1. Breathlessly…

    “But we got it from a FOIA request, so it must be true!”

    There are many things the NRC doesn’t release under FOIA, just for this very reason (incomplete unfinished unverified info). Seems changing their rules for this issue is just adding to their headaches

    1. Its was a reasonable policy. As demonstrated here. Its strange they would change it.

      Perhaps they were ordered to and/or the brilliance of the enlightened UCS coddled leadership is showing again.

      “5 lethal doses myth” – thats more interesting than what it is as it sounds like a possible lead in for a taoist charm, but anyway

      “Please gently correct the people who have mistakenly believed the rumor. ”

      Alas I cannot and dont see the lack of follow up/verification on their part as being forgivable considering the absolute sordid abject grossness of the heaping spectacles of past transgressions as numerous and as far as the eye can see, so, I will flutter to… elsewhere, before another one of my unfortunate outbursts occurs.

  2. Seriously though, as part of their emergency plan, NRC includes media monitoring and rumor control. So if a crazy rumor made it to the media, it would appear in their logs.

  3. So what if there were 5 lethal doses. Maybe you should just put up a sign “Nobody ever died from FISSION” and continue making wild promises you can’t keep.

    1. Who made what promises? Back in Wayne-Ford Hollywood, only the bad guys wanted the good guys to die. Then the Greens took an RPG to Superphenix. Now this. What’s happened???

  4. This is the first time I have heard of this “5 lethal doses” thing. I guess confirmation bias has a very low credibility hurdle when it comes to the anti-nuclear camp.

  5. By the way, can I ask what the main anti-nuclear websites are? I’d like to keep track of their thinking, and the only one I know about is ENE news. Which by the way is dreadful.

    1. There are no anti-nuclear *fusion* websites. It is the technologically backward fission that is the enemy of progress. Quit lumping the two together under the umbrella term ‘nuclear’

    2. I like EnviroReporter.com 🙂

      Comparing bananas and airplane rides to the radioactive contamination that continues nonstop with no end in sight from Fukushima is a disservice to every living thing.

      1. @ChasAha

        Comparing bananas and airplane rides to the radioactive contamination that continues nonstop with no end in sight from Fukushima is a disservice to every living thing.

        What makes you say that? Bananas and airplane rides don’t stop exposing people to low levels of radiation either. They are also going to continue “nonstop with no end in sight.”

        Despite all of the hype, the radioactive contamination levels of sea water more than about 500 meters off of the shore of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station have never exceeded the international standards for drinking water. Of course, no one drinks directly from the ocean anyway.

        Sure, there have been measurements, but that is only because it is so darned easy to measure exceedingly tiny levels of radioactive isotopes.

    1. I have no idea what that is about.

      Anyway just search the names and the sites will come up – there is ENENEWS, Fukushima Diary, Nuclear Greenpeace International, UCS . Then there are anti nuke circles at many of the democratic political news sites.

      Heheh I enjoyed listing that useless bunch in the same sentence. I see the greenpeace jailbirds have been busy again lately. But if you want the big list of groups just google ” Anti-nuclear groups in the United States “.

      1. A couple years ago, my plant had to drain their de-ionized water tank to fix a leak. Greenpeace got wind of this, started yelling that there was a “tritium spill” at the plant, and parked a boat out on the lake in front of the plant blaring hippie music for a couple days straight (which some of it I didn’t mind). That is the level of honest discourse that comes from that group.

        1. “….and parked a boat out on the lake in front of the plant blaring hippie music for a couple days straight….”

          Define “hippie music”.

      2. Concern is growing about people like George Soros, and the number of groups he funds, some indirectly, and his apparent attempt to decide the types of information people have a ‘need to know’. He has the power and finances to sway public opinion, on many topics. He is against nuclear energy, which is not surprising as he is heavily into ‘green coal’.
        So as well as web sites, there are numerous talk shows that reach millions of people that are pushing the most ridiculous unscientific tripe you can imagine, but people seem to lap it up. Rense radio, Coast to Coast AM, even Russia Today (RT), a very popular site with a big audience is still pushing Fukushima as a world destroying event.
        Only by spending an amount of money equivalent to that which Soros spends to influence, control, our buy outright anyone he pleases could possibly stop what I see as a steadily growing dislike of nuclear energy, and that’s a lot of money I don’t think will be forthcoming.

        1. @garyn

          Russia Today (RT), a very popular site with a big audience is still pushing Fukushima as a world destroying event.

          RT is not a Soros vehicle. Remember, it stands for Russia Today. Yesterday I read or heard a description of Russia as the world’s largest oil&gas company with a formidable military machine attached.

          That is a little insulting to many of the good people who live there, but it is not a bad description of the current government and corporate structure.

          1. Sorry Rod, wasn’t suggesting Soros owned or influenced everything, though I’m sure he’d like to, but that the most money and time and media exposure seems to be devoted to putting down nuclear energy. After a couple of RT shows I complained about the nonsense being presented, and asked if they would give equal time to an opposing view point, but never heard back.
            Of course I have to keep in mind that it is perhaps the audiences that are partially responsible, as it seems that negative news such as catastrophes, disasters, world ending radiation, etc, seem to attract more visitors, which is what any media outlet is trying to do. Saying “no, Fukushima won’t hurt anyone, very low levels of radiation” isn’t going to draw the crowds.
            It is good to see a number of sources now putting out information on the realities of radiation and nuclear power, but it does not seem to be reaching the masses, and needs to be available on more heavily trafficked sites, but I doubt that is going to happen.

          2. The other thing you have to consider is that Russia Today is slanted in the interests of Russia, and Russia would prefer its oil and gas customers not to build their own domestic NPPs because then they’d not be buying anything from Russia.

  6. As I said before, I find it highly unlikely that there was a misunderstanding in this matter of discussing radiation deaths.

    I believe that these deaths did occur, and that the Japanese and Americans decided to cover them up. I believe that a likely moderated prompt criticality at Reactor 3 building (be it the MOX /used fuel pool or the reactor itself), resulted in a massive release of neutrons and 5 people took the hit.

    Also interesting that the US MOX plant, estimated to be 2500% over budget, has been killed, and will still cost the American Taxpayers 311M just to keep in “mothball” conditions. It is also clear to me that those privy to real information do now realize the dangers of the frisky neutrons in the MOX.

    1. @NP

      I’ll say one thing for you – you are stubbornly creative.

      I guess I’ll say one more thing. You are patently wrong. There were no deaths and there was no coverup.

      There is no way to hide a “moderated prompt criticality” and no way that used fuel in a racked spent fuel pool can ever go critical.

      Here’s a warning – if you attempt to post such blatantly incorrect material without finding a credible source first, you will be banned.

      By the way — I’ve been privy to “real information” for my entire career. Used to have both clearances & need to know.

    2. Yoiu think maybe the fact that it was 2500% over budget might not have been the reason behind the decision to shut down the project?

      And you fail to mention all the non-US plants that have been using MOX fuel for years and continue to use it.

  7. @NP March 13, 2014 at 10:58 AM. The US MOX plant has nothing to do with your original claim. Changing the subject is a behavior used by “trolls”; which I will assume you are not. But you slide into that territory by changing the subject in your last comment.

    We all will acknowledge “entities” cover things up, as history proves. So we agree there. Take a deep breath, calm down, and try again. We want your technical source for the “prompt criticality” that caused the deaths. Even UCS is on record saying that was not possible. Your last statement using “…a likely moderated prompt criticality at Reactor 3 building…” needs clarification. Do you mean moderated as in small/moderate or moderated in terms of fast neutrons being moderated to thermal neutrons so fission is even possible.

    The fuel configuration in either the SFP or the core (even relocated) requires thermal neutron fission to even get a self sustaining chain reaction. Neutrons born of either spontaneous fission or thermal fission in a LWR are born at fast neutron energies, thus they need to be slowed down (moderated by water) before fission can continue. Most fission neutrons pop right out at the fission event but a very small population are delayed. They are called Beta neutrons with a percentage in ballparks of .007 of the total.

    Prompt critical means the fuel is critical without waiting for the beta fraction to appear, thus it is critical on just the immediate (prompt) neutrons alone, but they all must still be moderated to slow energies to keep the fission process going. We are simply asking you to provide your data source that shows a “prompt criticality” was even physically possible in either the SFP (which retained water and all the neutron poison boron in the water) or in the core (which still retained the reconfigured control rod poison and likely little moderator).

    Explain your mechanism for prompt critical, cover up or no cover up. i.e., put up or shut up. mjd.

  8. Rod,
    Thank you for putting up with the anti-nuclear rants, it helps illustrate the depth of their misconceptions, sometimes we forget how little the average anti-nuke actually understands. Futile as most attempts to educate and inform them seem to be, I appreciate the effort put forth by mjd, yourself, and others to correct their gross conceptual errors.
    Mike Mann

    1. @Michael Mann

      Thank you for the kind words, but I need to gently disagree with you. Many people who are opposed to nuclear energy are quite well informed about its capabilities and understand the technology pretty well. In fact, it is their understanding of what the technology is capable of doing in the hands of well-trained operators, skilled managers and empowered engineers/constructors that scares the heck out of them.

      They are scared because if nuclear succeeds, their futures will be vastly different. There are some who honestly dislike the human species and prefers to make as powerless as possible. There are some who envision a pastoral world powered by trees, sun and wind and realize that successful nuclear energy will crowd out efforts to build that world. Finally, there are some who prosper in our current hydrocarbon economy and who’s capital investments or carefully developed skills would be worth less (not worthless, mind you) in the inevitable Actinide Economy.

      If I have forgotten any major groups of informed opponents, feel free to add them to the description.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts