Town Finds Good Neighbor in Nuclear Plant

[wtmusic]

"VERNON, Vt. — "A storm knocked out Kathleen Halvey’s power for eight hours last Wednesday, an event she found both disruptive and prescient. The plant is a major source of jobs in the farming town of 2,100 people and provides a hefty tax break.

'I said to my husband, '"This is what it will be like without Vermont Yankee,"' Ms. Halvey, 65, a retired nurse, recalled saying on the day the State Senate voted to close the plant here by withholding its operating certificate.

Vermont would lose the source of one-third of its electricity, but residents say the move would forever change Vernon, the small town on the Connecticut River that has been the reactor’s home for 38 years.

'It will ruin this town,' said Robert Miller, 49, who works in an auto body shop and serves on the Vernon Selectboard."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/us/04vernon.html?em

Yay! Concerned citizens who live nowhere near VY have shut it down!

[Statistical]

1. It is too bad. It will destroy that town.

Roughly one third of the town is nuclear plant employees and salaries are high ($40K to $100K isn't uncommon). Most of them have good chance getting hired on at new plants being constructed.

[wroberts189]

2. Radioactive tritium leaking from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant believed to have reached ....

Concerned people do not have to live by it to be affected.


------------------

Radioactive tritium leaking from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant believed to have reached Connecticut River

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/radioactive_tritium_leaking_fr.html



Tritium leak confirmed at Vermont Yankee nuclear plant

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/northeastnews/ci_14451854

Plant officials admitted last month that they had misled state officials -- sometimes under oath -- by saying the plant did not have the sort of underground pipes that could carry tritium.

[wtmusic]

4. Insignificant. nt

[kristopher]

5. For an idea of how WT identifies relevant risk...

Go to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x234405 and read the subthread starting with post #9.

[NNadir]

9. There is NIOT ONE person in that town who has a much physiological tritium as a banana has radio-

potassium.

The anti-nuke industry has produced not a SHRED of evidence to the contrary. What they have produced is fear mongering based on ignorance.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke who can compare the radiotoxicity of tritium with that of a banana, because there is NOT ONE who knows any nuclear science whatsover.

All of them are the moral and intellectual equivalents of creationists.

The fucking dangerous fossil fuel industry - the industry that owns the dangerous anti-nuke industry lock, stock and barrel (barrels I might add of filthy toxic stuff) on the other hand, has put detectable - and often fatal dangerous fossil fuel waste in every citizen of this country.

If you don't know what you're talking about, make stuff up.

This action by ignorant people - destroying billion dollar infrastructure that is harmless and replacing it with filthy infrastructure that is EXTREMELY harmful will kill not just the town, it will kill people.

[wroberts189]

13. Yeah I figured someone would come along and say that...

I agree with you on coal/fossil fuels but I did not make anything up... I just posted links. I live off the CT river and do not want this in my ground water.

If we had invested in solar when we had the chance we would not be debating this. Already records are being smashed as far as efficiency and cost are concerned in regards to solar and new photosynthesis tech. .


****four times the Environmental Protection Agency's safety limit for tritium in the drinking water*****


Tritium levels at Vermont Yankee the highest yet
February 02, 2010

2010-02-02 19:09:00 PST Montpelier, VT 05602, United States — (02-02) 19:09 PST Montpelier, Vt. (AP) --

Officials at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant say they have found the highest readings yet of radioactive tritium in a monitoring well at the Vernon reactor.

Plant spokesman Robert Williams said Tuesday that a recently dug monitoring well has turned up a reading of 80,458 picocuries per liter. That is up nearly 10,000 from a reading reported Monday morning and is four times the Environmental Protection Agency's safety limit for tritium in the drinking water.



http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-02/business/17855758_1_tritium-drinking-water-plant-officials

[TheWraith]

17. Not quite.

"If we had invested in solar when we had the chance we would not be debating this. Already records are being smashed as far as efficiency and cost are concerned in regards to solar and new photosynthesis tech."

Not anywhere other than press releases. Real world solar power costs are still several times higher than competing forms of energy, including nuclear.

[wtmusic]

20. If you were planning on drinking the well water from VY you should be concerned.

Otherwise there is no public health issue. None.

By opposing VY you are by default endorsing coal, which has a huge public health issue.

[kristopher]

3. That is a false argument - central generation, particularly nuclear is more subject to failure

The problem is that people tend to see individual power plants as the source of energy rather than the grid, which is comprised of thousands of power plants.

The more distributed the sources of generation, the more reliable the grid and thus the supply of power to individuals.

http://www.dg.history.vt.edu/ch1/benefits.html

http://www.oe.energy.gov/epa_sec1817.htm

Section 1817 of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 2005 calls for the Secretary of Energy to conduct a
study of the potential benefits of cogeneration and small power production, otherwise known as
distributed generation, or DG. The benefits to be studied are described in subpart (2)(A) of Section 1817.
In accordance with Section 1817 the study includes those benefits received “either directly or indirectly
by an electricity distribution or transmission service provider, other customers served by an electricity
distribution or transmission service provider and/or the general public in the area served by the public
utility in which the cogenerator or small power producer is located.” Congress did not require the study to
include the potential benefits to owners/operators of DG units.1 The specific areas of potential benefits
covered in this study include:
• Increased electric system reliability (Section 2 of the Study)
• An emergency supply of power (Section 2 and 7 of the Study)
• Reduction of peak power requirements (Section 3 of the Study)
• Offsets to investments in generation, transmission, or distribution facilities that would otherwise
be recovered through rates (Section 3 of the Study)
• Provision of ancillary services, including reactive power (Section 4 of the Study)
• Improvements in power quality (Section 5 of the Study)
• Reductions in land-use effects and rights-of-way acquisition costs (Section 6 of the Study)
• Reduction in vulnerability to terrorism and improvements in infrastructure resilience (Section 7 of
the Study)

[SlingBlade]

6. They claimed as the radioactive glow blinded bystanders

[Dead_Parrot]

7. It's an interesting juxtaposition:

Everybody hates nuclear, except those who live near it;
Everybody loves wind, except those who live near it.

(Huge generalisations :evilgrin:)

[kristopher]

8. Not generalizations, just false statements.

Nuclear plants have been around long enough to have driven away anyone except Homer Simpson. The objections to wind are largely astroturf outrage manufactured by the coal and nuclear lobbiss.

[Historic NY]

10. Wait until the utility bills go threw the roof and they will.

[PavePusher]

11. Anyone concerned about radiation leaks from fission plants...

really needs to take a geiger counter over a pile of coal ash some day.

Be prepared to walk away. Quickly.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410 (for balance)



Just Google 'coal ash, radioactivity'.

[kristopher]

12. There is no equivalency between coal ash and nuclear waste/leaks

And your final source bears posting: "The idea that coal ash is 100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste has been making the rounds among bloggers and Twitterers discussing the coal ash catastrophe in Tennessee, thanks to a headline which makes that assertion in Scientific American online. In fact, Google the words in the headline and you’ll come up with dozens of Web sites that have repeated this statement.

The problem is that it is a profoundly preposterous idea unsupported by a single shred of evidence."

http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

And the most appropriate comment, "Everybody makes mistakes if they work hard enough and live long enough. It is an inevitable function of life. The importnt thing to do is to correct them as soon as possible and as publicly as possible. That’s what you’ve done. Your transparency is really appreciated. The fly ash/nuclear waste comparison is a lie that the nuclear industry has been pushing for years. It’s too bad that Scientific American gave it credibility and I share your hope that they will make amends with a clear version of the truth. Congratulations on a good lesson in investigative and honest journalism."



Thanks for the link.

[PavePusher]

14. You are correct...

in that fly ash is not more radioactive than nuclear waste, but the point is that we tolerate a lot more radioactivity from coal waste than we do from even minor nuc plant leakage or accidents.

And that is precisely why I included that link.

[bananas]

16. We tolerate a lot more radioactivity from nuclear plant releases.

It's even worse when you add in the radioactivity released during mining, milling, and enriching the uranium ore.
This has been discussed here a number of times:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=229124&mesg_id=229296

struggle4progress Sat Feb-06-10 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #77

83. In #81 above, I point out three releases in 2004 from US nuclear sites,
each of which is about the same size as the total radioactivity released annually worldwide from U and Th and their daughters in coal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3592611&mesg_id=3592910

struggle4progress Sun Nov-09-08 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #13

17. Radioactivity releases from nuclear operations dwarf radioactivity releases from coal

<snip>

Thus the local radioactivity releases from Chernobyl and TMI correspond respectively to about 375000 and 9000 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. The local radioactivity release from Pickering for 1981 corresponds to about 75 years of burning coal worldwide at the current rate. Note that I have mentioned only two incidents at two plants and one year at a third for nuclear, disregarding releases from fuel manufacture and waste handling -- while for coal I am discussing worldwide nuclear emissions from all plants

<snip>

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. VERMONT TOWN HALLS WENT 14-1 FOR CLOSURE OF VERMONT YANKEE REACTOR...

http://www.civilsocietyinstitute.org/media/030410release.cfm

VERMONT TOWN HALLS WENT 14-1 FOR CLOSURE OF VERMONT YANKEE REACTOR, AS ANTICIPATED BY CIVIL SOCIETY INSTITUTE OPINION SURVEY

CSI Poll Released on Eve of Town Hall Meetings Found Tritium Leaks Pushing Two Thirds of Vermonters to Favor Closure of Reactor by 2012, Only 9 Percent Picking Nuclear to Power Home.

MONTPELIER, VT.///March 4, 2010///As predicted based on a survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the nonpartisan and nonprofit Civil Society Institute, the vast majority of Vermont Town Halls deliberating this week the fate of the Vermont Yankee came out in support of closure of the controversial nuclear reactor by 2012. The final tally of Town Halls in Vermont opposing the relicensing of Vermont Yankee was 14-1.

The town of Rockingham was alone in passing a pro-Vermont Yankee resolution and, even then, only by a margin of three votes, according to reports. Towns voting in favor of shutting down Vermont Yankee were: Thetford, Bristol, Fayston, Brookfield, Montgomery, Woodstock, Moretown, Waitsfield, Danville, Cabot, Huntington, Sharon and Jamaica. Additionally, Cambridge elected to table the issue.

Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: “Our survey pointed to the likelihood that the Vermont Town Halls would come out along the lines of the earlier Vermont Senate vote to close Vermont Yankee by 2012. With literally dozens of other reactors plagued with similar tritium leaks, we see a clear message here for a U.S. nuclear power industry: You can’t sell Americans on the notion that you are providing ‘clean and safe’ power at the same time that you are leaking a radioactive substance into wells and other bodies of water. Citizens in other states may not be able to intervene as directly in reactor issues as Vermonters can, but the Town Hall votes and our survey findings suggest that Americans are unlikely to remain silent about tritium leaks and other legitimate safety concerns.”

The Civil Society Institute’s scientific survey of 802 adult Vermont residents was based on Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) polling that took place February 19-22nd immediately before the Vermont Senate vote on Vermont Yankee relicensing. CSI believes that the findings resonate nationally in that a main driver of deteriorating public support for Vermont Yankee centered on the leaking of radioactive tritium, a problem that also is playing out at 27 or more of the nation’s 104 reactors across 31 states.

Key survey findings reported by Opinion Research Corporation included the following:

• About two thirds of Vermont residents (65 percent) say “reports about Vermont Yankee leaking radioactive tritium into testing wells and surrounding water” make them “more likely to support the 2012 closure of the reactor.” That includes 44 percent of Republicans, 80 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Independents.
• Of those Vermont residents who heard about the radioactive tritium leak at Vermont Yankee, nearly four in five (79 percent) said they are concerned about it, including more than half (52 percent) who are “very concerned.” Only about one in five (21 percent) of this group said that they were not concerned, with just 6 percent saying they were “not concerned at all.” Even when the 20 percent of state residents who have not heard about the tritium leak are added, the percentage of all state residents who are concerned about the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee still accounts for 63 percent of the state’s adult population.
• Overall, 71 percent of state residents are “less supportive now of Vermont Yankee, the nuclear reactor, than were six months ago.” That includes 57 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and two thirds of Independents.
• Given a choice, fewer than one in 10 Vermont residents (9 percent) would ask their power company to use nuclear energy to power their homes, compared to 71 percent who selected “wind, solar and other clean-energy technologies.”
• The fact that Entergy has been unable to find the source of the tritium leaks makes more than three out of four Vermont residents (76 percent) “less confident in the company’s ability to safely manage a nuclear reactor”.
• About half of Vermont residents (49 percent) see nuclear power as a “power source of yesterday,” compared to compared to 94 percent for solar, 92 percent for wind and 78 percent for hydroelectric as “power sources of tomorrow” that should play a bigger, rather than smaller, role in the U.S. energy supply picture.
• Nine out of 10 Vermont residents (89 percent) say that Entergy – not Vermont taxpayers - “should have to foot the bill for decommissioning Vermont Yankee.” That includes 83 percent of Republicans, 94 percent of Democrats and 90 percent of Independents.
• 68 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of Vermont Yankee in 2012 “assuming that a combination of increased energy efficiency, clean energy, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar and natural gas could be used to offset the electricity from the reactor.” That includes 48 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents.
• 71 percent of Vermont residents would support closure of Vermont Yankee in 2012 “assuming that many new jobs could be created through investments in new clean energy technologies, such as hydroelectric, wind and solar.” That includes 47 percent of Republicans, 86 percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Independents.
• Only 46 percent of state residents trust Entergy to clean up the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee, compared to 47 percent who do not.
• Two thirds of Vermonters now give Entergy a low rating for “trustworthiness” – with 37 percent saying “very low” and 29 percent “somewhat low.”Only about one in four state residents (26 percent) give Entergy high marks for trustworthiness.
• Nearly three out five state residents (58 percent) give Entergy low marks for “competence” – with 26 percent saying “very low” and 33 percent “somewhat low.”Fewer than one in three (29 percent) give Entergy high marks for competence.
• Four out of five state residents (79 percent) have heard about the tritium leaks at Vermont Yankee. Only 20 percent have not.

For complete survey findings, go to http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org on the Web.

...

[wtmusic]

18. LOL and they all live nowhere near it. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Vermont isn't that big a state

Everyone lives near it.

[wtmusic]

21. And the US isn't that big a country

Is that why you oppose it?

The people who live nearest the reactor, and are exposed to the greatest "risk", are the least concerned about safety. The people who live farther away are the least concerned about the 1,200 lost jobs, $93M in payroll, and (for the moment anyway) 30% higher electricity prices statewide.

Just goes to show: opposition to nuclear is ideological dogma without any foundation in reality.

[OKIsItJustMe]

22. The people who live closest appreciate what it does for their economy

The same could be said of mining towns. "Why, if people stop burning coal, our town will be ruined!"

Or tobacco farmers. "Cigarettes don't kill anybody. They just want to ruin us poor farmers."

[wtmusic]

23. Unlike the millions killed by tobacco or coal smoke

there isn't any evidence that tritium has harmed anyone. Ever.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. I didn't claim anyone had been killed by tritium

You're making the case that Vermont Yankee is beloved by its neighbors, so Nuclear Power must be innocuous.

I'm saying that doesn't follow.

[wtmusic]

25. No, I'm making the case that VY is beloved by its neighbors AND is innocuous.

Unless you can demonstrate how VY has harmed anyone at any time it is, by definition, innocuous. You get credit for the false sequitur, and the inclusion of nuclear power as a whole.

By proximity, the town of Vernon is obviously more at risk than any other community in the state of Vermont. So unless you're asserting that its citizens are willing to accept a truly significant risk of radiation poisoning to make a buck, it's also obvious they feel a significant risk doesn't exist.

For reasons already stated, dragging coal and tobacco into the fray is a classic straw man, which seems to be a favorite tool in your chest of late.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. It was not my intention to construct a straw man. I was using anologies.

I was merely pointing out that economic factors have a way of shaping people's thinking.

In this case, the economy of the small neighboring town depends heavily on the plant. So, people don't want to see it go. (Those who feared it probably left years ago.)