US Nuke Plants are a Ticking Time Bomb - Waiting to Go Off Near You

[ensho]

http://counterpunch.com/washington03232011.html


-snip-

"Many of these significant events occurred because reactor owners and even the NRC tolerated known safety problems," states the report, entitled: "The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010: A Brighter Spotlight Needed."

While none of the 14 safety incidents tagged in the Union's report as "near misses" produced harm to nuclear plant employees or the public, the report terms the frequency of these incidents, which averaged more than one per month, "high for a mature industry."

-snip-

The Union's report criticized the NRC's failure to address a longstanding problem at the Indian Point facility located just 25 miles north of New York City, America's largest municipality.

That facility is built close to the northern terminus of a major East Coast earthquake fault line however there is a leak in a refueling cavity construction to prevent leaks in the event of an earthquake. That leak has existed for over a dozen years and the report faults the NRC for failing to crack down on this serious problem.

According to the Union's report the device at Indian Point "installed to prevent leakage after an earthquake is leaking before an earthquake even occurs."

-snip-

One of the 14 examined 'near misses' occurred at the Calvert Cliffs facility in Lusby, Maryland, located south of DC. That February 2010 incident arose from a combination of the facility operators' failure to fix a leaking roof plus a failure to replace and test safety equipment.

That incident, initiated by rain falling through a roof, caused both reactors at Calvert Cliffs to shutdown.

-long snip on near misses-

The Union's report ends with this observation: "That plant operators could have avoided all 14 near-misses in 2010 had they corrected known deficiencies in a timely manner suggests that our luck at nuclear roulette may someday run out."
------------------------

every day the odds get closer to disaster

no whining when it happens near you

[Buzz Clik]

1. Are nuclear plants more dangerous than coal fired power plants?

I don't think so.

[Donnachaidh]

3. really? So what's the half-life of coal?

Anywhere close to the thousands of years for nuclear waste?

BTW -- nice puke talking point. :sarcasm:

[SidDithers]

5. The half life of coal is infinity...nt

Sid

[Donnachaidh]

8. jump in with nonsense

typical.

[Buzz Clik]

16. That's just silly.

Do you understand that half-life is not a concept limited to radionuclides?

[Gregorian]

6. Read my post below. Coal does have nuclear material in it.

And it is a problem. A big one.


edit- Oh, I'm not defending nuclear by any means.

[PVnRT]

7. We all know how Republicans hate the coal industry

:sarcasm:

Nice, though, just accusing anyone who isn't in total agreement with you of being a right-winger. I expect nothing less from DU.

[Donnachaidh]

10. it -is- a rightwing talking point

and don't put words in my mouth. Pointing out the -obvious- is not calling someone a right winger. :eyes:

[Buzz Clik]

17. The most intelligent, vocal pro nuke person I know is a DUer.

Hard core Dem. And he hates coal.

[PVnRT]

18. "Obvious" = "What I agree with"

Whatever.

[Buzz Clik]

12. Sorry, but I'm not terrified of nuclear energy. I'm just not.

So, I have no irrational to overcome to look at both kinds of energy with no bias.

Burning coal is the primary source of mercury in our atmosphere. Coal contains significant quantities of radionuclides, and far more radionuclides have been released from coal burning than nuclear plants. Coal ash has accumulated in overwhelming quantities, and state and federal regulatory agencies have been forced to down-classify coal ash as safe simply to allow us to burn coal. What's the carbon footprint of a nuclear plant? Are you suddenly convinced that global warming is now a non-issue?

The potential for catastrophy in nuclear plants is far less than in coal plants. However, I will grant you that the long-term impacts of a nuclear screw up are greater, but it's also a gazillion times easier to trace the impact of nuclear accidents than coal-related environmental catastrophies, unless, of course, we turn to greenhouse gases... but I don't think you want to go there.

[Gregorian]

4. In an energy analysis course I took, the professor mentioned

that the sum total of all coal plants in the world emit the same amount of radiation per year that Chernobyl did when it failed. That still has a sobering effect on me. And that was in the 80's. No wonder I don't sound all cheery like so many people I run into.

[Donnachaidh]

9. the sum total of ALL coal plants

as opposed to -just- the fuel at Chernobyl.

So how many nuclear power plants are there world wide? The math on THAT should be far more sobering to you.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Not the fuel, the radioactive release from Chernobyl, the worst accident on record.

And keep in mind that these coal plants release one Chernobyl every single year. Decade after decade.

[Zoeisright]

2. Yep. And I think that the pro-nuke crowd should have to live right near them.

After all, what's rabid support for something foolish without assuming the risk?

[Buzz Clik]

15. Have you checked the mercury in the air you breathe?

Don't. You won't like the answer.

[gratuitous]

11. Careful

Sure, there could be some catastrophic event brewing in a nuclear reactor somewhere. Could be well known to the plant operators, too. Might even be fixable for a modest investment of time and money. But the reactor didn't blow yesterday, and it hasn't blown so far today. By noticing these problems, and positing a catastrophic event, it means you secretly want it to happen, and you'll be insufferably glad when it does happen. At that point, the fault for the catastrophic event will magically transfer from the negligent plant operators to the dirty fucking hippies who feared it would happen.

[Junkdrawer]

13. LOL

Guilty as charged.