Panel: Japan-level nuclear crisis possible at San Onofre

[flamingdem]

http://www.ocregister.com/news/san-321567-onofre-nuclear.html

San Clemente City Council hosts a nearly five-hour community meeting featuring speakers organized by San Clemente Green on lessons learned from Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster.

==
At Tuesday's community meeting, Arnold Gunderson, an energy advisor and former licensed nuclear operator, said epidemiologists have told him that as many as 1 million Japanese will develop cancers over the next 20 years as a result of Fukushima's radioactive releases.

Dr. William Perkins, a retired pediatrician with Physicians for Social Responsibility, cited a 1982 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report that he said stated that a San Onofre meltdown could result in 130,000 prompt fatalities, 300,000 latent cancers and 600,000 cases of genetic defects within 35 miles.

Southern California Edison's spokesman Gil Alexander sat through Tuesday's presentations but said that Edison would make no comment, having had its chance to speak to the City Council two weeks earlier. On Sept. 27, Edison said San Onofre is much better designed to withstand an earthquake and tsunami than Fukushima, and the emergency planning committee said it believes it's possible to evacuate a 10-mile radius around San Onofre with coordinated plans in place.

[izquierdista]

1. Well, Duhhhh!

It's built on the beach. It's less than 500 feet from the high tide line. It was sited as if tsunamis were unknown in the Pacific Ocean.

[drm604]

2. Will it be possible to evacuate a 10-mile radius after a major earthquake?

:shrug:

[flamingdem]

3. What's clear is that if the major blast of radiation comes quickly

as it did with Fukushima due to the blasts, people will be radiologically cooked before evacuation even begins.

[TheWraith]

4. Right, because people are just dropping dead like flies around Fukushima.

Oh wait, you mean the doses released were so minor as to have virtually no impact? Gosh, maybe we shouldn't listen to people like Arnie Gundersen whose income depends on terrifying people about nuclear power.

[flamingdem]

5. Please show your research regarding the health effects on people around Fukushima

You're just making claims, and that makes you sound biased but not willing to do the work to build a case. There are many articles on the subject so please site a few that back your claims.

[FBaggins]

7. The burden of proof is on you.

There has not been a single reported dose that indicates a likelihood of a significant health impact. There have only been a handful of reported doses (all from workers actually at the plant) which can be associated with even a tiny increased risk of cancer later in life.

There can be little doubt that there will be some small increase in thyroid cancers amoung children in the most exposed areas, but no reported dose to date demonstrates even that conclusively.


A million additional cancers over the next couple decades is beyond pure fantasy.

[flamingdem]

8. Oh I didn't know you are the spokesman for "TheWraith"

how nice for him not to have to answer with refuting information from reliable sources.

[FBaggins]

9. I didn't realize that you could limit who could point out how ridiculous your posts were.

Though I can imagine why you might wish to.

Your post suffers from a bad case of burden of proof fallacy. I can see why you wouldn't want that pointed out... but I don't see why anyone else should care about your preference.

There isn't a need for "reliable sources" to "refute" your post because it was nonsense on its face. You claimed that if the burst came as it did at Fukushima, people would be "radiologically cooked" before an evacuation could even start.

Obviously whatever form of "burst" happened at Fukushima... it was exactly like Fukushima... and nobody got "radiologically cooked" before any evacuation began. And don't spin some nonsense about the direction of the wind... the people at the plant were also "uncooked" and none of them ende up with the short-term results that this BS "panel" claims would happen.

[kristopher]

10. Can you guarantee the winds will be blowing away from population centers?

If not, your position is a load of horsehockey.

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish? This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."
-Naoto Kan Sept 201
Prime MInister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

[FBaggins]

12. Were the people IN the plant downwind of the plant they were IN?

You didn't even read what you replied to, did you?

[wtmusic]

25. Being cooked by a branch of medicine, or by a radio?

What on earth are you trying to sound like you're trying to say? :rofl:

[FBaggins]

6. "Panel" lies.

More accurate title.

Dr. William Perkins, a retired pediatrician

Retired pediatricians apparently are experts on the impact of radiation.

cited a 1982 Nuclear Regulatory Commission report that he said stated that a San Onofre meltdown could result in 130,000 prompt fatalities

Fukushima disproved that nonsense pretty clearly, wouldn't you say?

How many prompt fatalities were there?

- The earthquake that struck Fukushima was 100 times stronger than the strongest earthquake estimated for San Onofre
- It occured on a fault line more prone to tsunami (and to larger tsunami that have no history of occuring in S. Calif).
- San Onofre doesn't have generators vulnerable to such a tsunami and
- has a gravity-driven cooling system that Fukushima lacked.
- Fukushima had three meltdowns

All these ways in which Fukushima was worse than what could happen at San Onofre (due to earthquake/tsunami) yet there have been precisely zero radiation fatalities almost seven months later... let alone "prompt fatalities"... yet they expect to spin that 130,000?

[kristopher]

11. The nuclear industry thanks you for the distortions you've presented on its behalf.

"The earthquake that struck Fukushima was 100 times stronger than the strongest earthquake estimated for San Onofre"

Prove it. What we KNOW according to Tepco is that the earthquake that struck the power plant at Fukushima was just barely above design specifications - and then only in one direction of motion.
Is it your assertion that the Fukushima power plant was designed with and built to specifications 100 times stronger than the San Onofre plant?


Can you assure that winds will blow away from the population centers around San Onofre when it meltsdown, as by luck they were doing during the worst of Fukushima?

[FBaggins]

13. So you tire quickly of one burden of proof fallacy so you decide to start one of your own?

What a shocker.

What we KNOW according to Tepco is that the earthquake that struck the power plant at Fukushima was just barely above design specifications

And the earthquake didn't cause the meltdowns. The tsunami that did, however, was caused by an earthquake ~100 as large as the estimates for the area. And San Onofre's diesel generators are 30 feet above the 30-ft sea wall.

Facts matter. You should try some on occasion.

[kristopher]

14. "The earthquake didn't cause the meltdown"

That is contradicted by eyewitness accounts of major damage to coolant piping from employees that were inside the plant at the time. The condition of the torus also makes the claim that the plant survived the earthquake dubious.

The burden of proof is on you.

Edit to add: I forgot to point out that you've moved your goalpost. You wrote that "The earthquake that struck Fukushima was 100 times stronger than the strongest earthquake estimated for San Onofre". You are obviously trying to say that San Onofre is not suubject to earthquakes of the same intensity as hit Fukushima. That is false and was proven by the actual strength of the earthquake that Fukushima experienced. Your attempt to use measurements from 50 miles away is standard deception from the nuclear industry.

[FBaggins]

15. No. It isn't "contracted by eyewitness accounts"

"Damage to piping" (entirely unspecified, let alone "major") does not mean that a reactor will melt down.

The condition of the torus also makes the claim that the plant survived the earthquake dubious.

Because the reported noise/explosion loooong after the tsunami had nothing to do with it, right?

You never answered the VERY simple question the last time you tried this BS. There were other reactors hit by similar-strength shaking on that same day... and MANY japanes reactors hit by similar-sized quakes in other events... yet NONE of them melted down. And miraculously, THREE reactors right next to each other ALL melted down at Fukushima.

You don't think there's reason to look at what those three share that the others didn't?

The burden of proof is on you.

Nope. You obviously don't understand the fallacy. You claim (based entirely on hearsay and contrary to all reporting) that the earthquakes caused the meltdowns and insist that anyone denying that claim now has the burden of proof.

Edit to add: I forgot to point out that you've moved your goalpost. You wrote that "The earthquake that struck Fukushima was 100 times stronger than the strongest earthquake estimated for San Onofre". You are obviously trying to say that San Onofre is not suubject to earthquakes of the same intensity as hit Fukushima.

Nope. Because the earthquake didn't cause the meltdowns. It caused the tsunami that caused the generator failure that caused the meltdowns. It's the strength of the earthquake at it's source that matters in that case, not what it was at a given point.

[kristopher]

16. So the 5 empty chambers are what make the game of Russian Roulette what it is?

[FBaggins]

17. Lol! So your reply is that it was just a coincidence?

Pure chance that similar earthquakes never caused a meltdown but this one cause three. Couldn't have anything to do with the tsunami damage and loss of backup power. Nah!

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

[kristopher]

20. Not at all...

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish? This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."
-Naoto Kan Sept 201
Prime MInister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

The fundamental problem with nuclear is the complexity of the system that is required by the attempt to prevent the catastrophe associated with failure. The entire premise is a self-defeating concept. Failures such as those caused by the earthquake are not limited to situations where all other variables are favorable to the effort to contain the problem. For example, the fact that this wasn't a far, far worse event was determined by nothing but luck. Had the winds been steady out of the NNE instead of out of the W there would have been tens of millions of people exposed to very high levels of fallout and it is probable that Tokyo would have required evacuation.

Luck isn't the guarantee of safety most people expect.

Reactors could fail during an earthquake, maker says
By staff and wire reports
Friday, September 30, 2011

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said 35 reactors it built for utilities from New York to Washington may not shut down properly during an earthquake. The likelihood of failure is "low," the company said in an advisory to customers on additional actions to take.
GE Hitachi, which made First Energy Corp.'s Perry, Ohio, plant on Lake Erie, about 120 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, and Exelon Corp.'s Oyster Creek plant in New Jersey, is recommending testing to determine what level of friction would prevent control rods from fully inserting into the reactor core during an earthquake, according to filings with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
"There is no discussion of a recall of any control rods at this point," Neil Sheehan, a Philadelphia-based spokesman for the commission, said in an e-mail. "The focus is on testing as evaluations continue on whether any modifications are necessary."
The issue is contained in a series of reports to the federal agency dating to December 2010, Sheehan said. The affected plants don't include Dominion Resources Inc.'s North Anna in Virginia, which remains shut because of a 5.8 magnitude earthquake centered 11 miles away on Aug. 23.

The issue ...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_759421.html


From another article on the topic of this company report. "The malfunctions are caused by a complex interaction of factors."

And the simple fact is that we do not need nuclear power. Period.

Renewable energy can power the world, says landmark IPCC study
UN's climate change science body says renewables supply, particularly solar power, can meet global demand
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/ipcc-renewable-energy-power-world

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Full Special Report on Renewable Energy
Dial-up warning - 28MB file
Full report available for download here: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Full_Report

[kristopher]

18. Simply put, we don't need to accept the risks and costs associated with nuclear

German: Going nuclear-free possible

By Susan Smallheer
Staff Writer - Published: October 12, 2011


BRATTLEBORO — If Germany can do it, Vermont can do it — and sooner.

That was the message Monday night from Jochen Flasbarth, the head of the German environmental agency, who told 50 activists that Vermont and Germany had a lot in common when it came to nuclear power and the push toward a different energy mix.

Germany decided earlier this year that it would go nuclear-free by 2022 in the wake of the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan. Vermont Yankee, which provides about one-third of Vermont’s electric load, is scheduled to shut down in five months.

Germany, which is half the size of Texas and home to about 80 million people, receives about 20 percent of its power from nuclear power, a percentage roughly similar to the United States. Earlier this year, the German government voted to shut down all its nuclear plants by 2022....

Flasbarth, who is president of the German Federal Environmental Agency...

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20111012/NEWS02/710129930/1003/NEWS02

[FBaggins]

19. Even more simply put, it has cost Germany a TON of money.

Does Vermont have extra to spend right now?

And Solar insolation in Germany's winter, poor as it is, is much better than in Vermont.

[kristopher]

21. 370,000 green energy jobs

"He said more than 370,000 jobs have been created in Germany in the past four years in green energy companies. By contrast, he said, 20,000 people work in the nuclear industry, and 22,000 in coal."

[FBaggins]

22. How many of them in China now?

And how much did each job cost?

"Green energy used to be Germany's great hope for its economic future. But now the German solar industry is in trouble amid huge losses, job cuts and the threat of bankruptcies."

Don't worry... I don't actually expect you to answer. Just like your #21.

Maybe you could post some photos of Davis Besse's head?

[wtmusic]

23. Maybe calling himself "Arnold" will give him the respectability he so richly deserves.

Arnie Gunderson and a retired pediatrician. How pathetic.

Can they sing, or dance? What on earth would move anyone to listen to those buffoons for five hours?

[kristopher]

24. What's pathetic are the tactics of personal destruction practiced by nuclear proponents.

You have no case on the merits of the technology so you have to resort to Republican style misinformation and sleaze.