This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power Industry
The Christian Science Monitor noted recently:
Just
as the BP oil spill one year ago heaped scrutiny on the United State's
Minerals Management Service, harshly criticized for lax drilling
oversight and cozy ties with the oil industry, the nuclear crisis in
Japan is shining a light on that nation's safety practices.***
[Russian
nuclear accident specialist Iouli Andreev, who as director of the
Soviet Spetsatom clean-up agency helped in the efforts 25 years ago to
clean up Chernobyl ] has also accused the IAEA of being too close
with corporations. "This is only a fake organization
because every organization which depends on the nuclear industry –
and the IAEA depends on the nuclear industry – cannot perform
properly."
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is no better.
As
nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, Duane Peterson (president of VPIRG
& coordinator for the campaign to retire Vermont Yankee nuclear
plant), investigative reporter Harvey Wasserman and Paul Gallay
(executive director of Riverkeeper) point out in a roundtable
discussion:
- The NRC won't even begin conducting its earthquake study for Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York until after relicensing is complete in 2013, because the NRC doesn't consider a big earthquake "a serious risk"
- Congressman Markey has said there is a cover up. Specifically, Markey alleges that the head of the NRC told everyone not to write down risks they find from an earthquake greater than 6.0 (the plant was only built to survive a 6.0 earthquake)
- The budget for the NRC comes from the nuclear power companies [just like banks fund the Federal Reserve]
- The NRC is wholly captive to industry
- The NRC has never turned
down the request of a nuclear power plant to be relicensed in the
United States. Relicensing is solely a paper process; there is no
safety review.
- The NRC's assumptions regarding a
worst-case accident are ridiculous. For example, the NRC assumes only
1% of the fuel could meltdown, while 70% melted down at Fukushima. The
NRC assumes no loss of containment, while there has been a major loss
of containment in reactors 1-3 (especially 2) at Fukushima.
- "If
there was a free market in energy, nuclear power would be over ...
immediately". Nuclear plant owners can't get insurance; they can only
operate because the U.S. government provides insurance on the taxpayer
dime. The government also granted a ridiculously low cap on liability
- If we had no subsidies for nuclear, coal or oil, we'd have a clean energy economy right now
- We have 4 reactors in California - 2 at San Onofre 2 at San Luis Obisbo - which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
- No state or federal agency knows who would be in charge in case of an accident at Indian Point. It's like the Keystone Cops
Watch live streaming video from deepakhomebase at livestream.com
Watch live streaming video from deepakhomebase at livestream.com
Note:
The videos appear to rotate, so if the nuclear roundtable is not
playing at first, keep on watching, and it will eventually loop back.
- advertisements -
The breadth and depth of ZH contributors is truly phenomenal.
Expertise in finance, economics, oil platform engineering, marine biology, nuclear power engineering and nuclear physics. Often all rolled up in one contributor.
Remarkable. There is simply no need to read any other site.
RJ, if you don't like George's articles why bother reading them? Maybe your a shill paid by the Nuclear Industry to "spread the good news".
By the way maybe you need to read some of the News published by the Nuclear Industry... it makes for very interesting reading. (That's if your education level/experience (and IQ) are "high enough" to understand the tech jargon of the industry.) And if you have no experience in the "nuclear power generating industry" than you need to not be critiquing Arnie!!!!
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/default.aspx
Your post reminds me of the braying of an ass...
While your question is a good one, what is the "NYT, liberal media line" that you believe he is spouting?
I've watched almost all of his videos, and have yet to see him say anything to support TPTB, which thus far has been to dismiss the whole scenario as "under control."
Not to mention that he's attacked all of the players in this drama as dangerously "hiding information" from the public.
IMO, Arnie is everywhere because he was the one to initiate the videos, and due to his clear, factual presentations, has risen to the top of the trusted nuke engineer heap.
The only thing that I can possibly think of in a conspiratorial light, is that the videos are professionally produced.
Please provide an example of where/how you think Arnie is a disinfo agent. I always try to remain skeptical, but in this case, I just don't see it.
Wow, are we to be mad at this. Looking at SIPC, SEC,FINRA and other agencies another dog and Pny Show. Nothing to see here, move along now.
Excuse me, but the US electrical grid will collapse without nukes. Thank the greens and their endless lawsuits, which prevent just about any sort of power plant from getting built no matter what. And don't tell me that aside from "subsidies" we'd have a "clean energy" economy, because you'd have no economy without electricity. Windmills just don't cut it, no matter how many bullshit lies the green yank from their anuses.
You want to see a "shitty" economy wait and see what results in Japan over this nuclear accident. I am no environmentalist wacko by any stretch but the risks we are taking by storing the spent fuel rods on site is just creating the opportunity for accidents that will create dead zones of scales unimaginable in this country. Who in there right mind would not want to raise a red flag over these methods of operation. Until these problems can be solved I am utterly against any further build outs of nuclear facilities and I believe a serious review of all facilities and processes by an independent outfit is in order.
So what is your point? If the argument is framed: "We must have massive quantities of electricity or die." then nuclear power or coal is required, or as per the opening thesis, we die.
The whole problem is the fact that we need so much, for mostly useless stuff, and that an economy built on consumption and infinite exponential growth suffers from some significant problems. We're seeing those problems now, and the historical trends for human happiness haven't bumped up an iota as a result of all our growth and consumption.
Well, on a long enough timeline the survival rate drops to zero, anyway. If you want humanity to go back to subsistence farming just say so. China won't, India won't, and most places not crippled by green dirt worshiping nonsense won't. Because unlike the United States, those countries still remember that electricity and other technological advances mean that they don't have to watch their children die as often. Americans seem to have forgotten that connection.
You fail to grasp the meat of the comment- questioning the paradigm and then taking stock of what is important and what isn't. The problem isn't electricity- it is how much electricity.
Other countries are meaningless. We have no idea what they will do. We can only create policy for ourselves.
By the way, the infant mortality rate in America is rising- we are 40th in the world. Technology has brought us a windfall of cancer, drugs, disease and an inability to pay attention. We are estranged from each other and our families. We glory in the magic of the Ipad. That's the height of civilization for you.
Have you ever been the Duomo in Florence? Seen Michaelangelo's David? Zero electricity. Sometimes our greatest treasures come from raw labor.
Thanks. I agree though that countries are in a prisoner's dilemma with each other where they feel they have to destroy the world faster than the "competition" or they will destroy us. You only escape the prisoner's dilemma by escaping the dog eat dog paradigm and risking cooperation.
actually the US economy will collapse in part because of the US's nuclear energy which is extortinate to produce (subsidise) ....coal and gas fired stations are about 25-30% the cost per KW of electricity compared to nuclear ...agree green energy is a non-starter
The earth is flat! -- 500 B.C.
Green energy is a non-starter! -- 2011 A.D.
http://www.kitegen.com/en/?page_id=7
Nuclear Overseers Are "Fake" Agencies Funded and Controlled by the Nuclear Power IndustryBingo!
...and one day (soon) the penny may drop the entire fabricated man-made institution called "democratic government" is in fact nothing but a parasite play thing and social ratchet ...and the biggest lie ever told
actually this is a good story--but methinks "bond markets beg to differ" that "buying off the regulator is all you need to do to be a success." electricity is dirt cheap in the USA--and that is a success for energy policy in the USA btw. interesingly "this is the first recession in American history that has seen an actual decline in electricity usage." Let the utilities come to market and raise the money...just like the rest of us...yes, yes Mr. President? Or do they still need "loan gurantees" in a "zero interest rate environment" while "our sovreign debt is being downgraded"? Not that I don't love "paying corporations for doing what is their job."
Too much content at ZH lately. And not much of it value-added.
Look! Over there! It's a mooooooslim!
this should not be a surprise
Same shit, different day.
Nice discussion on NPR this morning with Areva USA CEO alongwith a UCB prof who really grilled the nuclear guys. Most important point coming out of the discussion was that the US is the only developed country without a proper policy for back-end spent fuel disposal. Sounds like the Japs in true Jap style duplicated our policy and allowed spent rods to decay at Fuku..
Reports yesterday that FDA will not be testing N. Pacific fish for radiation since we are so far off from Japan and they are waiting for NOAA instructions. Anybody see that news ?
Bioaccumulation of radiation in migratory fish?????... hmmm like Blue Fin tuna..... here is a link to a great article by The Telegraph (uk) about Terry the Blue Fin tuna "The tag broadcast Terry's trans-Pacific wanderings - three crossings in 20 months, a distance of 25,000 miles."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/canada/1505564/Tunas-25000-mile-swim-down-marine-highway.html