This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Governments Have Been Covering Up Nuclear Meltdowns for Fifty Years to Protect the Nuclear Power Industry
Santa Susana
As a History Chanel special notes, a nuclear meltdown occurred at the world's first commercial reactor only 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles, and only 7 miles from the community of Canoga Park and the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles.
Specifically, in 1959, there was a meltdown of one-third of the nuclear reactors at the Santa Susana field laboratory operated by Rocketdyne, releasing - according to some scientists' estimates - 240 times as much radiation as Three Mile Island.
But the Atomic Energy Commission lied and said only there was only 1 partially damaged rod, and no real problems. In fact, the AEC kept the meltdown a state secret for 20 years.
There were other major accidents at that reactor facility, which the AEC and Nuclear Regulatory Commission covered up as well. See this.
Kyshtm
Two years earlier, a Russian government reactor at Kyshtm melted down in an accident which some claim was even worse than Chernobyl.
The Soviet government hid the accident, pretending that it was creating a new "nature reserve" to keep people out of the huge swath of contaminated land.
Journalist Anna Gyorgy alleges that the results of a freedom of information act request show that the CIA knew about the accident at the time, but kept it secret to prevent adverse consequences for the fledgling American nuclear industry.
1980s Studies and Hearings
In 1982, the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs received a secret report received from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission called "Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences 2".
In that report and other reports by the NRC in the 1980s, it was estimated that there was a 50% chance of a nuclear meltdown within the next 20 years which would be so large that it would contaminate an area the size of the State of Pennsylvania, which would result in huge numbers of a fatalities, and which would cause damage in the hundreds of billions of dollars (in 1980s dollars).
Those reports were kept secret for decades.
Other Evidence
Well-known writer Alvin Toffler pointed out in Powershift (page 156):
At least thirty times between 1957 and 1985—more than once a year—the Savannah River nuclear weapons plant near Aiken, South Carolina, experienced what a scientist subsequently termed "reactor incidents of greatest significance." These included widespread leakage of radioactivity and a meltdown of nuclear fuel. But not one of these was reported to local residents or to the public generally. Nor was action taken when the scientist submitted an internal memorandum about these "incidents." The story did not come to light until exposed in a Congressional hearing in 1988. The plant was operated by E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company for the U.S. government, and Du Pont was accused of covering up the facts. The company immediately issued a denial, pointing out that it had routinely reported the accidents to the Department of Energy.
At this point, the DoE, as it is known, accepted the blame for keeping the news secret.
And former soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said on camera for a Discovery Network special ("The Battle of Chernobyl") that the Soviets and Americans have each hidden a number of nuclear accidents from the public.
(17:02 into video.)
Ongoing?
In light of the foregoing, the following quote from the San Jose Mercury News may not seem so far-fetched:
EPA officials, however, 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. Critics said the public needs more information. "It's disappointing," said Bill Magavern, director of Sierra Club California. "I have a strong suspicion that EPA is being silenced by those in the federal government who don't want anything to stand in the way of a nuclear power expansion in this country, heavily subsidized by taxpayer money."
- advertisements -


Tech (largely) solved childhood diseases and made it possible for people to have only the 2.1 kids needed to maintain the population. What this is really about is your view of humanity, isn't it? Either you trust people or you don't.
Trust, but verify.
Trust in God, but tie up your horse!
Thank you for a reasoned response. I would say that we don't disagree on the material facts as much as the solutions to the problems you mention. But I dunno. I just woke up and I might need to digest your wall of text for a while.
Also, I am not GW. You got the wrong guy.
GW pulls together some sources illustrating radiation and radionuclide release cover-ups, and that makes him a luddite? No, it makes him a propounder of the belief that you should never take government reassurances at face value.
I suppose that means he hates his country, too, right?
Nuclear power is the ultimate in "extend and pretend." The energy (benefit) is received upfront. Then the containment and clean up (the real cost) comes much later.
Another factor already considered, the owners of the nuclear industry will not be around to clean up their mess. Today, we have vacation spots around the world... tomorrow, we'll be dead and someone else will have to worry about it. Unless of course a few more go 'boom!'.
Nuclear safety is like shuttle safety. The failure rate for the Space Shuttle was, what, 1 in a hundred thousand or million? The engineers who calculated a realistic rate were shut out and silenced. O-rings, anyone?
It is only a matter of time before other nuclear reactors go 'boom!'. And the nuclear waste? It has 25,000 years to wait. On a long enough timeline, this planet is going to be contaminated. Nuclear waste is the odds-on favourite to win.
Anyone know of any other 'clean energy' that produces contaminates that have to be safeguarded for 25,000 YEARS? Anyone know of any other 'clean energy' that can render tens-of-thousands of square kilometers uninhabitable and has the potential to kill millions with one accident? Contaminate water supplies for millions of square kilometers?
Nuclear energy is neither 'safe' nor 'environmentally-friendly'. Especially not when safety is determined by a cost-benefit analysis.
Fine, for the sake of argument, I'll accept your premises. What do you propose as an alternative?
Freezin' in the dark is always an option, just not a very palatable one.
If you can't trust the government who can you trust?
Organized religion?
Large corporations?
Are you fucking serious? Trust yourself.
didn't think i needed the sarcasm flag for that remark!
LOL... sorry brother. I guess it has been a long week. I apologize. ; )
Idaho National Laboratory On January 3, 1961, the only fatal nuclear reactor accident in the U.S. occurred at the NRTS. An experimental reactor called SL-1 (Stationary Low-Power Plant Number 1) was destroyed when a control rod was pulled too far out of the reactor, leading to core meltdown and a steam explosion. The reactor vessel jumped up 9 feet 1 inch (2.77 m). The concussion and blast killed all three military enlisted personnel working on the reactor. Due to the extensive radioactive isotope contamination, all three had to be buried in lead coffins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_National_Laboratory
Perhaps the above should read "...the only publicized fatal nuclear reactor accident..."
Nice Super Moon out tonight...and yet, I don't feel a thing ;-)
[pulls pants down, bends over, gives nmewn a super-moon]
ROTFL...that's a double moon!!!
Use the edit button, it's kinda like toilet paper ;-)
[pulls pants down, bends over, gives nmewn a super-moon]
Are you sure? Your avatar looks a little pale and, well, false.
Matte,
Get your ass back over to the last comment thread...read my reply...and answer it...or I will consider you just another of GW's web bots and treat you as same...Mr. Regulator Man ;-)
Which thread? I honestly don't know which one you're talking about, dude. I made a lot of posts last night.
Happy to do so, if you'll kindly direct me.
"Which thread? I honestly don't know which one you're talking about, dude. I made a lot of posts last night."
But only one directed at me and I even left you a trail of bread crumbs, as in Mr. Regulator Man.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/amount-radioactive-fuel-fukushima-dwarfs-chernobyl#comment-1076881
Got some errands to run...gather your thoughts...see you there around 16:00 and we'll converse on the miracle of statism ;-)
lol... thx for that. I'll be here, and will reply post-haste to the comment in question, good sir.
I guess I forgot about making a comment to you. Apologies.
Okay then, off to see what this is about.
*sphincter tightens*
; )
George Washington: how did those predictions of yours that they killed the Gulf of Mexico work out for you?
Scare Mongering.
Did you see the 10x100 mile oil slick in the Gulf in the news today?
I wonder what caused it....
It just seems so odd that it just popped up like that.Weird eh?
THe Gulf? What about the pig flu, the swine flu, Y2K, the hole in the ozone, acid rain,the running out of food and oil first in 1980, then 1990, then 2000, then 2010, then 2020? Now they are calling for imprisonment or execution of those who do not believe in the religion called man made global warming.
They siphon off productive resources for the purposes of making themselves feel good and to dispel their own irrational fears,
they are worse blight than any evil bankster or Wall St.
The most dominant species on the planet has done nothing but thrived over the last 100yrs, doubling it's lifespan and improving it's lifestyle an almost incomprehensible amount,
despite these people not because of them.
Shame that doesn't quite jive with the perpetual fear mongering.
You would benefit from actually watching the Chernobyl film. Yeah, GW does seem to need a new horror story every week, but the film is first rate.
i guess you call yourself '..Paneful' on account of your posts.
The world is a warmed polluted shithole but mankind's lifespan has doubled in 100yrs. That doesn't really jive with modern evolutionary theory.
Stunt the human race some more,
evolution slowed the more prevalent your actions have become in everyone's lives.
Go ahead and deny it as I read a warning label on an extension cord.
Increased lifespan is primarily because of understanding and prevention of infection diseases, reduction of infant mortality and increased food supply (even though that food is likely to cause diseases that were unknown 100 years ago). People today don't live much longer than the "three score and ten" (70) years that they lived to 2,000 years ago.
Most of the increased life span you hear about is propoganda supported by massaging the numbers.
Mankind's lifespan has doubled in some places, stayed the same in others, and declined in yet others.
I think you'll find the amount of pollution in people's immediate environment has an effect on their longevity - I suggest you google "Chernobyl children" for confirmation.
Life expectancy has doubled (where it has doubled) because of improved medicine, sanitation, and nutrition - not because our overlords cover up radiation leaks, but despite them.
This is so obvious you are either a moron or a troll. Either way, you have no credibility here. Your every post is a catalog of sophisms and Statist propaganda.
Don't forget the excluded middle... my hunch is "moronic troll"
Oh for christ's sake. Google the word 'conflate'. Then google the word 'astroturf'. Then fuck off.
+1000
bearster,
you are right, their are no environmental problems. Jesus/Allah/Krisha
Will come down to save the earth and her people, at least the ones who believe in which every fairytale comes down...
I know my argument hits home when I get replies like "you deserve it" and "their [sic] are no problems".
Such vacuous and ad hominem responses show that there is no counter to what I said. For what it's worth, in case you're honestly interested in learning to read with full comprehension, I did not say there are no problems.
I pointed out that "George Washington" was harping on the BP disaster for months, flogging his notion that they "killed" the Gulf. Well, it turns out that predictions of the Gulf's deaths were ... premature.
Now he is flogging the Japanese nuclear plant disaster with the same religious fervor. It's like the old Frankenstein Myth, or for that matter the Tower of Babbel. The moral of the story is: man had better not try to improve his lot in life and develop technology because he will anger the gods and in the end kill himself.
"Well, it turns out that predictions of the Gulf's deaths were ... premature."
The opposite of "premature" is?
We're not talking about the market here, where timing is ultra-critical. The world has been around for billions of years (unless you're one of those who believe [like Sara Palin] it's only been around for about 10,000 years and humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs), it's wheels grind slowly, until mass extinction events occur...
NOTE: I did not junk you.
GW has pulled together a variety of sources illustrating past cover ups of incidents leading to radionuclide and radioactivity release... here in glorious Amerika.
Whether he was right or wrong about the ultimate consequences of the GOM oil leak is completely irrelevant.. and yet to be determined.
What's your next gambit? That his listed sources can't be trusted 'cause GW hates his country'?
Troll.
+10
new oil slick in GOM
Report: New huge spill near Deepwater Horizon, at MC243 — Slick is 100 miles long, skimming started days ago March 19th, 2011 at 04:00 PMhttp://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/breaking-report-new-huge-spill-deepwat...
Club of Rome, circa 1970 lives on........
Yup. And truth (and all) is truth no matter how many people believe/take note.
You think an entire ecosystem that that took billions of years to evolve dies in a day? A season? A year? Hang out son. It'll get there. FWIW, I hope you're right.
I also hope you're young enough to fully inherit its legacy. You deserve it.
Billions of years, or six days. One or the other, depending upon what side of the fence you're on, I suppose...
You know, it's funny. I believe in God. I'm just not stupid enough to disbelieve science.
I honestly don't fucking understand people who want play this game of 'let's pretend and extend'. Reality is going to be such a bitchslap when it comes, huh?
EDIT: It's so strange to me how often the only people I respect online are atheists. Go figure.
'let's pretend and extend'
You mean Bernanke and QE-infinity, or was that a reference to people who believe in God and moral consequences? According to your logic there, buckeroo, you claim you believe in God, yet you trust only atheists, so I take that as a statement that you're untrustworthy?
Matt Damon said in Sept 2008 that he simply couldn't imagine giving the codes for the nukes (in reference to Sarah Palin's VP campaign) to someone who doesn't believe in long-era evolution. Okay, so then instead of the codes being in the hands of a person who genuinely believes in a Creator and being accountable for his/her actions (like being responsible for the welfare of the safety of nations), he would rather trust a godless atheist who believes in no moral accountability, and in literal survival of the fittest? I never understood his logic on that.
Oh well. America was founded on a belief in God, but it's all going down the crapper. A good hyperinflationary Crunch will shake it all up.
Whoa there partner...how did you get from "godless atheist" to "believes in no moral accountability"..... don't you think you can be an atheist and still believe in moral accountability. I don't need to believe in some sort of retribution in the afterlife when this life will do just fine. If I act immorally I expect to be punished in the here and now. If I steal from my neighbor I don't need to fear the wrath of some god I can fear the wrath of my neighbor. More so, I don't need fear of any retribution to know right from wrong and act accordingly. Whether you want to believe this or not, that’s your choice, but it is possible to have morals without believing in a god.
Whoa there partner IEVI...
Look at the context. I was talking about eternal accountability. But since you don't believe in it and just expect to disappear in a poof(!) of smoke when you expire, then can I have your room when you move out?
"I'm an engineer by trade, and I've been tested multiple times over my academic career, and have repeatedly scored at the sub-genius (145-150 IQ) level. It's not an end-all, be-all marker of course, but it shows that I'm smarter than the average bear, and well able to arrive at a "logical, rational conclusion"."
So by virtue of your high IQ you say you can come to rational conclusions..but I find no evidence of that in your posts....seems to me you jump to conclusions and leave logic and reasoning in the dust.
I seldom run across atheist group-think that's hell-bent on wiping out large sections of "'God's' creation" such as found with "organized" religion.
"Oh well. America was founded on a belief in God, but it's all going down the crapper."
One part is right: it's going down the crapper. The other is a bunch of BS. The US/American wasn't founded on a belief in "God.*" Go ahead, look into the official laws of other countries founded on religion and you'll see plenty of references to their religious icons, but not in the US... The Founders were Deists; it was a general statement of "the creator," that's what's embedded in the official documents. Further, not even the Mayflower, which so many religious dogmatists tout as proof, had anywhere near a consensus for religious proclamation: go ahead, look at the signings of the Mayflower Compact and you'll see that less than half of those available signed it!
* People reference "God" in order to cover their asses, to keep from being pummeled by the religous zealots, who, as is so clear to see, have a greater propensity to die/kill in the name of their invisible friend than do those who have no such belief. NOTE: conjure up Stalin and others as you like, but I'm talking about total numbers in our populations.
Thanks to secularism you're free to practice and spout your religion.
Thank God for evolution!
I dind't mean to say that I 'only' trust Atheists - not at all. It's just that they so often seem to be the only people able to face facts and come to a logical, rational conclusion.
I did not intend it as a slam to people faith. I honestly meant what I said, that it seems so strange to me that I, a believer myself, so often find myself in agreement with people who are atheists. This however, does not extend to matters of faith.
I am a person of faith who nevertheless knows for a fact that if you jump off a tall building and pray for God to repeal the laws of physics on the way down - He won't.