreds of people are injured and killed by wind turbines every year, and hundreds of coal miners are killed every year, and countless people die of lung cancer every year from air pollution.

Saying these reactors are more dangerous than current power sources is ignorant when you look at the facts.

Greetings:

OK, Since you seem reticent to supply facts to back up your assertions, here are some for your edification and enjoyment.

A generation III reactor is a development of any of the generation II nuclear reactor designs incorporating evolutionary improvements in design developed during the lifetime of the generation II reactor designs. These include improved fuel technology, superior thermal efficiency, passive safety systems and standardized design for reduced maintenance and capital costs.

Improvements in reactor technology result in a longer operational life (60 years of operation, extendable to 120+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and reactor pressure vessel replacement) compared with currently used generation II reactors (designed for 40 years of operation, extendable to 80+ years of operation prior to complete overhaul and RPV replacement).

Furthermore, core damage frequencies for these reactors are lower than for Generation II reactors —

60 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for the EPR;

[color=limegreen]3 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for the ESBWR

significantly lower than the
10,000 core damage events per 1000 million reactor–year for BWR/4 generation II reactors.

Now, don't you feel a lot better? What kind of bravo sierra is this?

3 damage events per 1000 million reactor--year means that the odds of a meltdown are significantly lower than your odds of getting struck by lightning so yeah, I do feel a lot better. How many times have you been struck by lightning recently?

The first generation III reactors were built in Japan, while several others have been approved for construction in Europe. A Westinghouse AP1000 reactor is scheduled to become operational in Sanmen, China in 2013.
source

That makes us feel a whole lot better.

Yes, and? The reactor in Fukushima was a generation II reactor that was built in the 60's, the generation III reactors had no problems. You're trying to create a false association here between the Fukushima accident and generation III reactors, which is nothing more than scare mongering. You know for a fact that there has never been an accident with generation III reactors so you resort to twisting facts and taking things out of context to suit your agenda, have you ever thought of becoming a politician?

Originally posted by kissitgoodbye
According to Breaking News on the Weather Channel, June 23, 2011 at 9:45 pm central time

It can not be because it is only 7:13 pm ????

The nuclear plant has been preparing for the flooding since May 30. More than 5,000 tons of sand has been brought in to construct barricades around it and access roads, according to NPPD. Should water levels engulf the facility, forcing closure and repairs, energy bills in the area would be likely to rocket to cover the cost. 'In that case we may have to raise rates,' a spokeswoman said. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... z1QF0wz89d

Nice to know the same taxpayers footing the bill for these "cheapest energy cost" reactors are going to be forced to pay for the repairs and closure of these reactors, along with being strung with the catastrophic costs of these reactors if they go boom, because these private companies only want to pay for the cheapest insurance they can get away with, all while these same taxpayers are losing everything they own!!!

Cheapest form of energy, Nosred, for who??? Those receiving this corporate welfare, but certainly not the common citizens of our great country...................WTF!!!

reply to post by Nosred


You have to get up right next to a wind turbine to get hurt.

A nuclear disaster can hurt you from 10,000 miles away.

That's why people don't care to ban alligators even though they are extremely dangerous, because you have to actually go right up next to one to get hurt.

It is easier to just stay away from alligators or wind turbines in order to achieve 100% safety.

There is really no where to run when you have the entire atmosphere and oceans contaminated. And last I checked the contamination created by wind turbines and alligators is negligible to the atmosphere and ocean.

Ok now you know why. So if you would kindly stop spreading misinformation (which is totally out of context)...I would appreciate that.

And implying directly that wind turbines are more dangerous than nuclear power plants is totally absurd and only works with out of context assertions exactly like the ones you made.

Do wind turbines cause more contamination of the surrounding atmosphere, soil, water; than a nuclear plant when it goes into full meltdown?

Can wind turbine accidents in China affect me in the United States? What about massive nuclear pollution?

Which one is the most dangerous in reality? It's clearly obvious.

reply to post by RoyalBlue


There was several feet of flooding, it would've cost a lot of money to fix any type of power plant.

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by RoyalBlue

 

There was several feet of flooding, it would've cost a lot of money to fix any type of power plant.

Yeah, the damn nuclear biilionaires can pay for it, too!!! Instead of passing it off onto the average citizens who just lost, or are going to lose everything!!! WTF is wrong with this country???

If a nuclear plant has a disaster, it will be payed for by taxpayers. The nuclear industry is heavily dependent on government subsidies as well.

The reason that any issue at a nuclear power plant is extremely important and dire is because of how the technology itself works.

As been pointed out earlier, and gets totally ignored by the blind nuclear industry lobbyists, the fact is plain and simple.

Nuclear 'fuel' material requires constant cooling for years. If it heats up significantly when not cooled, it begins to melt (nuclear lava = corium). Hot enough to melt through concrete. Several thousands of degrees.

That's what they are trying to cover up and downplay. Also the long-term global ecological effects are downplayed at every turn.

Common sense triumphs however. And anyone questioning things will quickly realize they are lying about how safe it really is.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Nosred

 

You have to get up right next to a wind turbine to get hurt.

Wrong, as my links said and as I've explained before. The main cause of turbine accidents is something known as "blade failure" which means one of the turbine's blades shatters sending shrapnel flying through the air killing and injuring people for quite a long distance, this happens significantly more frequently than nuclear reactor accidents.

A nuclear disaster can hurt you from 10,000 miles away.

It is easier to just stay away from alligators or wind turbines in order to achieve 100% safety.

Wind turbines take up quite a bit of land to produce the same amount of power as one nuclear power plant, to run a country on entirely wind power the amount of land it would require to produce sufficient energy would be huge, there would have to be several turbines in close proximity to your house meaning you have a significantly larger chance of getting killed by one than you'd have getting killed by a nuclear power plant, especially generation III reactors which have never injured or killed a person in the past fifteen years of their operation.

There is really no where to run when you have the entire atmosphere and oceans contaminated. And last I checked the contamination created by wind turbines and alligators is negligible to the atmosphere and ocean.

Nuclear power does not contaminate the oceans or atmosphere, you're thinking of fossil fuels. Which is what we're relying on now.

Ok now you know why. So if you would kindly stop spreading misinformation (which is totally out of context)...I would appreciate that.

I'm not spreading misinformation, I'm spreading facts and posting sources to back up my claims, something I notice the people arguing against nuclear power have failed to do.

And implying directly that wind turbines are more dangerous than nuclear power plants is totally absurd and only works with out of context assertions exactly like the ones you made.

How exactly is it absurd? Look at the numbers I've posted, wind turbines have injured over 1000 people in the past twenty years, and provide very small amounts of electricity. Generation III nuclear reactors have killed zero people in the past twenty years, and provide large amounts of electricity. How am I the one making absurd claims?

Do wind turbines cause more contamination of the surrounding atmosphere, soil, water; than a nuclear plant when it goes into full meltdown?

Fossil fuels do, and unlike nuclear power the contamination is part of routine procedure and not a result of fluke accidents.

Can wind turbine accidents in China affect me in the United States? What about massive nuclear pollution?

Oil spills and air pollution from coal plants can, which again is a result of routine procedure with fossil fuels but a result of rare fluke accidents with nuclear power plants.

Which one is the most dangerous in reality? It's clearly obvious.

Yes, I think it is.

reply to post by youallcrazy

no doubts, they shall be sinking all peripheral areas Just to buy next Alive second & inch for plants. Actually, no other choice been there.

Originally posted by RoyalBlue
Yeah, the damn nuclear biilionaires can pay for it, too!!! Instead of passing it off onto the average citizens who just lost, or are going to lose everything!!! WTF is wrong with this country???

Taxpayers would have had to pay for damages no matter what source the power was coming from. If it had been wind turbines or solar panels that had been damaged the taxpayers would have payed for it.