Nuclear collapse looms? Fukushima No. 4 reactor ‘leaning’ .
May 10, 2011
A small group of evacuees have briefly been allowed inside the exclusion zone around Japan’s damaged Fukushima nuclear plant. For the first time, the government gave permission for short visits so people could gather belongings and check on their properties. Meanwhile, a recent map of contamination released by Japan shows high levels of radiation well outside the evacuation zone. Dr Robert Jacobs can help shed more light on this. He’s a Research Associate Professor of Nuclear History and Culture at the Hiroshima Peace Institute.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:02 am Imagine, there are more than 400 nuclear reactors on the planet????????
May 10th, 2011 at 8:08 am
“…more than 400 nuclear reactors on the planet…”
Yeah, All In Strategic Locations That Can Be Used As A Weapon Of War To Bring Even Powerful Nations And Economies Right To Their Knees.
QMB
geo-
political
May 10th, 2011 at 8:16 am
Murphy’s Law: “If something can go wrong, it will.”
The short term benefits of nuclear power plants are heavily outweighed by the catastrophic long term results that may happen as a result of human error, mechanical failure, electrical problem, terrorism, external or internal sabotage, computer glitch, computer virus, earthquake, tsunami, mother nature, tornado, snowstorm, hiccup, sneeze, Murphy’s Law or an accident. Remember, The Titanic was unsinkable. Are we so arrogant? The lives of our children and future generations will be impacted by the decisions we make today. Why risk an irreversible nuclear disaster as a calculated chance? Nuclear power is a losing proposition that no (business person) or company would risk without government subsidies and guarantees. The current controversy that surrounds the woefully inadequate emergency evacuation plans for communities situated near nuclear reactors – such as Indian Point – would seem an eerie reflection of President Eisenhower’s memo when asked what to tell the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons testing and the construction of power plants: “Keep them confused.” Eight percent of the population of the United States, which includes all of New York City, live within a fifty mile radius of Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:17 am
Long term radioactive contamination will spread around the world. A CLASS 9 NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE is when there is a nuclear reactor core partial meltdown or complete core meltdown that escapes into the atmosphere (environment) for an indefinite amount of time with no end in sight. Exponentially worse than Chernobyl which is a 7. I hypothesize this disaster is 100 times greater than Chernobyl. The Nuclear Disaster Scale may have to go up incrementally as time goes on based on how much more radioactive contamination is released than Chernobyl. This 9 is based on a hypothesis that we have been lied to from day one and are receiving erroneous information. Because this disaster is so much more troublesome than Chernobyl, it can no longer be classified as a Category 7 Nuclear Disaster.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:18 am
Obama has put the prospect of building these extremely dangerous nuclear power plants back on the agenda, obviously without a thought for the safety of the people in the USA. Either that, or he recklessly considers running the risk of an appalling loss of life in order to solve our future energy needs. It just doesn’t make sense. It is not safe or practical and the long term ramifications are catastrophic. Nuclear Power Plants should be forced to go the way of the dinosaur.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Obama re-states nuclear power support, committed to ‘learning’ from Japanese crisis
The Obama administration continues to back nuclear power as part of a broader energy portfolio, a White House spokesman said, comments that come as the Japanese reactor crisis is spawning calls to rethink plans for new U.S. nuclear plants.
“The President believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.,” Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, said in a statement Sunday, March 13th, 2011.
Friday’s massive earthquake and tsunami that damaged multiple Japanese reactors has led some U.S. lawmakers to call for a pause in plans for an expansion of nuclear power in the U.S.
The strongest comments came from Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of House committee that oversee energy policy. He said on Saturday the Obama administration should weigh a moratorium on siting new nuclear reactors in seismically active areas.
The moratorium should remain until completion of a “top-to-bottom review of seismic and tsunami reactor design resiliency, emergency response and evacuation plans,” his office said, and also called for consideration of other steps, such as requiring stronger containment systems at existing reactors in seismic zones.
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), speaking on CBS Sunday, also said the Japanese crisis – which has forced emergency efforts to cool overheating reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant and problems at other facilities as well warrants new review.
“I think it calls on us here in the U.S. naturally – not to stop building nuclear power plants – but to put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what’s happened in Japan,” he said.
The damage to the Japanese reactors is creating new uncertainty about plans by a suite of power companies to win approval for building the first new U.S. reactors in decades.
The Obama administration backs efforts to expand nuclear power. The administration last year approved over $8 billion worth of loan guarantees for Southern Company’s proposal to build two new reactors in Georgia.
The White House’s fiscal year 2012 budget plan also seeks another $36 billion worth of loan guarantee authority to support new reactors. President Obama is also pushing Congress to create a “clean energy standard” that calls for an expansion of low-carbon electricity generation from sources including nuclear power.
Various power companies in recent years have submitted applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for construction of over 20 new reactors, although the projects face often-daunting financial hurdles even without renewed safety concerns.
The NRC has not yet issued licenses for construction and operation of new commercial power reactors, although the Tennessee Valley Authority is completing a second reactor at its Watts Bar plant. Construction on the unit – first approved in 1973 – was suspended in the mid-1980s but the project was revived several years ago.
Preliminary site preparation and construction activities have begun at the Southern Company project and another proposed new plant in South Carolina that South Carolina Electric & Gas is developing, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.
The companies are expected to receive NRC licenses to build and operate the plants late this year or in early 2012, according to the trade group, although it would be years before the projects actually begin commercial operation if they’re allowed to proceed.
Stevens, the White House aide, also said that “The administration’s first priority right now is to support Japan, as well as American citizens in Japan, as they respond to and recover from this event, and we continue to monitor the situation and provide assistance.”
Both Democrats and Republicans have embraced expanding nuclear power as a way to generate electricity and jobs. The recent spike in gasoline prices as well as the Gulf of Mexico oil spill have put a renewed focus on revamping U.S. energy policies to find more sources of fuel.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, speaking on ‘Fox News Sunday,’ urged a cautious approach.
‘I don’t think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy. I think we ought to just concentrate on helping the Japanese in any way that we can,’ McConnell said.
Lieberman noted there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States, and that about 23 of them are built according to designs similar to the nuclear power plants in Japan that are now the focus of the world’s concern.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:20 am
U.S. President Barack Obama says the government will guarantee more than $8 billion in loans to help build the first new American nuclear power plant in decades. The project is expected to produce roughly 4000 new jobs.
President Obama says clean, safe nuclear power is vital to the nation’s future. “To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we will need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It is that simple,” he said.
He says the government is getting involved by guaranteeing loans to meet the high costs of nuclear plant construction – starting with $8.3 billion to help fund the new plant in the state of Georgia. “This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That is like taking 3.5 million cars off the road,” siad Mr. Obama.
But the president stresses the project in Georgia will do more than provide electricity for over one million people. “It is a plant that will create thousands of construction jobs in the next few years, and some 800 permanent jobs – well-paying permanent jobs – in the years to come,” he said.
The president made the announcement while visiting a job training center run by a union representing electricians and telecommunications workers near Washington. The center teaches a variety of high-tech skills, including those needed for the construction of nuclear power plants.
Sensitive to nationwide concerns about the stubbornly high unemployment rate, the president stressed the link between the economy and boosting alternative sources of energy. He warned the United States is already lagging behind other countries in building nuclear power plants – citing heavy investments in Japan, France and elsewhere.
“There are 56 nuclear reactors under construction around the world: 21 in China alone; six in South Korea and five in India,” said the president.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that there are opinion differences in America on the use of nuclear power. He stressed the nation cannot continue to be mired in the old debates between right and left, and between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.
“The fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew, it requires us to act anew, and it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides,” he said.
No new plants have been built in the United States in almost three decades, in large part because of the high cost of construction and lingering concerns about safety. Nuclear plants currently provide about one-fifth of the nation’s electricity.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:27 am
The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant is only 19 Miles north of NYC. On September 11th 2001, the hijacked United Airlines jet that attacked The World Trade Center, used the Hudson River as a guide en route to the twin towers and flew over The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. Had the hijackers attacked one of the Indian Point twin nuclear reactors, the resulting disaster would have been even more horrific than the World Trade Center attack. Given the southerly direction of prevailing winds in the Hudson Valley, a meltdown or major radioactive release at The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant could result in death and chronic radiation sickness for millions of the regions citizens and render much of the New York metropolitan area permanently uninhabitable. At a time when we should be phasing out Nuclear Power Plants, politicians are now seeking to build more Nuclear Power Plants. These politicians are recklessly gambling and betting on our future health and safety.
May 10th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Which is precisely *why* such a thing didn’t happen, the shadow government wanted to scare people, not cause a irreversible nuclear catastrophy!
May 10th, 2011 at 8:17 am This subject should be covered more, not the nonsense of bin Laden…
May 10th, 2011 at 8:25 am
All Nuclear reactors routinely emit large amounts of radioactive materials, including the fat-soluble noble gases xenon, krypton and argon.
Deemed “inert” by the nuclear industry, they are readily inhaled by populations near reactors and absorbed into the blood stream where they concentrate in the fat pads of the abdomen and upper thighs, exposing ovaries and testicles to mutagenic gamma radiation like X-rays.
Tritium, radioactive hydrogen, is also regularly discharged from reactors. Combining with oxygen, it forms tritiated water which passes readily through skin, lungs and gut. Contrary to industry propaganda, tritium is a dangerous carcinogenic element producing cancers, congenital malformations and genetic deformities in low doses in animals, and by extrapolation in humans.
In the age of terrorism, nuclear reactors are inviting targets. It is relatively easy to induce a reactor melt-down by either severing the external electricity supply, by disrupting the one-million-gallons per minute intake of cooling water, by infiltrating the control room, or by a well-coordinated terrorist attack. Surprisingly the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has failed to significantly upgrade security at the 103 nuclear reactors since the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. A meltdown at the Indian Point nuclear power plant 35 miles from Manhattan could render that city uninhabitable for thousands of years if prevailing winds blow in the right direction.
Above all, nuclear waste is the industry’s Achilles heel. The United States has no currently viable solution for radioactive waste storage. 60,000 tons are temporarily stored in so called “swimming pools” beside nuclear reactors, awaiting final disposal. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, transected by 32 earthquake faults, has been identified as the final geological repository.
Made of permeable pumice, it is unsuitable as a radioactive geological waste receptacle and recent fraudulent projections of the mountain’s ability to retard leakage by the United States Geological Services have rendered this project to be almost untenable.
Already, radioactive elements in many nuclear powered countries are leaking into underground water systems, rivers, and oceans, progressively concentrating at each level of the food chain. Strontium 90, which causes bone cancer and leukemia, and cesium 137, which induces rare muscle and brain cancers, are radioactive for 600 years. Food and human breast milk will become increasingly radioactive near numerous waste sites. Cancers will inevitably increase in frequency in exposed populations, as will genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis in their descendents.
Each typical 1,000 megawatt reactor makes some 200 kilograms, or 440 pounds, of plutonium per year. Less than one millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. Handled like iron by the body, it causes liver, lung and bone cancer and leukemia. Crossing the placenta to induce congential deformities, it has a predilection for the testicle where inevitably it will cause genetic abnormalities. With a radiological life of 240,000 years, once released in the ecosphere it will affect biological systems for ever.
Because only five kilos, or 11 pounds, of plutonium is critical mass, countries building new nuclear reactors could, theoretically, manufacture plutonium for many nuclear bombs per year. The under-resourced International Atomic Energy Agency admits that it is physically impossible to prevent a determined country — whether a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or not — from using imported uranium or its by-product, plutonium, to make nuclear weapons.
A truly informed national debate about the efficacy of nuclear power is long over-due. Time is short. As the waste is produced its legacy will impact all future generations.
Obama has put the prospect of building these extremely dangerous nuclear power plants back on the agenda, obviously without a thought for the safety of the people in the USA. Either that, or he recklessly considers running the risk of an appalling loss of life in order to solve our future energy needs. It just doesn’t make sense. It is not safe or practical and the long term ramifications are catastrophic. Nuclear Power Plants should be forced to go the way of the dinosaur.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:38 am
COULDN’T AGREE MORE…. It amazes me that I can’t find hardly anything on this anymore…Don’t people get it?? This is HUGE!
Angel
Sick n tired of being sick n tired
May 10th, 2011 at 9:35 am
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. What makes a great president? Every country is a business that is represented by its financial successes and failures. Presidents that recognize this and promote capitalism with compassion have the best interests of its citizenry. A real president does not have to be PC. A real president leads. Welfare and socialism is used by weak and false presidents that don’t have the intestinal fortitude to make the hard decisions that will truly help individuals. Charity begins at home. No foreign entanglements. Strict adherence to The US Constitution. Small government, the government that governs least governs best. Allow citizens to keep more of their income through less taxes. Provide only essential services and eliminate waste. Becoming Energy independent. Protect the citizenry by providing police, firemen and military. Secure our borders, English Language and American melting pot culture by promoting American, Judeo, Christian values, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
May 10th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
…http://www.crisisjonesreport.wordpress.com
- Was founded to keep the attention on this issue, and to provide whatever data was available to the People.
The temps in reactor 3 have increased to 240 Celsius. They can’t seem to cool it off.
While they are now dumping 8 tons of water per hour into the chambers, (Up from 6 tons per hour) which of course means that they are now dumping 8 tons per hour of radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean.
They are nowhere close to solving the problem, as they REFUSE to entomb the facility, in hopes of RECOVERING the reactors.
Dr(s). Michio Kaku and Christopher Busby both said that they need to entomb the poison ASAP, and Japan and TEPCO, will not even publicly address the need for the protection of the environment, the protection of the people living in the northern hemisphere.
May 10th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Oops..
Thats; …http://crisisjones.wordpress.com/
May 10th, 2011 at 9:21 am
go to rense dot com
May 10th, 2011 at 8:22 am France’s heavily subsidised nuclear industry – a costly warning to USA
The French nuclear program has been a state-owned monopoly from the outset, heavily subsidized by the government. It could not survive in a free market. By copying the French model – both in its energy choices and its willingness to use public funds to subsidize an industry that has never been self-sustaining – the U.S. is heading down a dangerous path of nuclear socialism.
France’s Nuclear “Miracle” is More Fantasy that Fact, Among backers of nuclear power development in the U.S., France has long been held out as the model to emulate. Now, as pressure builds on policy makers in Washington to set a new domestic energy course, the French experience once again is being heralded as proof that nuclearpower is the way to go.
Trouble is, France’s nuclear “miracle” is more fantasy than fact. And facts are what Congress – and the American public – deserve before massive public subsidies are committed for new reactor construction.
Here are some key findings from my analysis of what has mistakenly been called the French “nuclear miracle.”
*Nuclear reactors are not cheaper in France. Nuclear power backers claim France has solved the problem of cost of new reactor construction through standardization and efficiencies of scale.
That is untrue. French reactors have escalated in price at almost the same rate as those in the U.S.
Consider two French construction projects now underway, one in Flamanville on the Normandy coast, and the other in Finland. Both are years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. The troublesome reactor design that’s causing these problems has been proposed for construction on the Chesapeake Bay and is a leading candidate for a multi-billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee. Even before ground is broken here, the projected cost of France’s design is well above the average for other reactor designs.
In the U.S., projections of the cost of reactor construction have tripled over the past decade. The implication of this price volatility has not escaped Wall Street. All of the U.S. utilities that have sought a nuclear construction license have seen their credit rating downgraded.
Four-fifths of those license applications have ultimately been suspended or delayed – in large part due to the uncertainties of cost, shrinking demand for new generating capacity or the availability of private credit.
*Nuclear reactors crowd out energy efficiency efforts and investments. The French track record on energy efficiency and renewable energy is poor compared to similar European nations. In France, commitment to huge nuclear reactors has led to excess generating
capacity which, in turn, has discouraged efficiency…..
By copying the French model and pouring billions into new nuclear construction, the U.S. would siphon off available public funds for proven, cost-effective and environmentally responsible renewable generating capacity.
The French nuclear program has been a state-owned monopoly from the outset, heavily subsidized by the government. It could not survive in a free market. By copying the French model – both in its energy choices and its willingness to use public funds to subsidize an industry that has never been self-sustaining – the U.S. is heading down a dangerous path of nuclear socialism.
Far from holding up the French experience as a model of success, U.S. policy makers should be pointing to it as proof that a massive public commitment to nuclear power is NOT the best course for the U.S. And it certainly is not where billions in taxpayer dollars should be committed. Money can’t and won’t solve the inherent problems that have plagued nuclear power from the beginning – both here and, most notably, in France.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Big problems hit France’s grand nuclear ambitions
President Nicolas Sarkozy has made the nuclear sector one of the showcases of French industrial excellence. But this excellence seems to be slipping in recent months.
The new-generation European pressurised reactor, which was supposed to spearhead French exports of the country’s nuclear savoir-faire around the world, appears to be presenting one problem after another for Areva.
But it is not only Areva that is facing the heat. The French electricity behemoth EDF is also grappling with big problems of its own. For the second year running, France will have to import electricity at peak hours during the winter to avoid the risk of black-outs because its own reactors cannot keep up with the demand.
This week, it was reported that almost one third of the utility’s 58 reactors were out of service – either for maintenance or for other reasons. So much for the much touted efficiency of the French nuclear system. EDF critics claim the company has simply not focused sufficiently on improving the efficiency of its ageing nuclear facilities and instead preferred to embark on expensive international expansion sprees.
The current difficulties at both EDF and Areva are doing little to enhance President Sarkozy’s grand design to establish France as a leader in world nuclear power, exporting its technology and know-how to countries such as China, the US, and most importantly right now, to Abu Dhabi, where France is facing tough competition from General Electric of the US.
The government faces a dilemma. After all, it controls both Areva and EDF. It wants to use these two groups to create global energy champions. Yet both companies are hamstrung by government ownership. In Areva’s case – though the government cannot be blamed for the EPR’s industrial problems – it can be held to account for leaving the company in limbo for the past few years over its strategic future and its ultimate identity.
In the case of EDF, the government may be unhappy about its costly international expansion but what alternative did EDF have? It has no growth prospects in France. Indeed, perhaps quite the opposite, given domestic market liberalisation and the government’s refusal to increase tariffs. By demanding the impossible from both these companies – growth but on the government’s terms – President Sarkozy risks jeopardising his nuclear ambitions. At the same time, all these troubles are providing plenty of fresh ammunition for an increasingly vocal anti-nuclear lobby – not so much in France, where nuclear power is not a hot issue, but in all those other countries where he is hoping to export French nuclear technology.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:22 am The nuclear government industrial complex is tight-lipped concerning: disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Japanese plants and several well-documented, recent U.S. nuclear plant close-call meltdowns; hazardous transporting and storing conditions of nuclear waste; skyrocketing plant construction costs; exorbitant hidden taxes for disposing of nuclear waste; vulnerability to deadly emissions from metal fatigue and counterfeit parts; employed staff errors; sabotage of plants and tonnages of lethal nuclear waste; cyber attacks, nuclear fuel theft, ineffective public warning and rescue systems, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s historical impotency.
These are all earmarks of portentous multiple-state catastrophes.
Also unsolvable: When and how to alert and prepare people for lethal emissions, especially while sleeping? So-called authorities hype foolproof plant safety, emergency evacuation procedures and cure-all antidotal potassium iodide.
Their refusal to disclose contradictory evidence assures future disasters.
A disaster rescuer, under conditions of anonymity, whispered: “Life saving from radiation fallout in populated areas is hopeless.”
Nuclear power plants are weapons of mass destruction against ourselves? Nuclear Plants are so deadly, crippling, and everlasting. Demand safe energy alternatives.
May 10th, 2011 at 8:24 am I pray we don’t let this lapse into oblivion like the Gulf spill is. place of refuge 2012 dot com
May 10th, 2011 at 8:39 am
It kind of already has..give it another few weeks more and you won’t hear anything.
May 10th, 2011 at 9:44 am I’ll be even more worried if it crashes straight down into its own footprint at the speed of
gravity.
May 10th, 2011 at 10:12 am You want to laugh just so you don’t cry.
May 10th, 2011 at 1:13 pm Planned obsolescence for the great die off has bloomed in Fukushima.
You know when the oligarchs whisper about it, you are getting close to the truth.
When the oligarchs make sure their sock puppets in lame stream media don’t talk about it, you’re in big trouble.