Evacuation Nuke Plant Byron Illinois

Local Paper: "Sauk Valley News" Just posted this on their face book!!! "We've been informed that there is a developing incident at the Byron nuclear plant, where some evacuations have been ordered of the plant, not general population. A reporter has been on scene, trying to get some word from Exelon. We'll have details very soon."


www.facebook.com...


www.saukvalley.com...

reply to post by projectreller


Lets hope it's not something super serious.

Shall return later for an update.

Cosmic..

looks like they updated the page and it's not a big problem.

as per usual no one in danger but then from the link

Smoke coming from the auxiliary building actually was steam coming from a relief valve, he said.

so was it was it not RAS? er Radio Active Steam? will we even know?

I was on the Dixon for about 3 years.

The shop I worked in was right under the spot on the weather deck where they stored the pet tank, full of radioactive stuff.

They had dosimeters in the overhead and periodically a guy would come around with a clipboard and read them. One day he gasped, and I asked, "what"?, Oh nothing...

When I left there my record showed I had zero exposure... So its all good

And I was worried...

why has this thread not got many comments?

reply to post by grantbeed


Because there's already enough nuclear alarmism on ATS for ten forums. It's ridiculous. Nuclear is the cleanest viable power source available. Do you know how many serious nuclear accidents have taken place in the US? Two. Three Mile Island, and the incidents surrounding the Demon Core. Neither of which had any effect outside a very localized area. You point to Fukushima? Well, whose idea was it to build a nuclear plant on an active fault line? Not the power industry. By all logic, Japan shouldn't be using standard-design reactors. Replace the boiling water facilities at Fukushima with a thorium-based reactor, and there wouldn't be a problem. Now, on to Russia. Two come to mind. Chernobyl and Mayak. Both are classic examples of Soviet carelessness. Both can be attributed directly to the people operating the facilities, not the design itself.

Did you know France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear generators? They've never had a single containment failure, despite what activists try to say. Nuclear power is dangerous, I'll agree to that. Fine. But far, far less dangerous than fearmongers would have you believe. The yearly average for deaths relating to nuclear energy is 0. However, conventional sources such as coal, oil and related fossil fuels average over 5,000 dead per year from extraction activities. That's not counting the deaths caused by pollution. But, you say, plutonium is radioactive! That it is. But radiation can be negated much easier than carbon emissions. Distance and shielding. I see an easy solution here. Most oil wells are kilometers deep, and far removed from any hazard to containment. Disposing of nuclear waste is as simple as encasing it in hardened steel and dropping it back into the earth.

UPDATE FROM LOCAL PAPER:

www.saukvalley.com...

www.saukvalley.com...