This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
More than a Dozen Nuclear Plants Near Hurricane Sandy’s Path Brace for Impact
Bloomberg reports:
“Because of the size of [Hurricane Sandy], we could see an impact to coastal and inland plants,” Neil Sheehan, a spokesman based in Philadelphia for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said by phone today. “We will station inspectors at the sites if we know they could be directly impacted.”
The NRC met earlier today to discuss the necessary precautions to take for the storm, Sheehan said. Plants must begin to shut if wind speeds exceed certain limits, he said.
As of 2 p.m. New York time, Sandy had winds of 75 miles (121 kilometers) per hour, according to the National Hurricane Center in Miami. It was about 430 miles south-southeast of Charleston, South Carolina, moving north at 7 mph.
The current Hurricane Center track calls for the system to come ashore just south of Delaware Bay on Oct. 30.
Reuters provides a list:
The following lists the nuclear reactors and utilities in Sandy’s potential path.
While we don’t foresee any problems, the risk of nuclear accident in the U.S. is actually much greater than it was in Japan before Fukushima.
For example, fuel pools in the United States store an average of ten times more radioactive fuel than stored at Fukushima, and have virtually no safety features.
Let’s review the list and look at examples of problems experienced by the nuclear plants in Hurricane Sandy’s path:
- Brunswick experienced a reactor coolant system leak last year
- Surry has recently been plagued by problems with the coolant system, valves and damage from a tornado
- North Anna leaked tritium last year after an earthquake shook the plant and shifted around a gigantic radioactive storage cask
- Calvert Cliffs was knocked offline by the last hurricane
- Hope Creek has suffered security problems, has the same design as the Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1, has “some of the same issues with above-ground storage of spent fuel rods as Fukushima” and “was designed to withstand certain major weather events but we need to look at the potential impacts of more extreme events, especially … sea level rise and flooding”
- Peach Bottom purportedly has a defective design and has been plagued by various problems
- Limerick has suffered electrical and other issues
- Three Mile Island suffered another leak in the cooling system last month
- Susquehanna has been hit with one problem after another
- Oyster Creek has been plagued with electrical and other problems
- Indian Point is widely recognized as one of the nation’s worst nuclear plants. If Indian Point melted down, it could close New York City for years, and cost half a trillion dollars or more
- Millstone’s vulnerability is shown by the fact that it was shut down due to warm seawater
- Pilgrim has numerous structural problems. And see this. Pilgrim’s spent fuel pools contain more radioactive cesium than released by Fukushima, Chernobyl and all nuclear bomb tests combined
- Vermont Yankee – which has around 10 times more spent fuel rods than any of the individual Fukushima reactors – leaked tritium
It’s not surprising that there have been problems at all of these nuclear plants. After all, the U.S. has 23 reactors which are virtually identical to Fukushima. The archaic uranium reactor designs developed more than 40 years ago are only good for making bombs.
Most American nuclear reactors are old. They are aging poorly, and are in very real danger of melting down. And yet the NRC is relaxing safety standards at the old plants. And see this.
Indeed, while many of the plants are already past the service life that the engineers built them for, the NRC is considering extending licenses another 80 years, which former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and now senior adviser with Friends of the Earth’s nuclear campaign David Freeman calls “committing suicide”.
»
- advertisements -
Thanks for the heads up, nmewn. I'm guesing there's no money in winning this contest.
No theres not...but I'll keep plugging along because the real "truth" means more to me than money.
There are many who make quite a bit of money off of this little cottage industry of 911 trutherism. The deranged and the gullible are their willing customers. Pretty sick shit really.
And I did notice no one challenged your expertise ;-)
Or a remarkable study in dishonest straw man arguments. Can't attack the credibility of a person's position? Then misrepresent it. Please show me where I ever said anything about holograms or Mossad suicide pilots.
Crickets....
So you know I haven't done that yet continue to struggle to make others think I have by lumping me in with whatever small crowd did that?
Why do you continue to do this? That's not suspicious?
Hopefully, readers can see this and think for themselves. And hopefully, they will remember it whenever they see one of your comments (which is on just about every thread on here).
"Please show me where I ever said anything about holograms or Mossad suicide pilots."
Never said you did. See here...
"As all other "former truths" fall away, like Mossad suicide pilots, New York skyline holograms, inoperable air to ground communications, voice recognition software, nano-thermite ad nauseum...they become "some other truthers-truth"...not their truth."
This quote, from me, was directed at YOU and others like YOU...specifically. YOU and others like YOU were more interested in the idea of "trutherism" than in the truth itself. YOU and others like YOU did not shout obvious idiots down to defend the truth.
Public opinion finds YOU guilty in this...I just have the balls to come out and say it.
But now YOU are trying to impeach my character to shut me up. So its yes or no time for YOU Clash...time to define YOUR version of "truth".
These are all yes or no questions.
In your rebuttal you left off 1) air to ground communications 2) voice recognition software and 3) nano-thermite as items of contention. Do YOU hold the belief (as a truther hysteric) that these were in play on 9/11/2001?
I am not trying to shut you up. The more you blather, the more obvious your odious position becomes. Please continue.
Yes on 2 and 3 below, not sure what you mean by 1.
As for public opinion finding me guilty, where is that poll? Hey, I should give you credit: That's at least funny. :)
Butthole stupid, but funny nonetheless. Hey, as long as they're laughing, who cares if they're laughing at you or with you, right?
Public opinion has found me guilty. Lol.
Clash,
So you believe voice recognition software was used and the buildings were pre-planted with nano-thermite. My number one also had to do with voice recognition so I'll say you agree with all three. That someone set the whole thing up.
I'll leave aside the simple fact that YOUR truth, is not the same as another "truthers" truth for a variety of reasons of their own making and they (government) can't even protect an embassy in known hostile territory.
1) Stewardesses and passengers called to the ground and described who their attackers were...middle eastern men. This is beyond dispute. From the known, Todd Beamer, Barbara Olsen to the relatively unknown stewardesses Betty Ong & Madeline Sweeney who all in fact (and many more) called down to say what was going on in flight, in real time. Madeline Sweeney was not supposed to on any flight that day, she was a substitute. Unless you're going to indict American Airlines as co-conspirators to "your truth" for even asking her to fill in for a sick worker (because someone would have to ask American Airlines for Sweeney to have her voice on the tape) then its a dead end.
Voice mimc is one thing. Knowing what that voice is meaning is something else. Michael Woodward knew her personally and her voice. You can't mimic relationships.
2) Nano-thermite. You are asking everyone to believe that iron & aluminum oxide dust particles (common rust and additives to paint, for one thing and among others) being found around just destroyed buildings is uncommon. It is not. In my own comical way I have said this is akin to saying you found salt in seawater.
The collection, testing and the results thereof cited, was done by a "truther" who paid to have the results published. Again, no matter the speculation of where the oxide particles came from, it is the same as saying you have found salt in the ocean. How did this salt get in the ocean?...its ridiculous on its face.
Also, as you look at the tape, the planes went in on the exact floors where the collapse started...both of the collapses. These are cumbersome passenger jet aircraft, not agile missiles. One of them was banking sharply (don't remember which one, I'll say the second) just to hit a building standing right in front of it...motionless.
In summing up, you've deluded youself into believing what you want to believe instead of the realities.
But let me ask, in your opinion, why was the Libyan consulate attacked by AQ on 911-2012 if 911 held no significance to AQ? Thats a 365 to 1 odds of happening isn't it?
I don't know many gamblers who take those odds...do you? ;-)
///////////////
Original time stamp on this 20:10...crickets you say?...lol.
Not all calls were the same, but you lump them all together. Cell phones were different than plane phones, first off. Second, you are not caught up, clearly, on the final, official truth of Olsen's alleged calls. Third, I never said that there were no hijackers. But there are a lot of questions there, primarily like where were their names (or fake names) on the flight registers? Why is there no video of them boarding the planes? There should be.
Where are the black boxes?
Next, to my count, three different labs have found unignited nanothermite chips in the rubble. This is far more than one report as you would misinform people.
Finally, if you mean Al-CIA-da, you've answered your own question.
Ah, Olson, not Olsen--I always get that confused. :)
Here, let me help you out, nmewn (not that you will read it since your primary purpose is disinfo):
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/did-barbara-olson-attempt-calls/
Olson's alleged calls were impossible. Impossible. Records prove it.
Catch up.
Oakridge K-25 was a fucking uranium enrichment plant for the fucking Manhattan Project.
It's not 1944 moron. K-25 was used after the war to enrich uranium for use in the nuclear power industry. K-25 was not an "excuse to make nuclear bombs". Maybe you're thinking of Y-12 or maybe you're talking through your ass.
Downgrades to tropical storm coming in now....move on
"THE DYNAMICAL MODELS FORECAST THAT INTERACTION WITH THE U. S. SHORTWAVE TROUGH WILL CAUSE SANDY TO RE-INTENSIFY PRIMARILY DUE TO BAROCLININC ENERGY PROCESSES. THE INTENSITY FORECAST SHOWS SANDY REGAINING HURRICANE STRENGTH IN 48-72 HR. HOWEVER...THE CYCLONE WILL BE UNDERGOING EXTRATROPICAL TRANSITION AS THIS HAPPENS...AND WHEN THIS PROCESS WILL BE COMPLETE IS UNCERTAIN. REGARDLESS OF THE EXACT STRUCTURE AT LANDFALL...SANDY IS EXPECTED TO BE A LARGE AND POWERFUL CYCLONE WITH SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS EXTENDING WELL AWAY FROM THE LOCATION OF THE CENTER." - 1100 PM EDT FRI OCT 26 2012 National Hurricane Center
Not forseeing problems is the best way to get elected these days.
I'm hoping for a damned good scare from one or two of these ticking bombs. If a few of these crimes against nature actually lost ALL ELECTRICITY for a couple of weeks, I think the threat level would be high enough that even the MSM would start taking the imminent meltdown threats seriously. They might even start speaking reassuringly about the benefits of lethal radiation exposure in our local communities.
Besides, if we have to clean up after the loss of a few nuke plants while we still have the resources to do so, it might leave us a few safe islands of inhabitibility when the rest of them start to pop after the financial crash, when there are no longer resources to close them down properly.
But then, I'm too much of a rose-colored glasses optimist for my own good.
babe, please get a better avatar, you really don't need a bag over your head ;-)
The wind will have little impact on the important parts of the plants.
The biggest problem they face is from storm surge / flooding.
AND/OR
A loss of onsite/offsite power.
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
for the forty-eleventh time this week.
Please learn to read:
"we don’t foresee any problems"
"we don’t foresee any problems"
"we don’t foresee any problems"
"we don’t foresee any problems"
"we don’t foresee any problems"
If you "don't foresee any problems", then what is the point of this posting?
Also, who (or what) does "we" refer to? Is "George Washington" actually a committee? Or are we using the royal we?
The we is the NRC.
"Please learn to read"
Can you recommend a good book for that?
"The Pet Goat" comes to mind...
Sounds good. Next time I'm required to respond to an unfolding crisis I'll sit down and look it over.
Endless hair ball conspiracy theory gets more than a little wooly, George.
and it distracts attention from the real conspiracies, which I have long suspected is the real agenda.
touche
Ignoring the nuclear power plant issue and your article, listening to weather reporting here in SE Florida is exactly like hearing someone reciting Chicken Little each time a hurricane gets within about 500 miles. It's almost as if the reporters want something bad to happen, just to ramp up the ratings.
It's almost as if GW wants something bad to happen, just to ramp up the ratings.
Calvert Cliffs might be the most vulnerable to all of this. Extremely unlikely that anything would happen. It is along the Bay.
http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/qpf/zoom/Rainfall_Days_1-5.gif
Lotta lotta rain coming. But Calvert is up on the cliffs, which is after all some great drainage.
Wind damage = unlikely
Storm surge = nada
Coastal flooding = not on top of a cliff
Grid outage = uh, yeah
Local flooding = some for sure
So, a few days on generators while a foot of rain runs off is the most likely case. Should be OK. Not great but OK.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2011/08/28/heavy-wind-sets-off-reactor-at-...
That was the last hurricane to hit.
Wind damage so unlikely that it happened last time.
Srsly; don't link what you haven't even read. Since when is functioning as-designed to be considered "damage", Chief?
Transformers blowing up is "functioning as designed"?
LOL, fair enough.
so, you're not like in actual MN?
just wonderin'
- Ned
Well, not right now actually but I have been for most of my multi-year ZH history. I don't like changing names.
Limerick sends me a yearly pamplet on where to run when the time comes that there is no place to run
One of my favorite power system anecdotes is that one of the organizations located in the evacuation zone for the Limerick plant is none other than....the control center to run the entire grid in much of the East (PJM Interconnection). How funny is that?
Interestingly PJM recently saw fit to construct an entire duplicate, fully functional control center "in a remote location." Money talks, bullshit walks eh?
http://www.elliottlewis.com/casestudy-pjm.html
This is a bullshit article. This storm is not going to damage any of these nukes.
Hope Creek and Salem NJ plants are both on the shore of the Delaware Bay and right on the strong side of Sandy's expected path near the eye:
Go to google maps and paste Hope Creek, NJ here:
http://maps.google.com/
I stopped reading at 'submitted by George Washington'............
Me too, But i clicked the post hoping to see Jim Cantore
miker:
Well, this is a GW article, you can ascribe your own values on his stuff. What was your first clue???
There are emergency response procedures, well executed, well rehearsed.
But GW continues to suffer from anal-crainial inversion in order to be sensational.
- Ned
"There are emergency response procedures, well executed, well rehearsed."
You're kidding yes?
There's no response procedure to a nuclear accident except "Run for the Hills"
Fukinshambles showed you what an f'n shambles nuclear safety is. There is none. No tools, equipment, plan, nothing ...clueless, and still clueless today.
Unless the US Nuke Regulator has a concrete dome the size of the Dallas Cowboys stadium on stand-by with a crane the size of the Empire State building to cap a leaking plant the "well executed" bullcrap is just that, talking crap
They can shut the fizzing plutonium down and that's about it. These uneconomic piles of subsidised red ink energy should never have been built
ZG, usually I enjoy your points of view. but ya gotta get your anal-cranial inversion corrected.
Of course, then you could cut your time hangin' around these here-parts by 20 percent.
'cuz that is what you are proposing.
and you can then think about the population implications of that.
'tain't no subsidies, actually, they are paying their way and funding all of above.
Let's play, see if you have anything other than schiete.
- Ned
{maybe cutting your time by -20% or more would be good for us all???}
The nuclear energy industry was developed by the US government with taxpayer dollars. As with all things worked by government, efficient and safe operation were not a consideration.
That's right, Crock, blame it all on the government because governments don't exist in your dream state. How about GE? They bring good things to life, right? When you have banksters (private) in bed w/politicians (gov), and when you have private corporations (GE) in bed with regulatory agencies (gov), you have a clusterfuck. But in your world, the government is wrong--by themselves?
Again, reality is calling, and it cares little for your halcyonic, imaginary world.
Private industry and individual people are behind all of this. The government is culpable, too, but they are far from alone.
Why continue to ignore the truth about international occultism?
Clashfan - well the Govt isn't exactly 'innocent' is it?
without politicians subsidising this joke, dangerous, uneconoimic garbage energy source nobody would have built Nukes... ever.
the private sector won't touch this farce with a bargepole, the British Govt has been trying to get private sector funding for over 2 decades without success
agreed GE etc is accountable, they bribed the politicos to subsidise their crap
Agreed. I'm certainly not calling the gov innocent of anything.
Power is wealth, too. Usually that wealth is accumulated with the help of the gov, true.
But just as the gov is the only group capable of helping the Luciferians to such a large degree, it is also the only group capable of helping people to a large degree. Not that it does (enough), but it has the power to.
I'm for doing away with a lot of the government, frankly, and I'm on Crock's side more than I like to admit. I lean Libertarian, frankly.
But some things should be socialized for a safety net (like medical care). That doesn't mean the private care can't co-exist.
Individual people within government draft bad legislation disguised as efforts to help people when their intent is to cause utter dismay. See Johnson's "Great Society" legislation.
Just because bad legislation (like Obamacare) has been drafted and passed does not mean that government cannot work for people. It just means that it usually doesn't work for people. Is the answer to do away with government? Maybe. Maybe not.
I'm not big on isms.
I'm just suggesting that MAYBE people should start learning about the Luciferian system in charge. This would lead to a lot of understanding and perhaps, ultimately, a better system.
Whatever change we want, we first need awareness. If you're not aware of the Luciferian system in charge, you're crippled in your response to the reasons behind the nefarious legislation being pushed through worldwide. If you won't even look at the evidence for it, you're being purposefully ignorant. Positive, really helpful change requires awareness. That seems pretty obvious to me.
Whats more likely, that Luciferians are a massive, secret, superior religious cult, or that the mafia has already globalized and you're being manipulated & misdirected by an organized disonformation campaign? The mind magnifies suspicion into fear, ask anyone who's afraid of the dark. If they had the power they'd rule publicly; the crooks sneak around because they have to, and they want you to think they are more powerful than they are; std psyop objective. Study math, its much better for you than quack psychology, religion or bogeyman conspiracies.
Only government could have appropriated the billions of dollars necessary to create the nuclear power industry. Private financing could not have accomplished the task. No entity other than the untouchable government could avoid responsibility for the liabilities which the creation and operation of nuclear power plants entail. Yes, they have partners in crime but corporations could not have forced taxpayers to foot the bill for the development of nuclear power. Only government could do that. But you keep on looking for Bigfoot and his magic UFO.