Radioactive fish near Vt. nuke plant deemed common

[Liberation Angel]

Source: Associated Press


Radioactive fish near Vt. nuke plant deemed common
By DAVE GRAM (AP) – 4 hours ago

MONTPELIER, Vt. — When a fish taken from the Connecticut River recently tested positive for radioactive strontium-90, suspicion focused on the nearby Vermont Yankee nuclear plant as the likely source. Operators of the troubled 38-year-old nuclear plant on the banks of the river, where work is under way to clean up leaking radioactive tritium, revealed this month that it also found soil contaminated with strontium-90, an isotope linked to bone cancer and leukemia.
Three days later, officials said a fish caught four miles upstream from the reactor in February had tested positive for strontium-90 in its bones.
...
Tritium was reported leaking from the plant in January, and since then has turned up in monitoring wells at levels 100 times the federal Environmental Protection Agency's safety limit for that substance in drinking water. Other radioactive isotopes have been found as well, including cesium-137, zinc-65 and cobalt-60.

Officials have said tritium has been flowing downhill from the plant to the adjacent river, though it is diluted quickly in the fast-flowing stream. Tests on river water have not produced measurable tritium readings. Now the question is whether strontium-90, generally considered a more dangerous isotope than tritium, may also have found its way to the river.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iTZh7xBg_qjTHzwhDIzy1Mzq3EEgD9G1C1300

---

These plants have been leaking Strontium 90 into our environment for decades.

Unlike the blue-black plume of death in the Gulf of Mexico, this plume of death is invisible, tasteless, odorless yet is just as deadly. It may simply take a bit longer to kill and mutate than oil, but it kills.

While the industry and its hacks and flacks have pulled the nuclear blinders over many eyes with their PR that this Strontium is from Chernobyl and Chine and US nucleat tests. they admit they do not know for sure that it is NOT from the plants BECAUSE THEY HAVEN"T BEEN TESTING FOR IT!!!

The Scientists and Doctors at the Radiation and Public Health Project RPHP) Have been testing for this and have found that the closer to the plants you are the higher is the radiation in our children's teeth. see www.radiation.org for the test info and results.

Nukes are NOT an option and nukes kill too.

No Coal, No oil, no nukes will resolve our energy needs.

Only a complete commitment to renewables can save humanity and this planet and the TIME IS NOW to say NO to these deadly industries and their greedy corporofascist maniacs who run them as if they were their own private death industries for profit, power and annihilation.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Yes of course. We call them Glo-trout.

[baldguy]

2. That's what Monty Burns said.

[Downwinder]

3. I have heard of electric eels but never radioactive eels.

[Submariner]

4. No problem....move along...nothing to see here

[tabasco]

5. You left out this part.

"State health officials say Vermont Yankee most likely was not the source of the radioactivity in the fish, a yellow perch. Fish and other living things — including humans — around the world have been absorbing tiny amounts of strontium-90 since the United States, Russia and China tested nuclear weapons in the atmosphere in the 1950s and 1960s. A fresher dose was released by the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986."

[Statistical]

6. Yup just that "minor" detail.

:rofl:

[Downwinder]

7. Didn't mention that they vented in Nevada when the Chernobyl cloud went over.

[Liberation Angel]

11. One bozo with no credible data is not significant: fact is that the tests have yet to be done

I suppose you would trust BP to tell us the rate of oil flowing from their fuckup

or the danger of their dispersal agents.


You can laugh all you want, but I lived near that plant and near that river in Vermont.

This is despicable.

And they FOUND Strontium 90 in the soil so it is NO stretch to say it made it into the river nearby.

EVERY day these plants emit radionuclides. The fact that radiation is in the water is not at issue.

And the fact that you have a cancer in your lung does NOT mean that the tobacco you were addicted to caused it (or so the industry claims)

Not industrial radiation they say (or you say).

I do not believe it for an instant.

Industry lies.

Nuclear Industry lies more.

and they run the whole controlled show.



Laugh all you want -

But it is not funny.

It is heartbreaking.

[Downwinder]

12. And the Atomic Veterans act says that if you are diagnosed

with MS within seven years of discharge, it is service related.

[maxanne]

21. amen to that

The Entergy folks have lied their asses off, and so has the NRC. The NRC is a failure as a regulatory agency. I keep pushing my NH elected officials to do something about the NRC.

Given how they lied about the tritium leaks, I feel sure they're lying even harder about the Strontium.

Did Entergy ditch spokesliar Rob Williams? He was the spokesliar at Seabrook Station for a a long time.

[bananas]

15. No, he didn't leave it out, he specificially commented on it

From the OP:

While the industry and its hacks and flacks have pulled the nuclear blinders over many eyes with their PR that this Strontium is from Chernobyl and Chine and US nucleat tests. they admit they do not know for sure that it is NOT from the plants BECAUSE THEY HAVEN"T BEEN TESTING FOR IT!!!

[Liberation Angel]

22. I DID , didn't I? I brought attention to the lies

even if I did not quote them.

ANYONE could read them at the link so technically I did not leave them out I LINKED TO THEM.

But a quote lacking any verification or credibility isn't really a quote I want to excerpt from the article.

You are not so Bananas after all, friend.

I thought you'd beat me to LBN with this story.

I happen to agree with one of the researchers, btw, an epidemiologist, studying the extent of harm: he said there should be Nuremburg style trials of those who have perpetrated these crimes against humanity. He was a scientist with RPHP (www.radiation.org) who have been collecting and testing baby teeth.

EVERY BABY TOOTH COLLECTED HAD STRONTIUM 90 in it.

and the industry's pr flacks said "it's from China" (even though it was HIGHER near the nuke plants than farther away from the plants. Thus they speak truth to power. But it seems very few listen or even respond if they hear it. Glad you do, Bananas!

:fistbump:

[fascisthunter]

78. wrong

gee, no agenda here

[Liberation Angel]

8. And you left out this part: "It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine" because the state hasn't tested!!!

"William Irwin, radiological health chief for the state of Vermont, acknowledged that it was impossible to establish a baseline for strontium-90 in Connecticut River fish, because the state had not tested for it before this year. For that reason, it can't be determined for certain whether Vermont Yankee has been adding strontium-90 to the river"

In other words what the industry and the health officials SAY means nothing. They simply can't say it is NOT from the plant BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW!!!

Fact is that the Radiation and Public Health Project has been doing the tests on human teeth for this very reason :THE INDUSTRY AND THE GOVERNMENT ARE NOT DOING THESE TESTS!!!

Like with BP, the idiots in power TRUST the industry to do the right thing and to be honest.

Remember that Halliburton is a NUCLEAR energy company as well. And if their credibility is as good on nukes as it is on military contracts in Iraq and in offshore drilling then we KNOW that we are fucked.

Anyway I addressed that issue in my comments and people need to read the article for more info.

Whom do you trust - the nuclear industrym government officials who are responsible for the harm and the damage or folks like Dr. Helen Caldicott who has devoted her life to trying to protect us and who LEFT the United States because of the danger to our health and environment caused by nuclear power emissions and leaks.

\
and i know all the industry supporters will pile on me here. It always happens.

But the fact5 is that the Connecticut River is full of radioactive fish. It feeds into Long Island Sound. The Hiudson likewise is full of radioactive fish.

It is indefensible.

As indefensible as the horror in the Gulf of Mexico.

[xchrom]

9. Recommend

[gateley]

10. I know - I can't believe that we think all that fallout didn't affect every square

inch of this planet.

But they say it's "most likely not the source" in VT. I can't help but think the stuff gets out of the nuclear plants, too. It's scary stuff.

[Liberation Angel]

13. They do NOT know that the Vermont nuke plant is NOT the source. NO TESTS were done!

OF COURSE the industry says its not their strontium 90. They will be liable. THEY control the tests and the flow of information (just like BP in the Gulf). They control the politicans and the government agencies too with their wealth and power (The NRC and even the EPA are just as bad on nukes as the dept of minerals was on BP offshore deep water drilling).

Do NOT trust some lame response from hacks who will be held accountable for the damage and claim they are not responsible.

But the tests at www.radiation.org have proven that those who live near nuclear power plants have higher levels of strontium 90 in their teeth and bones.

The industry does all it can to keep this info suppressed, denigrated and denied. Jusdt like big oil and big tobacco because if they are held liable and accountable they would be ruined. So they lie and blame it on Chinese nuke tests or Chernobyl.

HOW is some fish TODAY going to have radiation from twenty years ago in its bones?

C'mon.

It doesn't even make any sense.

The claim it is not from the nuclear power plant is a dirty lie or a very stupid assumption by a dumbass who has NO clue.

[boppers]

71. "HOW is some fish TODAY going to have radiation from twenty years ago in its bones?"

Strontium-90 has a half-life of 28.8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_life

That's how.

[Liberation Angel]

93. So these fish are twenty or thirty years old then???

just asking...

got an explanation for that?

And is it your argument that the shit just EVERYWHERE so that some poor fish that is swimming around today is absorbing the radiation left over from nuclear corporations which tested weapons 50 years ago?

How old was that fish again?

Jesus...

we ARE totally fucked

aren't we???



:spank: :nuke: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:


:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[boppers]

95. Atoms don't just vanish.

Decay, yes, vanish, no... so the Organic broccoli you eat today contains the nuclear waste we spread globally 60-40 years ago (as well as Uranium older than the earth, but that's another story). That's why we stopped above-ground testing, and merely finding radioactivity in a young food or animal says nothing about when it was created or released... it can be released, and wind up in food that a fish eats, the fish can die years later, be eaten by crawdads, which then die and wind up being in a reed, which gets eaten by a deer, which dies and is picked at by vultures, (etc. etc.) and it's still intact potentially radioactive material running around the planet, running around the food chain. That's the bad news.

The good news is that there has been radioactive material running around this planet longer than there has been life on this planet, and most species have strategies to compensate for this, indeed, the diversity of life on this planet is partially a *byproduct* of living on a planet bathed in radiation.

Here's what our normal exposure to radiation currently looks like:


..and here's a great page about how much radiation there is in our everyday existence:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm

[Liberation Angel]

96. So doubling or tripling the dose of background radiation is okay then with you?

See, in the community where I was born, a nuclear community with Navy and civilian and other nukes all over the goddamn place (and where I worked and most of my friends worked when we really needed the paycheck) the nuke industry fucking POURED radiation into our air and water and milk and food and childrens' diets and blood and fetuses.

The exposure doubled or tripled or in some instances caused mega-spikes of exposure to me and my family and friends.

So the corporate line that all is well and all are safe is just a murderous lie to me.

Save your crap about how great and safe cancer causing and mutation causing radionuclides leaked from nuclear reactors are.

The shit kills, mutates and has always killed and mutated. Those who mutate best (in theory at least survive.

Are two sets of genitalia better than one? Ask a hermaphrodite. That is one impact of man made nuclear radiation. Are down's syndrome kids more happy and mellow? They MIGHT just be. So the radiation that caused that shit is just PEACHY with you?

BP tells better lies than most of the Nuke industry flaks.

[boppers]

97. Doubling or tripling depends on context.

If you're already in a low dosage environment, you could move a few blocks down the street and triple your exposure... but will it make any difference? That's the right thing to think about, not a simplistic "radiation bad" mindset. Oh, and hermaphrodites existed long before we learned how to split the atom. Same with down's syndrome. That's not a side effect of human nuclear *anything*.

If you want to stop radiation, there's no way to do that. What you *can* do, however, is ask questions about safe levels.

[Liberation Angel]

100. Radiation causes hermaphroditism and Down's syndrome

More radiation causes MORE incidences of hermaphroditism and down's syndrome.

My point is that ADDING nuclear emissions and effluents into our air and water INCREASE THE GENETIC MUTATIONS!

That is all

[boppers]

104. They POLLUTE OUR BODILY FLUIDS!

That is all.

[Go2Peace]

42. Absolutely it does, and most of it is hidden and never reported.

I have been following this for decades. The Regulatory Agency has no power and is compromised and the companies that run these plants know that. In addition it is difficult to catch and prove incidents, so they just lie when they happen and don't include them in reports. It happens unfortunately all the time. Which is why I will never trust this industry and these facilities.

[Ka hrnt]

67. There's also this (apparently overlooked) detail...

"Three days later, officials said a fish caught four miles upstream from the reactor in February had tested positive for strontium-90 in its bones. "

(I suppose it's possible it escaped into the air then precipitated out...)

[Flying Dream Blues]

77. And you believe that? nt

[fascisthunter]

79. sure it wasn't

and you use that to what... convince us?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. I think all nuclear plants should be shut down

perhaps we could sitch off 50 million appliances that are not needed.

[Liberation Angel]

26. Me too: Why can't the United States bye a Nuclear Free Zone

No Nukes

No nuclear bombs.

NONE!

Hell, we have submarines. We d NOT need ANY nukes on our soil!

Not for weapons. Not for energy.

And if you need to power some damn appliance hook up a bicycle generator.

[Pavulon]

43. I assume you are running you computer, router, and modem with a bike?

hmm..

[Rosa Luxemburg]

45. a windmill in the back yard would suffice

and a couple of solar panels

[Liberation Angel]

94. I can't afford to be off the grid yet but am working on it

But I have worked on pedal powered projects which can push 1000 watts.

I could easily run most of my stuff with a bike generator or two.

The fridge is probably the biggest electric thing I have and really if I was a little more ambitious I could ditch that too.

[boppers]

105. So you "could", but aren't.

Congrats.

[BreweryYardRat]

16. Molten salt reactors -- ASAP!

They don't need water-cooling, and they don't produce nearly so many nasty byproducts.

[Statistical]

17. Even better would simply be air cooled reactors.

The "end game" IMHO is gas cooled fast breeder reactor.

No corrosive salts, no liquids, no phase changes (liquids boiling off into gas).

Simply gas (non reactive helium) acting as coolant and heat transfer "fluid".

[DRoseDARs]

70. I don't believe molten salt processes are meant for cooling, rather for storing thermal energy.

Molten salt is used in some solar collector designs (instead of water>steam which tends to explode violently if one is not careful as we all know) to transfer the collected thermal heat from the tower to separate vats of salt to store the heat, which is then used to create steam to run generators and produce electricity.

[Statistical]

89. transfering heat IS cooling.

In physics they are exactly the same thing.

water, molten salt, helium gas. The mechanism used to move heat from reactor core to the turbines is the same mechanism which cools the reactor. :)

[Botany]

18. No worries it came from A bomb tests and Chernobyl

That is what the article says ...... :sarcasm:

just because they found 90Sr in the ground around the nuke plant .... no worries

BTW the 1/2 life of strontium-90 is 28 years ..... any from bomb tests would long be
gone.

[Pavulon]

24. Umm thats is not how decay works.

but you know that right?

[Botany]

47. yes .... i know that

n/t

[Statistical]

37. Half lfie not 100% life.

So 28 years later the level of activity is ONE HALF.
28 years after that (56 total) it is ONE QUARTER.
28 years after that (84 total) it is ONE EIGHTH.
28 years after that (roughly a century) it is ONE SIXTEENTH.

Science it is apparently dead for 99.9% of the population. We are about one generation away from thinking the thundergod makes the cloud shake when he is angry.

[Botany]

54. thanx

I know about radioactive decay .....

However w/ the radioactive decay rate of 90Sr and the length of time since the last atmospheric tests
of thermonuclear weapons being ..... ???? .... years ago .... finding 90Sr in the flesh
of fish in the Connecticut river right now it seems a little dubious to link those radionuclides to Chernobyl
and 1950s bomb tests.


BTW if you really wanted to check out this story one could look morbidity and mortality around
the Ct. river for elevated rates of cancer of the thyroid because Sr tends to replace Iodine (I).
(Those upticks would be found not long after A-bomb / H-bomb tests and the Chernobyl accident.)

BTW no need to look @ the 90Sr found in the soil on the banks of the Ct. river next to nuclear power
plant as the source of the 90Sr in the fish in the Ct. river.

[Statistical]

61. No given the moderate length of Sr90 halflife NOT FINDING Sr90 would be an abrnomality.

What matter is the Sr90 concentration. If SR90 concentration is rising we would expect that there is a non nuclear weapon source. Given that last major nuclear weapons testing ending in 1960s (with a very few occurrences in 1970s & 1980s from China/India/Pakistan). We should expect that Sr90 concentration should fall by HALF approximately every 28 years.

If it doesn't or if the amount rises that would indicate Sr90 from another source. Simply the presence of Sr90 is no "proof" of anything other than the fact that nuclear weapons testing (5000 tests all together) released a staggeringly massive amount of Sr90 into the atmosphere.

[Liberation Angel]

63. The tests have been done as you suggest by the radiation and public health project

SR mimics calcium NOT iodine and is taken up in the bones and teeth btw and then gets into the bone marrow and blood.

Radiodine is absorbed by the thyroid and causes cancer and thyroid diseases such as hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism (both of which can kill you and do substantial harm if it doesn't kill you leading to an early grave)

www.radiation.org has these tests of mortality and cancer and infant mortality too. There results are scary as hell.

[awoke_in_2003]

76. Please refrain...

from repressing my worship of Thor :rofl:

[boppers]

72. Delete

No need to pile on.

[Liberation Angel]

19. Vermont Yankees Nuke Plant leaking 13 isotopes (Bluebear)

And Bluebear Just posted this (and its on the greatest page)

If you ask me the pronuke attitude here at DU is going to go the way of the supporters of offshore driulling here (I hope and pray)

Why can't North America be a Nuclear Free Zone?

No nukes. No bombs! No power plants!

No mas!

:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8452537

Thanks Bluebbear for underscoring the bullshit. And the industry lies. And their disregard for humanity and nature.

[Pavulon]

23. Sure, just build new coal plants. (no sun)

it is radioactive and causes cancer. Ban the sun. Really you cant generate the hundreds of gigawatts of base load without one or the other.

[DeSwiss]

20. K&R

"Whether we and our politicians know it or not, Nature is party to all our deals and decisions, and
she has more votes, a longer memory, and a sterner sense of justice than we do." ~ Wendell Berry

[wtmusic]

25. Thanks for your vote of confidence in offshore drilling.

If you don't see a direct connection between your antinuke hysteria and the real tragedy in the Gulf, you haven't a clue.

Thanks a bunch. :eyes:

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

29. event to pimp you shit gun control, Dont use bailout

Navy is related to this?

Me like random game :D

[Pavulon]

31. oops, own goal. Thought you were saying they were all the same..

the other unrelated topics just underscore the unrelated nature of the comparison. My bad.

[wtmusic]

33. My bad

To clarify:

The oil spill that's turning the Gulf of Mexico into a stagnant, lifeless cesspool is the result of reliance on fossil fuels for energy, much of which could be replaced by CLEAN, SAFE, NUCLEAR ENERGY.

Anyone who doesn't see this is an ignorant bimbo, a term I only apply to both genders.

[maxanne]

75. tell me something

wtmusic. If nuclear power is so clean and safe, why doesn't the free market support it?

[wtmusic]

83. The free market doesn't support most forms of energy

Wind power gets $18 per megawatt/hour in production tax credits, which from 2002-2007 amounted to about a $7 billion handout. Those credits are still in place, and fossil fuel subsidies are enormous.

About 5,000 people die every day from breathing fossil fuel air pollution. Though many people died at Chernobyl and more will die from thyroid and other cancers, no matter how you tweak the numbers: on a per-energy-unit basis, nuclear is safer than burning fossil fuels.

And on a per-volume-unit basis, the amount of energy nuclear provides is huge (a fuel pellet the size of a dime provides as much energy as a ton of coal). If we're careful with how we use it and store it, it's a better way to go.

[John Q. Citizen]

84. That's a good question. My guess is they see a risk they don't want to take, unless

the public is willing to indemnify them.

Some of the public seem willing to do that.


Heck, coal has been used centuries and they still can't mine it and burn it safely.

Petroleum has been mined for over a century and they still haven't been able to mine it and burn it safely.

Why anyone would jump to the conclusion that for some reason they can mine uranium and utilize it safely in reactors is a mystery to me. All those industries claim their practices are safe, at least until the next accident.



However, safety for humans in general seems to always take a back-seat to short term profits for a few humans.

If we could produce and use petroleum safely, it would give me more confidence about fission. But we haven't even learned to produce and use petroleum safely even though the technologies involved are far older and time tested than nuclear technologies are.

[wtmusic]

85. I don't get your logic.

Because we can't produce and use petroleum safely, we shouldn't consider nuclear?

Uranium been mined and utilized safely for over 50 years, and if we consider American nuclear energy only it's by far the safest form of energy on a per/kWh basis (Chernobyl was a horrible design that was illegal by American standards). Statistically, it's even slightly safer than solar - thanks to people falling off of roofs putting up panels.

Three Mile Island was a perfect example of nuclear tech working the way it was supposed to - not one documented casualty resulted.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. I think your claims of safety are on a level of BPs claims of amount of oil being released into the

gulf.

Here's an article which I assume won't change your mind. You seem to have already made it up and come down solidly in the pro-Nuclear economic sphere.

http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/3milecancer.html

Three Mile Island Cancer "Extremely High"


CHAPEL HILL, N.C. -- A second look at a landmark study on the 1979 Three Mile Island radiation release has found that people near the nuclear reactor are suffering from extremely high rates of cancer.

The original study, performed by Columbia University, is often cited as evidence that the TMI accident near Harrisburg, Penn. caused no ill effects to the people exposed to the radiation.

But Steve Wing, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has conducted a reevaluation of the Columbia University study, and published his results in the January 1997 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

Using better analytic and statistical techniques, he found that among the 20,000 people who lived near the plant and close to the plume's path, lung cancer and leukemia rates were two or more times higher than what they were near the plant but upwind from the plume. Among those in the most direct path of the plumes, lung cancer incidence went up by 300 to 400 percent, and leukemia rates were up by 600 to 700 percent.(bolding of text added by JQC)

"Several hundred people at the time of the accident reported nausea, vomiting, hair loss and skin rashes, and a number said their pets died or had symptoms of radiation exposure," he said. "We figured that if that were possible, we ought to look at it again. After adjusting for pre-accident cancer incidence, we found a striking increase in cancers downwind from Three Mile Island."

The scientists do not believe smoking and social and economic factors were responsible for the increased cancers found in the downwind sectors. .... (more at link)

However, I think it raises serious questions as to the claims of safety made by pro-nuclear economic interests.


The only way I would ever consider supporting a pro-Nuclear energy policy is if it were completely state owned, state managed, and run for the benefit of the people of the state as a whole. i think market forces (aka as greed) have proven completely antithetical to public safety.

Unlike some, I'm not anti -technology, nor am I opposed to utilizing technology. I am opposed to turning over public safety to the private sector. i also think the public can produce and manage complex, risky and expensive projects with far better outcomes than the private sector can.

[wtmusic]

91. I have pretty much made up my mind

not because I'm not open to other viewpoints, but because I know most of them already.

For example, from the same publication you quote, here's a conflicting conclusion from an article 5 years later:

"There has been no significant rise in cancer deaths among residents living near the site of America's worst nuclear accident, report scientists. It was feared that the release of radioactive gases from the plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 1979, might trigger a rise in cancer cases in subsequent decades. However, an analysis of statistics for the following 20 years suggests this is not yet the case. Information gathered by the Pennsylvania Department of Health from residents within a five-mile radius of the plant was compared with mortality data for the area."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2385551.stm

What's very clear that the long-term effects from radioactivity releases from Three Mile Island are...very unclear. We know that there is a positive correlation between increased exposure to radiation and cancer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some cancers related to it.

Now, consider this: Three Mile Island is generating electricity right now. It is generating a lot of it, about 6 tWh/year. Coal plants generating that amount of electricity since 1974 would have resulted in thousands of additional cancer deaths from hydrocarbons and radioactive fly ash released into the atmosphere.

That's a lot of dead people, and the fact that the nuclear boogeyman didn't kill them doesn't make them any less dead.

It's all about proportion.

[Liberation Angel]

101. You don't cite a source for your claims regarding coal

But it is NOT a choice between nukes and coal.

BOTH need to be shut down.

The choice is survival versus suicide. Oil, nukes, coal are all suicide for the planet.

RENEWABLES mean survival. GOOD survival. Zero cancers from radiation, coal and oil.

[wtmusic]

103. Ah, if it were only that simple.

Renewables aren't so "renewable" if you happen to live where the toxic waste required to build them gets dumped. Do these people enjoy the "good" survival that you do?

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

"GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

Include rooftop solar and nuclear is the safest form of energy generation there is. Period.

Risks of Nuclear Power

"Since natural radiation is estimated to cause about 1% of all cancers, radiation due to nuclear technology should eventually increase our cancer risk by 0.002% (one part in 50,000), reducing our life expectancy by less than one hour. By comparison, our loss of life expectancy from competitive electricity generation technologies, burning coal, oil, or gas, is estimated to range from 3 to 40 days."

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

Climategate, Coal Mine Deaths, Air Pollution and Coals assault on human health

"Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths.

Rooftop solar can be safer <0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). If the rooftop solar is part of the shingle so you do not put the roof up more than once and do not increase maintenance then that is ok too. Or if you had a robotic system of installation.[br />
World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh.
In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh.
15 deaths per TWh.
In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh.
278 deaths per TWh.

Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.

Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996

Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh."

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/11/climategate-coal-mine-deaths-air.html

[bananas]

87. You mean DIRTY, DANGEROUS, EXPENSIVE, NUCLEAR ENERGY

Anyone who doesn't see this is an ignorant bimbo, a term I only apply to both genders.

[Liberation Angel]

36. It was a Navy leak that resulted in a miscarriage of my child so I call BS

There is plenty of data on the Navy Polluting where their nukes are.

The river by the Submarine Base in Connecticut is one of the most polluted in the country. Half life of the radiaiton there (where folks fish every day) is FIFTEEN YEARS!!!

But I guess it isn't really an "ACCIDENT".

It is on purpose.

[Pavulon]

40. Groton? There is nothing in the aft compartment with a half life that short

if the navy fucks up you will know. The impact of those materials are acute. I assume you have some scientific evidence to back this claim. I dont doubt the Navy pollutes, diesel oil, pcb, but not nuclear waste.

I assume you had blood tests that would show plutonium in your body. I had those regularly.

If what you say is true (which I highly doubt) you can be tested TODAY to show a very old exposure to plutonium fuel used by the Navy.

You've done these right?

[Go2Peace]

44. "I don't doubt the navy pollutes".. but nuclear, never? Right. Severe bias much?

It is so evident. On the one hand in everything else they might pollute... but not angelic radioactive isotopes, those are handled only with kitten gloves and accidents never happen. :rofl:

[Pavulon]

51. No they happen in processing facilities,

not in the middle of Groton. Dumping plutonium tends to be noticed.

[Liberation Angel]

55. Here's a partial list

http://www.prop1.org/2000/accident/facts3.htm

One leak in the Thames River was 500 gallons of radioactive coolant water.

1971 - CONNECTICUT, U.S.A.

"Five hundred gallons of radioactive primary coolant was inadvertently discharged into Thames River, near New London, Connecticut, from a nuclear powered submarine. (Melbourne "Sun"- 8th Oct 1976, p.23)."



There are many more leaks and incidents and accidents, many of them Navy, listed at this site.

As for my own tests, etc. That is my business.

But the most common exposure where I and my kids lived and played and swam is strontium 90, Tritium and radioiodine. There was much more, but these were what I know is documented where we were (we moved but NOWHERE is far enough away from these facilities as the waste and emissions last so long and migrate globally and are in our produce and water so nowhere is really safe, just a degree of more safe or less safe).

as for the half life, that was just what the reports said publicly. They did not cite the source of the pollution in the river, but the documentation of events like the 1971 leak was well documented (even though I was not living there). It is just an example of Navy radiation leaks into the environment that I am aware of. That River is highly radioactive and hence is considered one of the most polluted in the country and feeds into Long Island Sound.

[Pavulon]

58. You said strontium? Primary coolant in naval reactors is not highly radioactive

primary coolant radioactivity is generally from cobalt. It remains radioactive for a very short time. Rickover volunteered to drink a glass to prove the point. I would wash my hands with it (never had the urge), in retrospect, probably safer than DU I handled.

Use sunscreen if you dont want to get cancer. 500 gallons of primary loop coolant is not a significant event.

[Lasher]

73. Sunscreen causes cancer.

Now what, burkas at the beach?

[wtmusic]

68. There must be something older and more irrelevant than that. nt

[Liberation Angel]

28. No confidence there: Energy Companies Lie, Pollute and KILL

That is the connection.

Halliburton, implicated in the gulf disaster, is ALSO A NUKE company .

OF COURSE they are connected.

The choice is NOT nukes or coal or offshore.

The CHOICE is NONE OF THE ABOVE.

and to call alerting us to the fact that there is radiation in our fish "hysteria" is as bad as saying that the shrimp fishermen in Luisiana are "hysterical" because no one is doing enough.

The radiation in the fish is LIKE the oil in the Gulf fish: it is deadly and unacceptable.

Sorry that you do not get that.

I LIVE bear the Connecticut River. I have ALSO lived on the Gulf of Mexico. None of this is acceptable.

And those responsible are big energy companies with big PR budgets to promote their agendas on bpards like DU.

They lie, steal, pollute, corrupt, murder and destroy. So yeah they ARE connected. They are also usually owned by the same necrophilic corporate fascist entities. Same as it ever was.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberation Angel]

32. I grew up downwind of several nuke facilities. I lost a child to a miscarriage after a major leak.

Which the industry claimed did no harm to us.

So yeah I probably have more strontium 90 in me than that fish.

So do my kids. They have radiation related illnesses according to our MD. But we consulted with an attorney and do not have the resources to fight the industry (except by telling folks MY experience and background - I worked IN the industry and in the regulatory bodies that dealt with environmental medicine and safety. I interviewed the technicians who said the industry was falsifying data)

But, alas...

Pity the fools.

But some of them know what they do.

and the price may well be their souls.

For all the harm they have done and continue to do.

I tend to believe that.

There will be a karmic price to pay and there will be justice.

[Pavulon]

34. I grew up near and worked around reactors that used highly enriched fuel

and have no negative health impact. Nor did the many others I knew then and ones I still know know.

You can NOT PROVE OR BACKUP any of that. Just like the claim of a person who died in toxic rain. You should be able to back these things if you claim them.

[Liberation Angel]

46. I have cited the research of the Radiation and Public Health Project

I am not going to provide my kids' medical records to prove anything to you.

I have my credibility at stake here and whether you like it or not our MD, a family practitioner, concluded that radiation pollution from our community's nuclear industry caused harm to my children.

With respect to the miscarriage. There was a massive leak, illness affected the entire community including me, my child was spontaneously aborted during this illness.

I swear that this is true.

Because it is important to me and so is my credibility at this site.

Anyone here can read the data on Strontium 90 and baby teeth etc at www.radiation.org

the people there have excellent credentials.

Thety are moitivated by CARING and not be stupidity or greed or hysteria.

They are doctors and scientists and public health specialists.

I trust them.

People can judge for themselves. The evidence is overhwelming.

We are being murdered by the radiation from nuke plants globally. It is a slow death. And it is often invisible until you get the cancer and begin to rot from the inside out.

Bone, brain, breast, blood and prostate are the most common. Throid disease (mostly hypothyroidism) is also very very likely which cause immune disorders and even hormona/metabolic disorders and thus psychiatric problems. Miscarriages are common if you are downwinder.

So maybe you are just lucky, have good strong dna, or you are just blind to what is ahppening around you due to the industry you support.

[Pavulon]

53. This is not personal.

However I am unaware of any major criticality event or leak of ANY nuclear material in Groton.

I cite MIT and the PENN study on TMI and general nuclear energy info, WHO studies on DU in bosnia, real studies.

Can you cite any journal that claims miscarriages correlating with location to a nuclear facility other then the Ukraine?

I am an engineer, not nuclear but am aware of how nuclear materials interact with each other and people.

A GP can not (should not) diagnose exposure to radionuclides or OB specific illness.

There are specialized fields of medicine that work with and diagnose disease or illness caused by exposure to nuclear materials. If you were ever exposed to strontium, uranium, or plutonium it will still show up in testing. Just an FYI.

Please support you position with fact, not personal stuff.

[defendandprotect]

39. ... and how many here at DU are gun-ho still for more nuclear plants....

not to mention Obama!!

Sad to hear that you were so terribly effected by this --

[Pavulon]

41. Doubtful. If the poster was truly exposed, they could prove plutonium exposure now

with a simple blood or urine test. See real victims (like those in the Ukraine, still show elevated levels of nuclear materials in their bodies. Decades later real exposure shows up.

[Go2Peace]

49. What is the test?

Seriously, I have relatives that have been affected. I haven't heard of it and if it is cheap it would be a good thing to do.

[Pavulon]

50. Urine test. Common for folks working in certain jobs

should be as simple as a referral to a lab tech. I assume the test separates the heavy metal and uses mass spec to identify and quantify exposure. Not sure, no nuclear med background. In towns like Oak Ridge, Groton, and Idaho Falls you should be able to get this done..

Like any test it is best to baseline then check over time for changes.

[Go2Peace]

86. May not help for my relative then

Thanks for the info though. My relative is dealing with recurring tumors that may be related to exposure from Drinking water polluted when radiation flowed down the Knieper river. She lost all of her hair as a child at the time. Since I was reading here that it can remain in the body I was curious if it might not still be there and causing issues, but it could just be lasting DNA damage.

[defendandprotect]

81. dupe

and I'd also suggest that we're a little low on anti-nuke info here --

I have some info on it which I can't find at the moment -- but it's not current.

Long time, no see re anti-nuke info in America!!

The e-mails I get on it are organizations trying to shut down the ones we have which

are leaking, poorly maintained, and in questionable private hands!

Plus hurricanes and "terrarists" -- !! How does that combo make any sense?

We have 103/106 nuclear power plants in US and takes 6 months to properly shut one down.

And, as far as I can see, evacuation plans are not realistic -- even where they exist.



:)

[Go2Peace]

48. Actually it is a minority. But these folks are prolific in fighting in many threads

makes it look like there are more than there really are. I would venture it is still a minority viewpoint.

[Pavulon]

52. Held by MIT. You know the MIT (with all the smart people)

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[Liberation Angel]

57. and all the military and government and intel contracts (yeah THAT MIT)

of course THEY would not be corruptible by industry or military entities.

Besides, one of my points is that NO TESTING of fish near the reactors has EVER BEEN DONE uNTIL NOW (acording to the article)

So how the hell could MIT's papers even be relevent to this story?
As for my sources I have cited the www.radiation.org website and the studies of Stronium 90 and baby teeth, infant mortality, birth defects, spointaneous abortions, cancer etc there.

I never said I was exposed to Plutonium, btw.

[Pavulon]

59. Naval Reactors run on HEU

and you should be able to detect that in your body if you were ever exposed.

[Liberation Angel]

62. I never said I was exposed to HEU

Frankly I have no idea what was in the leak that occurred.

But I do not believe it was a leak of HEU.

I could be wrong and maybe I'll find out one day if I was exposed to those radioisotopes.

[defendandprotect]

82. IMO, we need more DU'ers speaking out against nuclear --

and I'd also suggest that we're a little low on anti-nuke info here --

I have some info on it which I can't find at the moment -- but it's not current.

Long time, no see re anti-nuke info in America!!

The e-mails I get on it are organizations trying to shut down the ones we have which

are leaking, poorly maintained, and in questionable private hands!

Plus hurricanes and "terrarists" -- !! How does that combo make any sense?

We have 103/106 nuclear power plants in US and takes 6 months to properly shut one down.

And, as far as I can see, evacuation plans are not realistic -- even where they exist.

:)

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberation Angel]

60. This is totally irrelevent. I cite the research at www.radiation.org Radiation&Public Health Project

www.radiation.org

They are real scientists with real credentials and real credibility because they are unbiased and they are not on any nuclear corporation's payroll.

To cast aspersions on those who care like this is unseemly

not only that it demostrates the weakness of your position.

People who care oppose nukes AND offshore drilling AND coal.

They support 100% renewables.

It will take time and devotion but it is the ONLY way we can stop the ecxtreme toll nukes and oil and coal are doing to this planet and all its inhabtants of all species.

Nukes cause massive mutations to all the dna on the planet for thousands of years hence is way more threatening than even this Gulf spill, frankly.

But I oppose the drilling and even the use of oil as I do coal and nuclear.

They are ALL suicidal energy options for humanity at this point. Thus none of them are an option.

[Go2Peace]

69. Another Post that is inflamatory-Reported

why don't you try using a civilized tone instead of using hateful language? It's more affective?

[defendandprotect]

35. k

[defendandprotect]

38. k

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Liberation Angel]

65. I gotta sleep - can some folks who understand the evil of this keep hope alive here

that nukes will one day be banished from this Earth?

I fear if I am quiet it will seem like I gave up holding back (or trying to) the horde of nuke industry supporters.

So any help with this will be helped otherwise the unrecs might win out.

[IndianaGreen]

66. Obama's reckless offshored drilling plan announced on March 31, included new nuke plants

and something called "Clean Coal."

[Grinchie]

74. Leave Poor Blinky Alone!'

[fascisthunter]

80. kick(nt)

[Lagomorph]

90. We're not ready....

"No Coal, No oil, no nukes will resolve our energy needs."

Not to mention, "no economy, no food, no money.".

[Liberation Angel]

92. I live in a passive solar house, if I had enough resources I could go off the grid

I could have solar collectors, a windmill, cycle generators for the small stuff, water pump, fans etc., geothermal cooling and heating etc.. But it takes resources to CREATE self-sustaining energy systems and grids. But once they are in place they only ned to be mainatined and they will last forever. Because they are not a controllable commodity to be meted out and rationed via cost, corporations supporess the options and alternatives and PR and propagandize that we NEED Nukes coal and oil. We don't need any of them.

Most places also could have this.

Mass transit could get us around (and in my experience works well and can be cheap.)

It is all about design and priorities and NO we are not ready. Because the mindset is that we need shit like nukes and oil and gas and intenral engines and massive amounts of mass produced electricity tosurvive and be happy.

We don't need these energy systems (nukes, coal, gasoline, oil)

we need intelligently designed societies and communities and cities.

It will happen

or we are essentially doomed to a miserable existence until the human species perishes forever.

[Lagomorph]

99. In spite of your dramatic...

comments, I think we'll see a world of difference in the next 100 years.

Natural gas is probably the most survivable of the old energy sources, as far as the future is concerned.

We need to keep slamming away at new technologies and find a way to keep the filthy rich from patenting and copyrighting every conceivable idea.

I'm OK with letting those who contribute, benefit, but it should be liberating, not another way to enslave us.

I live in a condo and my options are limited, but LED bulbs, CFC bulbs and a hybrid car are already being used in our home.

[DeadEyeDyck]

98. If you look on a periodic table, you will see that

strontium-90 is righ tbelow calcium. That means it has the same chemical properties as ca;cium and will be absorbed in the body as calsium. Not good

[Liberation Angel]

102. Strontium 90 is LIKE calcium in that its absorbed into the teeth, bones, bone marrow then blood

THAT is why it is more dangerous than much other radiation which is NOT absorbed into bones and tissue and hece into organs where it causes cancers and mutations and into foetuses where it causes birth defects.

Those who say radiation from other sources is just as bad or worse MISS the point: Stronium 90 becomes "bioavailable" and becomes integrated into our cella, tissues and organs where it remains for decades causing damage, mutatios and cancers.

[boppers]

106. You are completely confused about atomic decay.

I, or you, can carry around an atom for years, with no side effects.

It may decay, it may not.

Your statement that "Stronium 90 becomes "bioavailable" and becomes integrated into our cella, tissues and organs where it remains for decades causing damage, mutatios and cancers" just demonstrates ignorance.

Please go back to science classes, you are making both the left, and DU, look like morans.

[Nihil]

107. He/she is completed confused about simple arithmetic ...

... so atomic decay is right out ...
:shrug:

[Liberation Angel]

108. My information is based on science and research by the Radiation and Public Health Project

Ignorance of these subjects is what allows the Nuclear Industry to promote the lie that their byproducts in the environment are somehow "safe".

It is Industry propaganda and outright fabrication that Strontium 90 in our bones, teeth and tissues is not a potential and likley killer. Radio-iodine in our thyroids causes cancer and thyroid disease which disrupt our immune systems and endocrine systems. The half life of radio-iodine is relatively short but the damage can be permanent when sells and dna are mutated and damaged. Hormonal and brain functions can be seriously damaged if one is dosed and not protected (through, for example, iodine supplements or calcium supplements which make the radiation less likely to be absorbed.

www.radiation.org has doctors and scientists whose research i trust and respect.

It is not ignorance.

It is science.

Science I trust.

Besides, I sincerely HOPE I can carry an "atom" around for years with no side effects. My whole body is atoms.

But when you expose MY atoms to radioactive isotopes, especially internally,, that is when I get the side effects. And so do you.

And anyone who is exposed to this toxic sh*t.

There is NO safe level of exposure to these isotopes. It is ALL potentially harmful and is usually harmful if it is absorbed into the body's organs, bones, blood and teeth.