Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

[taichiliberal]

U.S. Nuclear Regulators Weaken Safety Rules, Fail To Enforce Them: AP Investigation
LACEY TOWNSHIP, N.J. -- Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.

Time after time, officials at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have decided that original regulations were too strict, arguing that safety margins could be eased without peril, according to records and interviews.

The result? Rising fears that these accommodations by the NRC are significantly undermining safety – and inching the reactors closer to an accident that could harm the public and jeopardize the future of nuclear power in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._lnk2|216523

 

[TruthSeeker56]

Citing a Huffington Post hit piece as your source really weakens your anti-nuke argument.

The NRC has been ridiculously over-regulating the U.S. nuke power plant industry ever since the overblown media circus also known as "the Three Mile Island accident". Easing up on some of these "overkill" regulations is NOT a sign of weakness or failure. It is a sign of COMMON SENSE.

The United States has the SAFEST and most reliable nuclear power plants in the world, and the thousands of people who operate our nuclear power plants are dedicated and highly trained professionals.

I used to be one of those people. I retired a few years ago.

 

[Douger]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

 

[martybegan]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

 

[taichiliberal]

Citing a Huffington Post hit piece as your source really weakens your anti-nuke argument.

Regardless of the source, it is the CONTENT that you have to contend with. When someone offers information on a topic of interest to me, I READ IT ALL CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY, and then I make an evaluation as to whether the information is valid or incorrect or skewed to a political social bias. Maybe you should do likewise before you make snap judgements.

The NRC has been ridiculously over-regulating the U.S. nuke power plant industry ever since the overblown media circus also known as "the Three Mile Island accident". Easing up on some of these "overkill" regulations is NOT a sign of weakness or failure. It is a sign of COMMON SENSE.


The United States has the SAFEST and most reliable nuclear power plants in the world, and the thousands of people who operate our nuclear power plants are dedicated and highly trained professionals.

I used to be one of those people. I retired a few years ago.

YOU have given a sign that you favor opinion, supposition and conjecture over FACTS and logic. So far, you have NOT been able or willing to address the content of the article, therefore your opinion is irrelevent to the subject at hand regardless of your past employment. Come back when you are willing to honestly discuss the content of the article.

 

[taichiliberal]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.

 

[martybegan]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.

If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.

 

[taichiliberal]

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.

If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.

Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

Well said, marty. You hit it right on the head. Over-regulation is the answer for the ignorant enviro-wackos who refuse to stay in their own lane.

I am not going to engage a bunch of ignorant anti-nukes who have never so much as set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant facility. They have NO CLUE what they are talking about. I would be better off debating a HOUSE PLANT.

 

[martybegan]

True, but the article specifically points out how the "regulations" are not only NOT being enforced, but having their goal posts moved constantly to appease the nuke power industry on many instances....and with nuke power and it's waste products, that's not a good idea.

If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.

Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?

Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.

Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.

 

[taichiliberal]

How does one " over-regulate" a fucking nuclear power plant ? Did you retire or receive a mental disability ?

You can over-regulate anything, such as requiring a 10X safety factor when 5X will do, or specifying 8 redundant systems, when 4 will do.

Well said, marty. You hit it right on the head. Over-regulation is the answer for the ignorant enviro-wackos who refuse to stay in their own lane.

I am not going to engage a bunch of ignorant anti-nukes who have never so much as set foot in a U.S. nuclear power plant facility. They have NO CLUE what they are talking about. I would be better off debating a HOUSE PLANT.

Translation: This bogus "TruthSeeker56" is just another nuke wonk blowhard who thinks denial of contrary facts/information somehow justifies all the PR mantras for the pro-nuke group.

Sadly for them, it doesn't....as we see in Post #5 on this thread.

 

[taichiliberal]

If we would let them build newer nukes without 20 years of lawsuits and environmental reviews, this would not be nessasary. You have to remember alot of the regulations being changed were reflexive ones created probably during TMI and Chernobyl, and they are likely over cautious, because it is human nature (including regulators) to overreact in times of trouble.

Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?

Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.

Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.

You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well. Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise. Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search

First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that. So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim. The article shows how that is NOT being done.

And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island. The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.

 

[editec]

Nuke power plant safety shuffle.

Nothing can go Worng.

Just a minor release of perfectly safe radioisotopes is all.

Why, they're practically like vitamins for your children!

 

[IndependntLogic]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

 

[martybegan]

Why in the hell should we let the same people who have a documented history or lying and covering up the problems of the old designs currently working sell us on some new theorectical designs while selling us the SAME guarantees?

Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.

Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.

You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well. Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise. Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search

First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that. So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim. The article shows how that is NOT being done.

And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island. The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.

One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.

Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.

Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.

 

[martybegan]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

Who said anything about shutting down Indian Point? Does merely pointing out some verifiable facts that contradict the "Everything is absolutely perfect" viewpoint, automatically mean I must have the diametrically opposed view?

I see this dichotomous mentality all the time. If you think guns are fine but don't approve of carrying RPG's to kindergarten, someone says you're "one of those anti-gun whackjobs!".
If you state that unions have a purpose but frequently go way beyond the functions of providing a safe workplace and competitive wage, you're called a "Corporate NeoCon" or whatever.

So to suggest that we might want to take a look at both safety and security at our facilities - especially in light of terrorism, flaws in security, the release of 600,000 gallons of radioactive steams etc....
Automatically means I want to shut down Indian Point? Or is it that you don't have a strong counter to these simple measures but also don't want to concede that there are valid concerns out there?

 

[taichiliberal]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

Appropo to this:


Last year, residents living near the Indian Point Energy Center in New York State were shocked to learn that 600,000 gallons of radioactive steam had escaped from the nuclear plant through an open valve and drifted into their neighborhoods.

It was not the first time the plant startled its neighbors. In 2005, radioactive tritium, which is known to cause cancer, was found in monitoring wells around the plant. Federal officials concluded it came from a leaking spent-fuel storage pool. Tritium levels in one well were 30 times the federal limit for drinking water.


Read more: Plant's history, location bring calls for closure - StamfordAdvocate


It seems the definition of "safe operations" becomes a subjective term when it comes to nuke power plant supporters. I for one, would not like to live by that definition.


Plant's history, location bring calls for closure - StamfordAdvocate

 

[taichiliberal]

Why should I trust someone to regulate nuclear power who's overriding goal is to eliminate it as a power source? Also, please "document" your history of lying and covering up problems, making sure, of course, to show systemic and widespread deception.

Considering how many operating hours we have in this country with only one moderately serious accident occuring, I see nuclear power as pretty damn safe in its current configuration.

You "see" what you want to see, because for folk like you the mindset is that so long as there is no immediate death or destruction, all is well. Unfortunately, anyone with a high school GED reading capablity can follow the trail and see otherwise. Here's a starter kit for you...you can pick out the national related incidences history of nuke power plant lies - Google Search

First off, you want documentation of lying and covering up......obviously you DID NOT read the article, which covers an aspect of that. So you're being willfully ignorant on the subject as well as disingenuous, because the NRA is suppose to REGULATE....it's not set up to eliminate, as you falsely claim. The article shows how that is NOT being done.

And PUH-LEEZE spare me the nuke mantra about 3 Mile Island. The first thing that the NRC (nuclear regulatory commission) will tell you is that the worst nuclear plant disaster that happened in the USA resulted in NO loss of life or property (Three Mile Island back in 1979) with no negative side effects or problems years later….which is not entirely true

Three Mile Island - 25 Years Later

Three Mile Island Leak: Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Investigate - ABC News

So cut the crap, read the article and then debate the issue with me honestly.

One, you link is gone, Two, Huffpo is as good of a source for issues of nuclear regulation as Cosmo is.

Three, ive read most of the crap on TMI being worse than people say it was, Conspiracy theory at its finest.

Also, even if some regluations have been relaxed, we were shown how well the oversight of these plants works by the stuff that happened up in Missouri. Worst flooding in 200 years and the plant staff reacted perfectly. No problems, No releases, no real damage.

1) the links work fine from my end....so either it's your computer, a temporary glitch or you didn't bother reading the material linked.

2) Repeating your bluff and BS to cover the FACT that YOU DIDN'T READ THE MATERIAL PRESENTED in ANY of my links does NOT jusitfy or prove any of your opinion, supposition or conjecture.

3) That Missouri dodged a bullet by the grace of God (waters receding at the opportune time regarding the nuke plant) DOES NOT ERASE all the information that YOU REFUSE TO READ. Again, your willful ignorance is no excuse or proof that your opinion is justified.

NRC Regulators Scrutinize Nebraska Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com

 

[taichiliberal]

I had to do a little research for a book. What I cam across may be relevant to this discussion. I don't want to overload so I'll just cite a couple recent incidents within the last year or so:

On February 4, 2010, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant reported that ground water samples from a newly dug monitoring well at the reactor site were found to contain about 775,000 pCi of tritium per liter (more than 37 times the federal limit). On February 5, 2010, samples from an underground vault were found to contain 2.7 million pCi/l.[29] On February 14, 2010, the source of the leak was found to be a pair of steam pipes inside the Advanced Off-Gas (AOG) pipe tunnel.


The Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant sits fifty miles north of the center of New York City, on the Hudson River, in the city of Buchanan. The original reactor was closed in 1974 because the emergency core cooling system failed to meet requirements. The second reactor was opened in 1974 and the third in 1976.
Within five years of opening, it was discovered that over 100,000 gallons of water from the Hudson River had leaked into the IP2 containment building. Entergy paid a fine and it was back to business as usual.
In 2005, Entergy workers discovered a leak in the spent fuel pool that was going into the Hudson River. It was repaired and back to business as usual. No fine was incurred.
In January 2010, six hundred thousand gallons of radioactive steam was intentionally let into the atmosphere by Entergy after an “automatic shutdown” of the IP2 Reactor. It was determined the radioactivity wasn’t high enough to warrant a fine or any other kind of discipline.
In November of 2010, an explosion occurred at the IP2 Reactor main transformer. Entergy officials released statements, that at no time was the public in any danger and the incident was closed.
One year after 9/11, an investigative journalist began interviewing guards about the security of the plant and whether or not it could repel an attack from terrorists. His findings shocked the nation.
Entergy admitted to having guards work six, twelve hour shifts per week. The guards admitted they were out of shape and that during the simulated attacks, no more than three mock attackers were used, the guards were given their routes in advance and they still failed often.
“The simulations were rigged so that the company could say we are secure but we’re not even close.”
A guard who had worked at the plant for over five years and was in charge of training other guards said they received no meaningful training in tactics. ''There's no ability to act together as a team,'' he said. ''The testing is a joke. An armed assault on the plant cannot be stopped. It's that simple.''
An Entergy spokesman said “This is what is required of us by the N.R.C., and we meet those requirements.''
The company built a new fence, installed a few new cameras and hired some additional guards. Otherwise, not much had changed. It was back to business as usual.


I personally think American Nuke power is pretty safe but stuff like this does have me thinking we could be "better safe than sorry". So I wouldn't have a problem with some regs and updated requirements.

The problem with shutting down Indian point is that NYC will then have a deficit of 1,300 MW (20% normal load) that will have to be made up somewhere else. If people wanted Indian point shut down they should have started building a new plant 6 years ago.

Solar and Wind will not be able to make that up, so it will either mean NYC will have to buy power from further away, or build more coal/oil/gas plants.

Actions have consequences.

No one said it would be easy, and yes, actions have consequences. But it's not impossible: YOU should stop making blanket statements that are based more on your opinion than fact:


Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down?

Should Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Be Shut Down? | State Room | THIRTEEN


This report presents the work of the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs. It reviews the options that are available and assesses the feasibility of installing them on a scale sufficient to replace the 2,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Indian Point Energy Center.

Alternatives to the Indian Point Energy Center for Meeting New York Electric Power Needs