Slashdot Mirror


Entergy Admits 2005 Tritium Leak

mdsolar writes "The leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was hit last week by a whistleblower allegation that a previous tritium leak had occurred. Now the parent company, Entergy, has admitted the occurrence of at least one prior leak to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is particularly significant for three reasons: because the leak occurred in pipes that company officials later testified under oath did not exist, because the Vermont Senate will likely soon vote to deny Entergy a needed approval to extend the power plant's license for another 20 years, and because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia."

385 comments

  1. WHAT! by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm absolutely glowing that this wasn't brought forward earlier. This is something I would never want to happen on my watch

    1. Re:WHAT! by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference being that the Tritium in luminous devices is contained and no one has lied under oath about it. I am a big supporter of nuclear power for environmental and economic reasons and I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross over this. Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that are capable of displacing fossil fuels to any extent and the last thing we need is some corporation cutting corners and getting away with it. The public's confidence in nuclear power needs to be strengthened by making damn sure these corporations are doing what they are supposed to do in order to keep these plants safe.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:WHAT! by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      seconded.
      nail em to the wall.

      This is a trivial leak but a serious matter.

    3. Re:WHAT! by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tritium is pretty safe outside your body. Not so safe inside it.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    4. Re:WHAT! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are not enough mod points in the world for your comment.

    5. Re:WHAT! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      That defines any alpha or beta emitter ;)

    6. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The public's confidence in nuclear power needs to be strengthened by making damn sure these corporations are doing what they are supposed to do in order to keep these plants safe.

      Amen!

    7. Re:WHAT! by gibbled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Kind of like bullets and knives...

    8. Re:WHAT! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

      DEATH BY SNU SNU!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Public's confidence will only be strengthened if deceptive corporations are punished. So far, I don't have much confidence... And I'm amazingly average.

    10. Re:WHAT! by vlm · · Score: 1

      Tritium is pretty safe outside your body. Not so safe inside it.

      Actually, no, its pretty harmless. Water gets peed or sweated or breathed (or whatever-d) away in a couple weeks. As a gas its virtually non-bio-reactive, and when it gets far enough away into the environment to oxidize into water, it tends to be pretty dilute.

      Compared to heavy metal compounds that permanently stay in your bones, or radioactive particles in tobacco smoke that permanently lodge in the lungs, or weird stuff that's chemically poisonous, tritium is pretty harmless. Which is probably why its widely used for lighting compasses, gunsights, signs, etc.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

      "HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment."

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    11. Re:WHAT! by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, as a gas, getting it inside you is pretty easy.

    12. Re:WHAT! by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am a big supporter of nuclear power for environmental and economic reasons and I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross over this.

      Having worked in the nuclear industry, I understand there's a lot of unreasonable fear about radiation and radioactivity. I also understand that 2.5 million picocuries per liter sounds like a huge amount, but it's closer to a drop of tritium in a swimming pool. That's a very low level of contamination.

      Even at that, lying under oath and otherwise being dishonest is not okay. Patient education and being truthful will win over time. Yes, you'll have to sometimes make expensive repairs, which you'll then pass on in the form of rate hikes. That's life in the nuclear business.

      ...I believe these guys ought to be nailed to the cross

      I'll help pound the nails.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    13. Re:WHAT! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The sentence immediately before the one you quoted was:

      As tritium is not a strong beta emitter, it is not dangerous externally, but it is a radiation hazard when inhaled, ingested via food, water, or absorbed through the skin.

      (Emphasis mine.) Heavy water containing tritium will be absorbed by your body, just like normal water. Some of it will enter your cells, where it will decay, emitting a beta particle. If you are lucky, this will be relatively harmless. If you are unlucky, it will cause cancer.

      It's widely used because of its decay characteristics. It only emits beta particles, which can be blocked by the skin. Outside of the body it is completely harmless, and the relatively short half life (around 9 years) means that disposal is not a major concern.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:WHAT! by mikerubin · · Score: 2, Funny

      would that be a Trivial Tritium Trickle?

      --
      I sat down to write a new sig tonight and all I did was make the chair warm.
    15. Re:WHAT! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that are capable of displacing fossil fuels

      What happens when the uranium runs out? Then what do we use to replace nuclear? IMHO what we should be doing is building homes and cars that are so efficient they use almost no energy. See PassivHaus or the 250 1 Liter car to see what I mean.

      We cannot continue down this unlimited power path forever. Eventually it will run out.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:WHAT! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>> I also understand that 2.5 million picocuries per liter sounds like a huge amount

      Then change your units. "The plant only leaked 0.003 millicuries per liter of water. Virtually noting."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:WHAT! by Rei · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, its pretty harmless.

      Actually, no it's not. First off, HTO is only one of the forms tritium can take, and the one with the shortest-term residency in the body. When the tritium becomes bioincorporated before ingestion, it tends to last in the body much longer. Secondly, 2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion. So once you account for the rate it leaves the body, that means a constant exposure to about 2 rem, or ~730 rem/year. The normal average dose is 360 mrem/year. So if this was your water supply, you'd be exposed to about 2000 times the normal human's exposure to radiation. If it was diluted at a 100:1 ratio, it'd still 20x your normal exposure. This, as mentioned, assumes that the tritium remains as HTO rather than becoming bioincorporated.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    18. Re:WHAT! by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only part of this article worth mentioning was the lying under oath. The tritium leak was harmless to anyone not 3 feet away when it happened. As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power it is highly unlikely that any new (and therefore more easily maintained and more efficient) reactor would do so.

      The summary reads like a troll to me, but YMMV.

    19. Re:WHAT! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>If you are lucky, this will be relatively harmless. If you are unlucky, it will cause cancer.

      And what do you think happens with the hundreds of pounds of coal particulate matter, car exhaust hydrocarbons, and ground-level ozone that you breathe every year? I'd sooner drink a drop of tritium than breathe all that crap.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:WHAT! by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The quantity of Uranium that is in higher grade ores is limited although the quantity of Uranium at lower concentrations is enormous. Fossil fuels are much more likely to run out long before Uranium does.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    21. Re:WHAT! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 2, Informative

      We cannot continue down this unlimited power path forever. Eventually it will run out.

      No way. The universe has effectively unlimited energy, although it is not always conveniently available to us at our present level of technology.

    22. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tritium in luminous"

      Is that some Tritium in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

    23. Re:WHAT! by thsths · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > What happens when the uranium runs out?

      You mean Uranium 235? There is still Uranium 238, which is very common. Then there Thorium, which is available just about everywhere. Chances are that we melt the earth before running out of Thorium, but if you still need more energy, there is always fusion.

      The sources are not the problem, the sinks are. What do you do with radioactive waste? And how do you tell the public that everything is safe when the nuclear industry is lying like Dick Cheney? Those are the real questions.

    24. Re:WHAT! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Secondly, 2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak)

      No, this leak was 2 microcuries per liter, not 2 millicuries per liter. Divide all of your effects by 1000.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    25. Re:WHAT! by AmonRa1979 · · Score: 1

      I think you're off by about 3 orders of magnitude. Isn't this 2 microcuries/liter? (2*10^6) * (1*10^-12) = 2 million picocuries = 2 microcuries.

    26. Re:WHAT! by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      The only part of this article worth mentioning was the lying under oath. The tritium leak was harmless to anyone not 3 feet away when it happened. As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power it is highly unlikely that any new (and therefore more easily maintained and more efficient) reactor would do so.

      The summary reads like a troll to me, but YMMV.

      I'm glad I scrolled down and read your post...I hate being marked redundant :)

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    27. Re:WHAT! by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, as a gas, getting it inside you is pretty easy.

      It's getting gas out that's the trick!

      Thank you, I'll be here all week!

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    28. Re:WHAT! by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's what I get for not proofreading. Both numbers above should read microcuries, both in terms of per liter and mrem per microcurie.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    29. Re:WHAT! by amorsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      What happens when the uranium runs out? Then what do we use to replace nuclear?

      Solar. If solar cost and efficiency improvements continue the way they are doing right now, we'll be fine in a hundred years, and the uranium ought to last that long. Should that fail, there's space based solar, there's fusion, there's reprocessing of fissionable material, there's all the non-solar "green" technologies (though they don't scale as wonderfully as solar).

      Our current problems are somewhat temporary, unless they kill us or make it impossible to sustain technological improvements.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    30. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion? You don't really know what you're talking about do you....

    31. Re:WHAT! by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Yes, you'll have to sometimes make expensive repairs, which you'll then pass on in the form of rate hikes. That's life in the nuclear business.

      I'm sorry, but that's actually life in any business. If you want to stay in business for long, you don't lie and you make repairs as needed.

      Taking responsibility as you have awareness will bury your name in the media, if it gets attention at all. Ignoring and denying culpability ensures public attention and disgrace. Your shareholders would rather their shares see a valley from your honesty, it's a cliff when you get caught in a lie.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    32. Re:WHAT! by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      No, a total tritium travesty.

    33. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history and given the subsidies already given to nuclear power...

      don't worry about being required to pay for any financial problems - they'll be subsidised by... <wait, who?>

    34. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history ...

      I don't believe that is correct. In 1983, WPPSS(Washington Public Power Supply System, aka whoops!) defaulted on $2.25 billion in municipal bonds. Most references call this the largest municipal bond default in history.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Implosions:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Washington_Public_Power_Supply_System

    35. Re:WHAT! by Epi-man · · Score: 1

      As for the American taxpayers being 'on the hook' for new power plants that will only happen if the plants somehow default on their loans, something no nuclear power plant has done in American history...

      I see someone else has posted the WPPSS story, I will add Marble Hill, which caused Wabash Valley Power Association to default on its loans from the REA.

    36. Re:WHAT! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      We need rest the spirit is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised.

    37. Re:WHAT! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      What happens when the uranium runs out?

      Then we use Thorium, or one of the other "iums" that are abundant on this planet. Although, we do have a 238 year supply at current consumption and efficiency rates of uranium alone. After that, we can extract uranium from seawater, the Earth's crust, and sedimentary rocks. The only reason we are not doing this now is that it is expensive, and well, we already have a 238 year supply.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    38. Re:WHAT! by vlm · · Score: 1

      2.4 liters/day (average adult water consumption) * 2 millicuries/liter (the level of this leak) * 64 mrem/mcurie (exposure for HTO ingestion) = 307 mrem/day of ingestion

      I read it was 2 microcuries total, not an unspecified amount at 2 uC/L

      Unless it was a very weird practical joke involving the office coffee maker, I'd think it difficult to consume 100% of the leak.

      I still stand by my statement. Its a relatively harmless isotope. Would you prefer eating Co-60 or one of the lead isotopes or one of the iodine isotopes? Breathe in uranium smoke? No, they're all way worse that tritium.

      I will give you credit that I tried to think of a more harmless isotope found in quantity at a typical plant, and I finally thought of noble gasses... they'll just blow away without bioreacting at all. Everything else, however, is worse.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    39. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a guess, but I would say that those items you listed don't have a half-life of hundreds of years to break down, and are only hazardous for a very short period of time.

    40. Re:WHAT! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Tuscon Electric Power also went almost bankrupt. Take it from a former stockholder.

      Nuclear power plant (corporations) can stupidly over-borrow and whatnot with the best of 'em.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    41. Re:WHAT! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There you go again applying logic and statistics to an emotional argument! >:-(

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    42. Re:WHAT! by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that's actually life in any business. If you want to stay in business for long, you don't lie and you make repairs as needed.

      Except marketing (of which politics is a subset).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    43. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me in 100,000 years when the Uranium and Thorium on Earth run out. If it's still a problem at that point, I'll be more than happy to unfreeze Hell and come fix it.

    44. Re:WHAT! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Why not? It's likely that by the time uranium runs out, fusion will be available. The current rough schedule is for a prototype power station in about 2040. And that's not just pie-in-the-sky, one indicator of progress is that now there's a lot of focus on engineering issues, not just plasma physics.

      No guarantee that it'll be as cheap as fission, but if the alternative's no energy at all, that doesn't matter so much.

    45. Re:WHAT! by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Informative

      A list of some scientific studies on the effects of tritium with references in case there is any doubt regarding Triated water's effect on living beings.

      Tritium is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells. The available evidence from studies conducted journal a list of effects. From those works;

      Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)

      Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.

      (Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.

      It's often said "of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones" and while it's more benign than most other radioactive effluents it's toxicity should not be under-estimated.

      Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)

      First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)

      References;

      Komatsu, K and Okumura, Y. Radiation Dose to Mouse Liver Cells from Ingestion of Tritiated Food or Water. Health Physics. 58. 5:625-629. 1990.

      Dobson, RL. The Toxicity of Tritium. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium, Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 203. 1979.

      Hori, TA and Nakai, S. Unusual Dose-Response of Chromosome Aberrations Induced in Human Lymphocytes by Very Low Dose Exposures to Tritium. Mutation Research. 50: 101-110. 1978.

      Straume, T and Carsten, AL.Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological Effectiveness. Health Physics. 65 (6) :657-672; 1993. [This special issue of Health Physics is entirely devoted to Tritium]

      Laskey, JW, et al. Some Effects of Lifetime Parental Exposure to Low Levels of Tritium on the F2 Generation. Radiation Research.56:171-179. 1973.

      Rytomaa, T, et al. Radiotoxicity of Tritium-Labelled Molecules. International Atomic Energy Agency symposium,Vienna: Biological Implications of Radionuclides Released from Nuclear Industries v. 1: 339. 1979.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    46. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.5 million picocuries per liter? Isn't that showboating for effect? What's wrong with the simpler equivalent 2.5 microcuries per liter?

    47. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patient education and being truthful will win over time.
      Yeah, that's been working out so well for us in other fields. Unfortunately, I'm too jaded to believe much else other than "whoever has the most money creates the truth".

    48. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well of course we all know that these cases are few and far between and that under responsible hands nuclear energy is safe.
      We all know that everybody working with nuclear products is a responsible person right? that the disposal of dangerous products is done properly even in times when the economy is down even if is cheaper to dump the stuff any were and the proper safety measures are taken even if is expensive to do so and that the appropriate government agencies will ensure everything is done right even with lobbies trying to push then to keep a blind eye.
      So we can now rest assured that is OK to build thousands more nuclear power plants and leave them in the responsible hands of those corporations that only want our well being because they are honest bellon belief

      By the way , anybody seen were went Santa?, lost track of him wile writing...

    49. Re:WHAT! by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 1

      The difference being that the Tritium in luminous devices is contained

      Until I trip on the ice in front of a big box store, break the watch open and sue the both the manufacturer of the watch for using Tritium and the big box store for having unsafe practices in regards to ice that could cause both personal injury and environmental concerns in the form of Tritium leaks. The irony of course being that nuclear power plants (which produce tritium as a by product) and big box stores are both things that most Americans don't want in their back yard.

      The tritium at Vermont Yankee was contained as well... until it wasn't anymore. But I do agree that they should have to clean it up and pay the price. The generl public does need more confidence in nuclear.

    50. Re:WHAT! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "It's likely that by the time uranium runs out, fusion will be available. The current rough schedule is for a prototype power station in about 2040 [iter.org]. And that's not just pie-in-the-sky,..."

      Ah, yes, the standard "it will be ready in a few decades" comment. We really mean it this time. We know the basic physics. There are only some engineering issues to overcome. Wait, why are you laughing?

      Fusion, energy of the future. And always will be.

    51. Re:WHAT! by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Funny

      "The sources are not the problem, the sinks are."

      I must ask to clarify: Are you saying there are not enough sinks in the U.S.? My home has 2 in the bathroom, one in the kitchen, and one in the basement. Now, if you are talking about 'everything but the kitchen sink', that stills leaves me with 3 sinks to dispose of this nuclear waste. There are millions of Americans who have sinks where we can stash the stuff. Once its down the sink, it just disappears and out of sight anyways. Seesh!

      "And how do you tell the public that everything is safe when the nuclear industry is lying like Dick Cheney?"

      That's quite the loaded statement. You fail to mention how often Dick Cheney tells the truth!

    52. Re:WHAT! by quenda · · Score: 1

      I also understand that 2.5 million picocuries per liter sounds like a huge amount,

      It sure sounds like a lot more than 2½ micro-curies!

      hey, I jogged 4 million mm this morning!

    53. Re:WHAT! by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      Do you have any actual support for that view or just lazy cynicism?

      I linked to a site showing a reasonably realistic plans. There are also conceptual designs for power stations, plausible materials and a much better understanding of the plasma physics than previously. Additionally, ITER is testing out a lot of technology, such as the large-scale superconducting magnets. There's a lot of work being done.

    54. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you have never lived in Washington state. Whoops never made a dime and we all paid for this debacle.
      http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,955183-3,00.html

    55. Re:WHAT! by Nazlfrag · · Score: 2, Informative

      The leak was into groundwater. It was in no way harmless. From http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100210/NEWS02/2100351:

      The Vermont Department of Health last month confirmed that the tritium contaminated water was reaching the Connecticut River, since one of the most polluted groundwater monitoring wells was about 15 to 20 feet from the river.

      ...

      According to the Department of Health, there is a general increase in tritium contamination at the wells that do show the radioactive isotope.

      The well that shows the highest level of contamination decreased a little on Tuesday, down from 2.52 million picocuries per liter to 2.4 million picocuries, according to the latest post from the Department of Health Tuesday afternoon.

      The first well that showed contamination measured 39,000 picocuries, the next worst well measured 890,000 picocuries, and there were two other contaminated wells, one measuring 81,000 picocuries and another, 2,500 picocuries.

      One well tripled in contamination in recent days, going from 6,900 to 23,000 picocuries per liter.

      The federal standard for drinking water is 20,000 picocuries per liter.

    56. Re:WHAT! by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Mod this one clueless. Many reactors defaulted on loans.

    57. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised.

    58. Re:WHAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have tou looked at the amount of TOXIC WASTE produced to get a fuel rod for a power plant. Look at the picture from "ground to power plant" and not just from the "fuel rod to waste". Ask the people that live in Grand Junction, CO where the solid waste in that process was used as building base.

    59. Re:WHAT! by AzuMao · · Score: 1

      Nor does tritium.

    60. Re:WHAT! by AzuMao · · Score: 1

      No it's 2.5 microcuries TOTAL.

    61. Re:WHAT! by delt0r · · Score: 1

      I really don't know why this comes up or even where the original "fact" came from. But *without* reprocessing its about 100-300 years depending on details at current consumption rates. This is land based U only. Once the price hits about 200EU per kg (IIRC) then ocean sources become economic, then you have 10x that at least. If you reprocess you get about 60x these figures. Or over 5000 years worth for land based deposits only. Th is about 5x this figure, or 25,000 years worth.

      I know fusion is always "20 years away". But I really think we can get DD fusion working in that time frame. There is enough D for millions or billions of years depending on how you cut the numbers.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    62. Re:WHAT! by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Confinement has improved over a million fold in the last 20 years. Over a billion in the last 30-40 years. If we have that kind of progress in the next 20-40 years even DD fusion will be trivial. We are in this for the long haul. 20 years is not a long time. Remember that we gave the banks more money for F*** up in one year than has been invested into fusion over the full 30 years.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what? One plant leaks an unspecified amount of a weak beta emitter...It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries. 2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office. Trituim doesn't stay resident in the body, it's half life is 12 years long, and it's a beta emitter: if you drink it you'll get a few rads, but you can take a shower in it without any problem.

    The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry, but what I see is the dangers that are inherent in running antiquated plants for years beyond their design life because a bunch of poorly informed hysterics have blocked all attempts to modernize them for the last 40 years.

    And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia? That's a different type of plant, being built by a different company! Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us: where's that outrage? Where is the outrage over the radiation it emits?

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Troll summary. by TheKidWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's obviously a troll summary, the OPs username is mdsolar.

    2. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place. Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse? Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?

    3. Re:Troll summary. by loafula · · Score: 1

      It's less about the damage the leak caused and more about the dishonesty and cover-up. I live in Massachuestts, on the Connecticuit River, about 80 miles downstream from Vermont Yankee. I, for one, will be happy to see this place's license not extended. If they covered up something this (as you claim) trivial, I would hate to see what else they are capable of covering up, or would cover up.

      --
      FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    4. Re:Troll summary. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The leak itself is not a big deal. That company execs perjured themselves about it is a big deal.

      Also, just because something is a beta emitter doesn't mean it's harmless. [32]P emits high energy beta particles that can be dangerous without shielding.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Troll summary. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem isn't the tritium leak. As you say, tritium isn't wildly dangerous to begin with, and there isn't that much of it floating around.

      The problem is that the plant management is now known to be lying about safety and operations goings on at the plant. Further, their grasp of what the hell is going on seems to be shaky where it is not actively dishonest.

      This particular tritium leak(or, for that matter, was the last one, the one that officially never happened) is not particularly dangerous. There are a number of conditions that could be, though, and this story suggests that A)There is no reason to believe that plant management would act competently to avert them. B)There is no reason to believe that plant management would be honest about admitting to them if they were to occur. and C) It does not appear that the NRC is up to the task of forcing plant management to undertake A and B.

    6. Re:Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Granted, but as accidents go this is trivial by power company standards. I mean, compare it with the Kingston Coal Ash spill, or Love Canal.

      And both of those were done by companies that specialize in hydroelectric power.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:Troll summary. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The leak its self was nothing to worry about, it was the fact that they felt it neccessary to lie about the leak that is troubling. Now as far as nuclear power goes, the technology is very safe as long as these corporations are held accountable.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    8. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Now as far as nuclear power goes, the technology is very safe as long as these corporations are held accountable.

      Unfortunately like with that whole anti-Usenet campaign by that braindead NY Attorney General and his "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" reaction, the anti-nuclear nuts are going to eat this up and overly extrapolate it to do so. Whenever these corporations do stupid shit like this, it does nothing but further and further erode any confidence in the public over nuclear power and so we end up with more and more dirtier power plants instead.

    9. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was no big deal then why did they lie about it?

    10. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the anti-nuclear crowd is full of hysterics like the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" crowd. They won't bother to see that this is only a minor leak or that the plant is like 30 years old. They will just hear about how there was a leak at a nuclear plant and that the company lied about it.

    11. Re:Troll summary. by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      I'm not condoning their cover-up, but with some of the anti-nuke people out their, perhaps they thought it was just a white lie that would have been better for the industry if they kept it hush-hush. I don't really know as I don't work for VY, Entergy, or the NRC, but that would seem plausible. Nuclear energy is trying to get a rebirth as a safe, clean technology and regardless of how small this is, the NIMBYs and BANANAs will point and shout, "See! See! I told you this nukular stuff is evil!".

    12. Re:Troll summary. by ChefInnocent · · Score: 1

      Crap! Sorry for the wrong "there"; I should have double checked my words. I hate homonyms.

    13. Re:Troll summary. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they just didn't want to do the expensive paperwork.

      As a supporter of nuclear energy I say nail em to the wall.
      Prosecute so hard that no other exec will dream of fucking with nuclear safety regulations.

    14. Re:Troll summary. by gillbates · · Score: 1

      Problem is, you might just be drinking it. Tritium combines with oxygen to form water, so any leak has the possibility of making it into the water supply.

      And, if the leak wasn't serious, why would they lie about it? How can you be sure it was just 2 microcuries when the company lied about the leak in the first place?

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    15. Re:Troll summary. by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      expense.
      paperwork.
      ignorance.
      incompetence.

      or all of the above,

    16. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't so much about the leak, as it is more about the people who were running it, like every other industry with lies, deceit, and possibly fraud.

      Was anyone so naive to think normal human attributes were immune to the nuclear energy sector?

    17. Re:Troll summary. by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Bravo, sir, bravo.

      The leak itself is nothing to be concerned about. The lying under oath should be dealt with harshly, but nuclear power is hardly the only industry with the potential for mass casualty if you screw up badly enough.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    18. Re:Troll summary. by Rei · · Score: 1

      ..It tested at the leak at a whopping 2 million picocuries, which is a bullshit measurement that's clearly chosen because it's more shocking than 2 microcuries. 2 microcuries is about what you'd get for a basic thyroid test at the docs office.

      1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*. The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.
      2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries. So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.
      3) A curie is a very large unit -- 37 billion Bq.
      4) You don't get "curies" of radiation during a test; curies are a measure of emission *rate*. That's like saying that your meter reader recorded that you used 80kW of electricity this month. Radiation doses are properly measured in gray or sievert (formerly rad and rem).

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    19. Re:Troll summary. by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that eventually they'll be found out. It may not be soon but it will most likely occur at some point and when it does it just sends the message that the nutters of the world may have a small point. They don't, but it appears that way to people who do not know any better.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    20. Re:Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I keep thinking about how old the plant is, and wondering if they honestly didn't know. I mean, it's just not a big enough deal to risk the consequences of a lie.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    21. Re:Troll summary. by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what?

      Someone lies under oath abouty the operation of a nuclear power plant and you say "so what?" Are you on crack, or are you on this company's board of directors?

      The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry

      No, it's an indictment of dishonest corporations in any industry. I'm starting to suspect that all big corporations are run by sociopathic thieves. I don't want any power plant, nuke, coal, or gas, run by sociopaths. And I'm damned glad there's an NRC, OSHA, and EPA, because these bastards don't give a damn about anything but their money.

      I'd like to see someone go to prison over this, preferably someone with a seven figure salary. It's the only way this shit will stop. The next time it may be a serious leak of some truly nasty shit, what makes you think they'll react any differently?

    22. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yes, but lying about the situation and being found out feeds the nonsense even more than just coming clean in the first place.

    23. Re:Troll summary. by vlm · · Score: 1

      A)There is no reason to believe that plant management would act competently to avert them. B)There is no reason to believe that plant management would be honest about admitting to them if they were to occur. and C) It does not appear that the NRC is up to the task of forcing plant management to undertake A and B.

      Throwing soda cans in the trash instead of recycling is naughty, although its effect on the public is mostly harmless. About as bad as dumping 2 microcuries of 3H.

      I admit, I threw a soda can in the trash. Intentionally, even. (That's because I have personal, generally secret knowledge that the janitorial staff simply empties both the trash bucket and the recyclable bucket into the same trash cart, but that's beside the point)

      My CEO has no idea I failed to recycle.

      I'm sure my CEO would testify that we have a recycling policy, and we are here to Save The Earth (tm), and we don't throw cans in the trash.

      The question should not be what else is my CEO covering up, or can he be trusted. The real question should be why anyone cares about something harmless.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    24. Re:Troll summary. by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah but people are still worried about the big bad nuclear boogeyman after so many years of the cold war and all the nuclear missle scares.

    25. Re:Troll summary. by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Because the culture of media sensationalism that has grown up around nuclear power is such that I will bet they made a decision about whether it was better to cover it up (since it really is the equivalent to spilling a gallon of benzene on the floor during a transfer in a chemical plant - not great, but really no big deal as long as it is dealt with effectively) or put it on record.

      The very fact that the rad measurement has been given as 2 million picocuries instead of 2 microcuries is a clear indication of the "sensationalism" milage they want out of this - 2 million sounds way more scary than 2! It must have been deadly!

      Even if you are drinking it, so what? The level of radiation is so small from this source you will literally be receiving more radiation from background. And while tritium does burn to produce water, it is not a spontaneous process. It is also a gas under atmospheric pressure, so the likelihood of it forming in a large enough fraction to burn in O2 and then condense into a volume of water small enough to be dangerous is... Well, lets just say even the Heart of Gold wouldn't be able to work out the probability of that.

    26. Re:Troll summary. by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's been grinding this axe for the last couple of months.

      (Taking them to task for the leak and the lying is okay, but the trying to tie in the loan guarantees and the nucular scare tactics are silly)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    27. Re:Troll summary. by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 0

      It's obviously a ploy by the Vermont legislature to plug up some budget holes.

      http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Vermont_state_budget

      Every time states get in the black, they find somebody to sue to get some extra money.

    28. Re:Troll summary. by maxume · · Score: 1

      It would be deliciously ironic if no one at the power company even made seven figures (It isn't terribly likely, but on the other hand, power generation is relatively highly regulated, and much of the investment comes from people that want stable returns (because the returns are stable); both of those things mean that the CEO might just be an effective executive, rather than a highly paid executive)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    29. Re:Troll summary. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And yet these executives will get nothing. Honestly, if you are a executive and cause a major problem, you get to be beheaded or crucified in public. It's the price you take for getting obscene pay and bonus packages.

      I personally think the AIG and bank execs should have been put feet first into wood-chippers alive for what those scumbags did and are still doing.

      but then I'm a pacificist... so I tend to err on the side of being nice.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    30. Re:Troll summary. by Bemopolis · · Score: 1

      Let me start by saying that I am a big supporter of the recently-announced expansion of nuclear plants. I say, if we're going to dig into the ground for fuel, better it be uranium left over from the formation of the Earth than the carbon it has spent millions of years sequestering. (Digression: Suck it, AGW-deniers). I'm a little pissed off about the leak, for two reasons:
      1. I'm not a big fan of plant managers of any stripe lying under oath, nuclear plant managers doubly so. We have enough hippie crap out there about nuclear power without your bullshit ass-covering. Here's hoping we use some of those prison cells my tax dollars have helped build.
      2. That's a waste of perfectly good tritium, at a time when our Helium-3 stocks are becoming very low. THINK OF THE DAUGHTER NUCLIDES!

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    31. Re:Troll summary. by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I read an interesting article once that the Soviets never considered nuclear weapons to be as big of a deal as the American public did - after all, they are just really big bombs. Supposedly, the KGB did their best to foster that fear, and promoted the false concept of a "nuclear winter".

      I'll have to see if I can find that again, it was good reading :)

      That falls in line with some other things I've read about, though, like the nuclear-powered electrical generators the Russians used in secluded outposts and such, that are now basically strewn about haphazardly in Siberia.

      Here's an article about one of those that is laying at the bottom of the sea, which contains 6 MILLION Ci. For scale, that's 3 million times more radioactivity than the spill in the OP.

      http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/navy/pacific/incidents/35864

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    32. Re:Troll summary. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Throwing soda cans in the trash instead of recycling is naughty, although its effect on the public is mostly harmless.

      um no it's not. almost ALL trash companies have separation equipment to pull out metals and plastics from the waste stream so they can get the money from it.

      Recycling at the curb is a waste of time, they have trash sorting that ALL TRASH goes through that does it automatically. Curbside recycling is more of a make greenies feel good thing.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    33. Re:Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Well, you can't measure the volume of a leak by the amount of radiation at the leak site, so who knows how much actually leaked...It probably wasn't THAT much, just because they don't USE that much.

      Yea, I agree, it probably made it to the local water supply. It's just not a big deal. If you can assume that the highest concentration anywhere was at the leak site (which is reasonable) and that concentration was consistent with the lowest form of radio-medical imaging...It's extremely unlikely that it would be available in quantity anywhere outside of the immediate area of the plant.

      The only people who'd be in danger would be people who had a well that was basically at the leak site. Any dilution would drop the exposure dramatically. If the spill made it to a river, it'd be basically indistinguishable from naturally occurring HTO (which is common enough that it's used like Carbon-14 to date liquids).

      Nuclear plants are actually allowed to release a certain amount of it a year as part of normal operation, and the NRC calls it on their website, "...one of the least dangerous radioactive isotopes known."

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    34. Re:Troll summary. by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      Totally agreed.

      So if we see all the people responsible for this latest financial fiasco go to jail, nuclear power is safe. If most of them buy their way out of any kind of responsibility, it's not.

      Is that a good summary?

    35. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He'll keep grinding the axe as well. He sells solar equipment on the web. The more FUD he can drum up the more he sells.

      He's taking this Nuke company to task for lying then we should take him to task for covering up his true motives (not putting a link to his website in the submission).

    36. Re:Troll summary. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I hate homonyms

      I bet you hate homophones too. I don't - some of my best friends sound the same.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    37. Re:Troll summary. by vlm · · Score: 1

      The very fact that the rad measurement has been given as 2 million picocuries instead of 2 microcuries

      Perhaps, they expressed it as 2 mega-pico-curies because the US EPA drinking water maximum limit is 20000 pCi/L, so it makes the math simple.

      In other words, if you flush it down the crapper or sink or otherwise dilute it with 100 liters of water, it would be categorized as safe to drink, or at least it wouldn't be worse than public drinking water.

      Another way to put it, is a simple rule is not to flush something down the drain if you're not willing to drink it. So, they had an accident with somewhat less than 100 liters of water that was somewhat too hot to flush.

      Or, what leaked out, is as dangerous as 100 liters of drinking water.

      Finally, if you assume you consume one liter a day of water, that would imply the increased cancer danger is equal to 100 days of drinking water.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    38. Re:Troll summary. by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm of two minds on this. The actual leaks are extremely minor and are being taken care of properly. They're practically non-issues that shouldn't be getting any scary headlines (just a calm article on page 2 or 3). On the other side, Entergy absolutely should not be lying about any of this, especially not to the NRC. The lie itself has done more to endanger the plant (and harm the cause of nuclear energy in general) than the leaks. What's really needed is to re-license the plant with a proviso for 3rd party supervision (to make sure the known leaks are fixed properly and that there aren't any more hidden issues) and string up the officials that lied.

    39. Re:Troll summary. by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 1

      I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place. Sure, this time it might be something like tritium, but whose to say at some later date it's not something worse? Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?

      Upper level management types are mostly all lying snakes. That's probably true across all industries. Does that mean that society should give up and not build/manufacture/do anything?

      --
      "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
    40. Re:Troll summary. by Carik · · Score: 1

      There are places where, mostly as a result of foolish policies, curbside recycling makes sense.

      Where I live, the town is charged a fairly high fee for disposal of garbage, and paid a fairly low fee for recyclables. That's all based on what gets put on the truck, since the recycling plant and the landfill are in different places, and there's no sorting that I know of at the landfill end. So it makes a big difference how much you recycle... In an average week, my household produces about 2/3 non-recyclable (mostly things that are food contaminated, which we're not supposed to recycle) and 1/3 recyclable waste. If that holds for every household, that means the town is paying a third less to dispose of waste, which makes a big difference on my tax bill. Sure, it could be sorted out further down the line, but then the people at the landfill would have to install sorting machines, and we'd have to pay more for waste disposal for a while...

    41. Re:Troll summary. by rthille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, so the leak is trivial. So why not fess up about it? Do you think we can expect them to be more forthcoming if there really is a non-trivial problem?

      When my daughter lies about something trivial, it doesn't make me think, "If there really was something going on, she'd tell me the truth..."

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    42. Re:Troll summary. by necro81 · · Score: 1

      You don't get "curies" of radiation during a test; curies are a measure of emission *rate*. That's like saying that your meter reader recorded that you used 80kW of electricity this month. Radiation doses are properly measured in gray or sievert (formerly rad and rem).

      It's off-topic, I know, but it irks me to know end when the media (name your format and producer of choice - they're pretty much all guilty) confuse kilowatts with kilowatt-hours. For instance:

      "The school's new solar panels are predicted to generate 20 kilowatts per month"

      I can understand that, to the layman, these are somewhat unintuitive ways of measuring energy rate (i.e., power) and total energy, respectively. But for goodness sake - you're supposed to research your topic before reporting on it! How stupid would I look it I started going on about how my car gets 200 horsepower per week, and cranks out over 30 m.p.g.?

    43. Re:Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Yea, but in context they released 6 curies of tritium under regular normal operation (according to the NRC effluent website. Data as of 2007)...That's 6 trillion picocuries. And that's normal, and within their regulated limits.

      If someone had a well right there, absolutely it would be very serious, they'd need to avoid drinking or cooking with that water. If it got into a river? It'd hardly show up.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    44. Re:Troll summary. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Here's an article about one of those that is laying at the bottom of the sea, which contains 6 MILLION Ci.

      1.5 million Ci, from the article you link to. Per reactor, of course.

      For scale, that's 3 million times more radioactivity than the spill in the OP.

      The spill in the OP wasn't 2 Ci, it was 2 uCi (0.00002 Ci). So this reactor represents 750 billion times the radioactivity of the spill in question.

      Note, for those who didn't follow the link, that two reactors were mentioned, not one.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    45. Re:Troll summary. by necro81 · · Score: 1

      That is to say - I agree with the GP's fourth point. He, at least, got the units right.

    46. Re:Troll summary. by rthille · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the white paper in my recycling would be as useful after it's mixed with the waste stream from my 2 large dogs...

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    47. Re:Troll summary. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I think somebody's saying they they lied under oath.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    48. Re:Troll summary. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      *6 curies for the whole of 2007, I should have said.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    49. Re:Troll summary. by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Well, the US limit is equivalent to 4 rads - which is 1% of background.

      So you receive 1% as much radiation from drinking all of that as you get from being alive and on the earth.

      "safe" is a relative term.

    50. Re:Troll summary. by jolly_rancher36 · · Score: 1

      The point is that the nuclear industry (and industry in general) is in the nasty habit of lying about every dangerous substance they use or produce: Benzenes, Beryllium, popcorn flavoring, radioactive material, coal, asbestos, cigarettes, dyes, etc etc etc. The list is quite long, and they are still fighting many of these to the bitter end. Do you really expect them to ever tell the truth unless forced? The nuclear industry has a quite terrible record. Hundreds of thousands of people have been exposed to radioactive materials and hazardous substances in the production of nuclear bombs, and not just government owned facilities. Many of the facilities were contract. We should not go down this road again. Conservation would save a lot more energy, and here are a few examples: 1) Legislate away all consumables such as styrofoam cups, paper plates, trash bags, etc. Make telecommuting mandatory wherever possible. 3) Force all vehicles over 2.5 tons to use low sulfur diesel, NG, or other greener technology.

    51. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, 2 micro curies per liter, add that liter to the ground water which probably contains 10's of millions of liters and the level is considerably lower and NOT a risk. I'm sure you will find many more significant elements and containments in much higher concentration in that same underground water.

      Think of the risk this way... A few years ago when those snipers were canvassing the DC area, everyone was paranoid and going crazy. Those snipers killed 10 people in about 6 weeks. Although very tragic and random, there were more than 10 other murders in the area that were not done by the snipers and more than 10 people that died from car crashes. Everyone was running through parking lots to avoid the snipers but on a daily basis, those same people thought nothing of the chance of dying while diving or being killed by a different random person. People fear the UNKNOWN. To most people, nuclear power is unknown. The fact that most people do not understand nuclear power does not make it any more or less safe.

    52. Re:Troll summary. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      1) That's 2 million picocuries *per liter*. The average adult human drinks 2.4 liters of water *per day*.
      2) The human body naturally contains about 0.1 microcuries. So yes, combining that with above, this amount would be significant if it were to contaminate drinking water.

      2.4 liters per day at 2 picocuries per liter is 4.8 picocuries per day. Which is 0.0000048 microcuries.

      Which means you'd add about 0.005% to your body's radioactivity levels. Per day.

      The biological half life of tritium is about 9 days. Which means that your body would reach equilibrium with about 32 extra picocuries of tritium inside it. Beyond that point, the tritium would exit your body as fast as it's entering (given that you really do drink 2.4 liters per day, of course).

      So, net effect of drinking this water directly out of the leak site - your natural radioactivity would increase by 0.032%.

      You may find a 0.032% increase "significant", but somehow I just can't get excited about it.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    53. Re:Troll summary. by Rei · · Score: 1

      2.4 liters per day at 2 picocuries per liter is 4.8 picocuries per day.

      Why did you just drop the dose by six orders of magnitude?

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    54. Re:Troll summary. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      /sighs

      Because I had a brainfart somewhere between 2 microcuries and the keyboard....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    55. Re:Troll summary. by Socguy · · Score: 1

      The outrage is because no other power plant has the potential for essentially permanent environmental contamination. This is not helped by the fact that the industry is deliberately lying to government regulators. If we can't trust the industry to come clean with, what you describe as a 'so what' incident, how can we trust industry when it come to a major incident? Oh, and if you're not concerned about Trituim in your water, then I suggest you walk the walk and start drinking and bathing in it.

      FYI, there is outrage over coal plants in general. But this is a story about nuclear plants, hence, people are talking about them.

    56. Re:Troll summary. by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      But the NRC, OSHA, and EPA are overseen by sociopaths (see politicians) as well. Companies lie to make money Politicians lie for money and power, putting your faith in either is foolish.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    57. Re:Troll summary. by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I believe the point is the fact that they lied about the leak in the first place."

      No, the fact is that they lied about existing infrastructure when asked about it. The leak happening is a result of that lying, as if that infrastructure were known about, it could have been properly inspected.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    58. Re:Troll summary. by Epi-man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why should anyone believe anything they say about the safety of their plant(s) if they're willing to lie under oath about something this minor?

      I often wondered that about President Clinton....didn't exactly carry a lot of weight in these parts though.

    59. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see someone go to prison over this, preferably someone with a seven figure salary

      Well, I would say preferably someone who actually committed the crime in question regardless of how many zeroes are on his paychecks. But then again I care more about justice than feel-good revenge measures.

    60. Re:Troll summary. by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the EPA allows Monsanto to dirty up the air like they did before the Clean Air Act I have a vote. Without the EPA Monsanto will do as they wish.

      I say Monsanto because I grew up in Cahokia, a mile south of Sauget, where there was and still is a Monsanto plant. This was before the EPA existed, and you literally could not drive past the plant with your windows down, even in 100 degree heat (there was no AC in cars back then) as you literally could not breathe -- the air burned your lungs.

      Today you seldom smell anything driving past. The EPA works -- as long as you don't vote an Executive into the White House who thinks government is always the problem and never the solution.

      Had OSHA existed in 1959 my grandfather wouldn't have gone four stories down an elevator shaft because Purina was too murderously cheap to put doors on the elevator.

      Personal experience tells me that those agencies are in fact effective. Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh tells you they're not. I'll believe my own experience before I believe some drug-addled right wing hack.

    61. Re:Troll summary. by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Troll

      The CEO IS the person responsible. If the head of the company didn't know about the secret pipes, he is criminally negligent. Why do you think he makes the big money? That big paycheck carries great responsibility.

    62. Re:Troll summary. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do you think he knows about the radiation risks of solar? I mean, that is studied, and proven to cause skin cancer!

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    63. Re:Troll summary. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      What's really needed is to re-license the plant with a proviso for 3rd party supervision (to make sure the known leaks are fixed properly and that there aren't any more hidden issues) and string up the officials that lied.

      Yeah, or even go one step further and re-license on the condition of a sale to another energy company. They need to have some consequences, but that proviso doesn't destroy the value to acquire, only the ability of Entergy to make further profits from it.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    64. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the leak amount seems quite harmless. The lying less so.

      But at least I understand the reason for lying: they didn't want to get lynched for something that tiny. People would be all "ONOES!!!! RADIOACTIVITY!!!" even though "clean" coal plants pump out far more radiation during the time coal is mined, etc. (Yes, there's plenty of radioactive material in coal. It's naturally occurring and therefore "not scary.")

      That said, no, I don't like lying under oath. It's just that I hate the anti-nuclear scaremongering we'll get. Coal power is too politically important (why do you think they run those "clean coal" ads?), which will hold us back at a time when we really need better power sources. Of course, the people whose jobs depend on coal don't see it that way, so...

    65. Re:Troll summary. by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I could have sworn it said 6 Ci. Also, in the grand tradition of /., I didn't actually read the article, I was going off a poster who said that the spill was a total of 2 Ci.

      In that case, I have more radiation in the night sights of the handguns next to my bed than was spilled :) (.054 Ci per set)

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    66. Re:Troll summary. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I bet you hate homophones too. I don't - some of my best friends sound the same.

      That's brilliant, is it yours?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    67. Re:Troll summary. by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Plus it also requires using a massive, unshielded, nuclear fusion reactor.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    68. Re:Troll summary. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      No, the fact is that they lied about existing infrastructure when asked about it. The leak happening is a result of that lying, as if that infrastructure were known about, it could have been properly inspected.

      And that's, like... better, somehow?

    69. Re:Troll summary. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I thought of it several years ago and have, like Winston Churchill, been waiting for an opportunity to use it. Thank you to the grandparent!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    70. Re:Troll summary. by Tmack · · Score: 1

      ....

      And what the hell is the point in talking about the plants in Georgia? That's a different type of plant, being built by a different company! Georgia has the largest coal fired power plant in the us: where's that outrage? Where is the outrage over the radiation it emits?

      Not to mention that Scherer and Bowen are also two of the dirtiest plants in the US, and pump out more radioactive waste and other crap (Sulpher Dioxide!) into the atmosphere and ash piles than this or any other leak from a nuclear plant (probably all combined, including Chernobyl).

      -Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    71. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When my daughter lies about something trivial, it doesn't make me think, "If there really was something going on, she'd tell me the truth..."

      your daughter isn't a corporation geared toward racking in cash and not racking in expenses

      ...

      at least, I don't think she is, but I could be wrong.

    72. Re:Troll summary. by micheas · · Score: 1

      Possibly more true than one would think.

      Do corporate decision makers have to pay for their crimes, or do they get to hide behind the corporate veil?

      Management has a lot to do with the safety of a power plant, and if there is $40,000,000 in your bonus if you shave the safety margins 40% and have a 99% chance of getting away with it, you take the risk, at least most risk takers will take those odds.

    73. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No, it's an indictment of dishonest corporations in any industry."

      Yes, it is, because it couldn't be that the company representative simply, well, was wrong or didn't know better or misunderstood. As someone has already pointed out, "under ground" is different that "underground."

      And, of course, it's the dishonest corporations, not the dishonest people, that are at fault. Guess there is something about slamming those with deep pockets instead of analyzing whether this is just par for the course for most of humanity.

      Speaking of which, you also said:

      "preferably someone with a seven figure salary."

      Yes, because millionaires have mind control, and they control their employees and hires actions strictly and absolutely.

      And, so if it was a tech who had been searching for it, the "lie" would be excused by you?

      Clearly, you lack standards, which is why this shit exists in the first place. You aren't interested in truth or processes to garner and reveal the truth, you are interested in nailing people to crosses, which is interesting, since that is how this thread starts out.

      The thing about all this, this is the greatest thing to happen to kill the nuclear power industry or somone wants the contract. Which is actually, deep down, what you and others want, even those proponents that pretend otherwise. Look at any industry--code has mistakes, health care has malpractice, blue collar has worker's comp, all this is about taking litigation into the legal realm as the business realm, something people on /. know damn well about (see DMCA, RIAA, patents, etc.).

      Unfortunately, you will get what you ask for here. Someone will pay the price, the problem won't be fixed, there will be even greater incentive to lie in the future, energy prices will keep going up, and you and others will complain, we won't be energy independent, we'll fight wars over energy, since that suits you at some point, because the conflict makes for political theater of a grand scale for personal self-realization. Sick.

      Oh, the problem? Actually 2--No plant should be in operation where its tubes aren't known and documented. That's the underlying problem. Not some dumb shit trying to pound some tech or company white collar in a court of law. The second, if some other dumbshits hadn't been so anti-nuclear, maybe we'd have more modern plants and outmoding and taking down these crappy ancient ones so this risk would have never have happened.

    74. Re:Troll summary. by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be all "So what?" but so what? [blah, blah, blah]

      Did you miss the part about plant officials lying under oath?

      Let me paint it for you - if they lied about this, I don't even want to think what the else lied about (or will lie about).

    75. Re:Troll summary. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Way to sarcastically re-state the implied point. the lying about undocumented pipes was the worse part. What if it were an undocumented REACTOR that blew?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    76. Re:Troll summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The directors of Phillip Morris have no knowledge of smoking being related to cancer either.

      Old Macdonnell had a reactor ei ei o, and that reactor had a leak, ei ei o, with a who cares here and a bugger it there, and a lie lie here and a lie lie there, profit's the way to go.

    77. Re:Troll summary. by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      The whole thing is clearly being pushed as an example of the horrible dangers of the super scary nuclear power industry

      I think you miss the point. It's one example of a more benign danger of the Nuclear Power industry.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    78. Re:Troll summary. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      it couldn't be that the company representative simply, well, was wrong or didn't know better or misunderstood.

      It doesn't matter if the CEO knows or understands; it's his responsibility regardless.

      Yes, because millionaires have mind control, and they control their employees and hires actions strictly and absolutely

      If I'm paying you, you'd damned well better do what I'm paying you for.

      And, so if it was a tech who had been searching for it, the "lie" would be excused by you?

      No. It wouldn't matter who did. I will say that if the CEO had found out about it after the fact, fired those responsible and came clean, THEN he should be held blameless.

      you are interested in nailing people to crosses

      I'm interested in those responsible paying for their actions, and the CEO is responsible for what his or her employees do.

      The thing about all this, this is the greatest thing to happen to kill the nuclear power industry or somone wants the contract.

      All the more reason the CEO should be hung out to dry. A slight tritium leak, handled properly, should not be the public relations nightmare this turned out to be. The only thing that made this bad was the untrustworthiness of the people in charge of the plant, all the way up to the CEO. It isn't the tritium leak that's dangerous to the continued operation of nuke plants, it's the criminal reaction of the company running the plant.

  3. New by endianx · · Score: 5, Informative

    because President Obama just put taxpayers on the hook for new nuclear power plants in Georgia

    The keyword there is "new".

    1. Re:New by Saishuuheiki · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree, in that I'd say the only conclusion is that we don't want Entergy building the new plants

    2. Re:New by tthomas48 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No you forgot. Obama's a Democraat, so now we no longer want nuclear power. Try to keep up.

      If he advocates drilling in Alaska they'll all become environmentalists...

    3. Re:New by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      And misinformed.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:New by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Oh yea, well the new ones are being built by Southern Company which, like most power companies, is run by baby-raping plutocrats who would kill anyone for a buck if they thought they could get away with it. That's not sarcasm. That's honestly what I think of them.

      You're living in a dream world if you think some other company is better, just because they haven't been caught yet.

      My point of view is that all methods have a downside, and that nuclear has a more moderate downside than coal or oil. Hell, even hydroelectric has a better record of killing people than nuclear.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:New by Rei · · Score: 1

      That's reminiscent of the furor over Scott Brown voting for the jobs bill. The conservative blogs are ready to burn him at the stake. Lots of people furiously asking when he took his 30 pieces of silver, stuff like that. For what -- for voting for a bill primarily comprised tax cuts for small businesses? Isn't that the sort of stuff that conservatives like to vote for?

      It's sad what our political discourse has turned into.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    6. Re:New by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      The point of the post is that this company lied about its operations. Their inability to operate properly could impact their ability to pay back their loans and then put the tax payer on the hook for millions and millions of dollars.

    7. Re:New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It got quiet because the Republicans got what they wanted and the democrats are agreeing with their party. What is to talk about? Nobody talks about the pros and cons of AC vs DC transmission of electricity anymore either, who cares?

    8. Re:New by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The keyword there is "new".

      What makes you think a new company will be brought in to operate a new nuclear plant?

      FTFA: [Paul Blanch, who has 45 years in the industry, including working or consulting at Millstone, Connecticut Yankee, Maine Yankee and Indian Point nuclear power plants and the Electric Power Research Institute and the *Nuclear Energy Institute] also had harsh words for David O'Brien, the commissioner of Vermont's Department of Public Service, which is recommending the Legislature hold off on its vote until the source of the leak is found, it has been fixed and the results of an investigation are submitted.

      "I didn't believe a word O'Brien said before the finance committee," said Blanch.

      Asking the Legislature to delay its vote is the governor's and the DPS' way of showing their continued support of Yankee and Entergy, he said.

      Now this is obviously just one man's opinion, but it seems he has the experience and credibility to back it up.

      *TFA later mentions that the Nuclear Energy Institute is the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry, which means this criticism of Entergy & the legislature isn't from an outsider.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    9. Re:New by sheph · · Score: 1

      Just because it's new now doesn't mean it will be later. The underlying issue remains the same. Nuclear power is a heck of a lot safer than it used to be, but we still don't want it leaking into our ground water. We also don't want corporations lying to us saying everything is fine when it's not. This company needs to be strung up and beaten severely.

      --
      I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
    10. Re:New by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      My reaction to that line was WTF? New power plants are a GOOD THING. WTH does some guy lying (shitty of course) have ANYTHING at all to do with nuclear power? A guy once punched me, I'm not advocating exterminating all humans (most days anyway). Why? Because that would be fucking retarded and arbitrary.

      Unless he believes that nuclear power makes CEOs lie under oath or something. Then hes just a nut job.

  4. It's been, what, 30 years? by zero_out · · Score: 3, Informative

    That plant has to be at least 30 years old. I think that technology has changed a bit in that time. In general, new is usually better than retrofitted old.

    1. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Precisely. The vast majority of reactor leaks/accidents occured in 30+ year old nuclear plants and frankly, our ability to construct safe designs has increased drastically since these plants were built. It's like suggesting that cars are inherently dangerous because the 30 year old clunkers had a few problems. The solution is to design better cars/reactors not freak out about the entire technology.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The thing that bothers me most is that crap like this gets massive screaming headlines, but things like PCB dumping (which happen all the time and are about a million times more destructive) are treated as no big deal.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    3. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      That's probably because few people know about the chemical's existence or about the dumping. Nuclear plants are far more higher profile.

    4. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      How much energy does it take to mine, refine, enrich, build a plant, move the material, build a storage center for the waste, move the spent rods to storage location, dismantle plant after its productive life is over, move plant materials, build another storage center since the first one is now booked solid before it is even finished, maintain storage location for the rest of human history, clean up eventual leak of materials, create the money it takes to pay all the legal fees and damages that eventual lawsuits from the leakage of the materials?
      It seems like that is a significant amount of energy and you would have to run a nuclear for a much longer time to get a surplus energy supply. When you have to run the plant longer you run into problems like Vermont Yankee. All these power plants will get old just like VY and then what will we do? Who pays to take them down? Who really benefits from all of these costs and energy inputs it doesn't seem like its the american tax payer.
           

    5. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by zero_out · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, the summary is a bit misleading with regard to the new plants that SoCo is building. To say that the taxpayer is "on the hook" implies that this is money being given away, never to be seen again. In fact, these are loan guarantees. The money is expected to be fully repaid, and considering how well SoCo performs as a business, this is a sure bet.

    6. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Things that happen all the time like car accidents and heart attacks aren't published that often either. It's the rare occurances that get the attention.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      I'd far rather drink a glass of water right from that pipe than drink an equivalent amount of pcbs. If you live through the HTO, you're fine, but those pcbs will keep killing you for decades.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    8. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I wasn't trying to claim that PCBs are safe or that I'd want to drink of. But ask a random person what they know about PCBs and you'll get a blank stare versus how they can go on and on about the dangers of a nuclear plant.

    9. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Rare, yes, but so insignificant it is just silly.

      This leak is akin to me spilling something hazardous at lab scale and just mopping it up without telling anyone.

    10. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nuclear power would be competitive with coal in terms of cost if it were not for the massive amount of red tape. In fact, if you built in the environmental cost that Coal has into the pricing, Nuclear power becomes the cheapest source of energy due to the much much lower CO2 emissions of the technology. France is a perfect example of a country that has cut its CO2 emissions to a third of comparable nations CO2/$ because of the fact that 70+ % of its power needs come from nuclear power.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    11. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power plant capital repayment is presaged on very long lifespans.

      I just don't see PWRs as the future. Now, I'd be more interested if we were talking about lead-bismuth breeders like BREST. Someone, please go ahead and NIMBY this:

      * A "bathtub" design sunk into the ground, so for any radiation to reach people outside the plant, it has to go through an awful lot of ground first.
      * A breeder, so the amount of fuel available is huge and the burnup is great
      * A type of reprocessing that, combined with the high burnup of the breeder, means that any waste subject to burial has less radiation than the natural uranium mined for the plant's fuel.
      * Can burn existing nuclear waste
      * Highly proliferation-resistant
      * The coolant is a molten lead-bismuth mixture, unlike sodium in normal breeders. I.e., it's not very reactive and has a high boiling point.
      * The coolant can circulate passively in a failure scenario, but unlike with PBMRs, there *is* a containment structure, there's no graphite involved, and no failure mode involves oxygen reaching the fuel.
      * Worst case scenario? Your core is *already* entombed in lead, by default! You just need to let it solidify.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    12. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nuclear "red tape" is reasonable. "With great power comes great responsibility". Nuclear failures have the potential to render uninhabitable vast swaths of land. A high level of caution is called for. That's not saying that nuclear is a bad idea -- only that it needs to be highly regulated and monitored.

      As for it being "the cheapest source of electricity", the market sure didn't consider it to be for the past couple decades, and a lot of the recent market enthusiasm for it has cooled off as some of the new plants have been running behind schedule and over budget. Nuclear has low operating costs, but their capital costs are high, and those must be amortized. And a lot of that is amortizing the cost of risk.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    13. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      sounds like a plan, will you gladly accept a 400% price hike in your electrical power rates to cover the retrofit costs?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Forget about the CO2. What about the fact that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste?

    15. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      I think that technology has changed a bit in that time.

      Well, sure, you think that. But then again, you post on slashdot. Try to explain the concept of evolution of technology over time to most folk. You can even compare their iPhone to the original iPod to try to underscore your point. It doesn't change the fact that when the word, "nuclear," comes out your mouth, the first thing they feel like shouting about is Chernobyl. How long ago was that one now?

      ...

      Exactly.

    16. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nuclear "red tape" is reasonable.

      NIMBY and Greenpeace. Coal is responsile for the deaths of over 40,000 people a year in the United States due to various pollution caused by Coal plants. I wonder why people are screaming so loud to stop nuclear plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.

      As for it being "the cheapest source of electricity", the market sure didn't consider it to be for the past couple decades,

      Again, red tape. Coal plants do not have to run through nearly as much red tape which is extremely odd considering all of the pollution that is released by them. CO2 causing global warming, various NOX and SOx causing acid rain, Mercury and even relatively large quantities of Thorium and Uranium release from burned Coal due to the fact that the living organisms that later formed these coal deposits concentrated these radioactive elements. This is why Coal ash is radioactive to some degree. The estimated release of radioactive elements by Coal plants is on an annual basis much larer than all nuclear accidents combined. Ever.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    17. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      The primary concerns about nuclear power plants and health aren't from their normal operation; they're from their failure modes. To put it into perspective: Chernobyl released several billion curies (the exact number is widely disputed, but somewhere in that range; the core contained 9 billion). Coal ash is 5-6 picocuries per gram. That's 4.98951607e-6 curies per ton. US coal plants currently produce about 125 million tons of various ashes each year. Let's say 7.5 billion tons over the US's history -- does that sound reasonable? That means that the US's coal plants have emitted about 40,000 curies of radioactive material. So the single failure at Chernobyl utterly dwarfs the radiation emissions of all of the US's coal plants running throughout the country's entire history. And Chernobyl was hardly the only nuclear accident in world history -- Chazhma Bay, Windscale, Tomsk-7, etc.

      Nuclear carries both great potential and great risk. That's why significant caution is required.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    18. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NIMBY and Greenpeace. Coal is responsile for the deaths of over 40,000 people a year in the United States due to various pollution caused by Coal plants. I wonder why people are screaming so loud to stop nuclear plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.

      Show me a single anti-nuclear environmentalist of note who's not equally also anti-coal. This false dichotomy you people paint gets old fast. Almost all anti-nuclear environments are pro-solar, pro-wind, pro-wave, and pro-geothermal. Many are pro-tidal. A good number are pro-natural gas (esp. for peaking). Some are pro-hydro. Almost none are pro-coal. I doubt you could find a single one of note.

      Again, red tape.

      Again, for good reason. And see my post higher up comparing the radiation exposure from a single nuclear accident with that from all of the coal emissions in US history, as well as the part above about your false dichotomy. Anti-nuclear environmentalists want both coal *and* nuclear shut down. And your blaming them for the lack of new nuclear plants in the past two decades makes them out to be way more powerful than they actually are. There's been no *market demand* for building them.

      The relative impotence of the environmental movement over the past several decades is reflected in their stunning lack of success at blocking coal plants, mountaintop removal, and valley filling despite high profile campaigns to do so during this time.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    19. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Show me a single anti-nuclear environmentalist of note who's not equally also anti-coal.

      Well that is exactly the problem isn't it? They see both nuclear and coal as 'Great Devils' even though nuclear is clearly far superiour in every way. Logic completely escapes these people.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    20. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, if coal plants had to meet Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements for release of radioactive materials, they'd all be shut down. Those things spew tons of radioactive crap into the atmosphere (mostly radon) and in their solid waste (thorium, etc.)

      In fact the (nuclear) energy content of the (trace of) thorium in coal is higher than the (chemical) energy content of the carbon in that same coal.

      Then there's the CO2, SO2 and NOx emissions. And the toxic elements (like arsenic) in coal ash that last forever, unlike nuclear materials which decay.

    21. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be more concerned with coal power. Nuclear waste has a half-life. Arsenic doesn't. Nor is that the worst thing in fly ash.

    22. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Show me a single anti-nuclear environmentalist of note who's not equally also anti-coal.

      The problem is that the anti-nuclear types tend to want perfect technology and that of course can never exist. Solar cell production releases NF3 a super greenhouse gas. Coal destroys the environment wholesale. Nuclear produces nuclear waste. Fusion requires Tritium (for now) which is only produced using nuclear fission reactors and a lithium blanket. Geothermal can cause earthquakes. Wind kills birds and bats. They all have problems and we will get no where by attacking every single technology that we have. CO2 emissions must be reduced and they must be reduced right fucking now not when some hypothetical perfect technology comes along. Nuclear is better than Coal and you'd have to be a complete moron to not see an advantage in at least replacing Coal plants with Nuclear reactors.

      Again, for good reason. And see my post higher up comparing the radiation exposure from a single nuclear accident with that from all of the coal emissions in US history,

      You are out of touch with reality. Completely. Do you even comprehend how much pollution Coal plants produce? Apparently not. 27 billion tons of CO2 a year from fossil fuels is destroying this planet and here you are whining about two reactor accidents in 40 year old designs. It is because of stupidity like that that the environment hasn't a fucking chance.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    23. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're off by a factor of about 20. Not really in the ballpark there. I haven't checked the coal numbers yet.

      Release from Chernobyl - 14 x 10^18 Becquerel (not making a distinction for non-biologically active gases)

      Conversion to Curies - 14 x 10^18 becquerel = 378,378,378.378 Curies

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
      http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=4079576/cl=11/nw=1/rpsv/~4292/v3n1/s1/p1l
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becquerel

    24. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't want to drink PCBs; I think most of them wouldn't fit down my throat anyway.

    25. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Well, we have to produce electricity from something. Being against building anything at all is not a solution. Neither is conservation. You cannot power your computer on energy conservation. The power must come from somewhere to begin with. Environmentalists are against usually against coal plants, nuclear plants, hydroelectric plants. Yes hydro. Sometimes the argument is think about the fish which cannot swim upstream, other times it is think of the destroyed sunken ecosystems, other times it is dead plant matter at the bottom causing CO2 and methane emissions. Wind power is noise pollution and dead birds. Geothermal causes earthquakes. Solar pollutes water streams because of the solvents used in silicon manufacturing. So yeah, make sure to keep burning that natural gas.

    26. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Failure modes? It does not take nuclear power to have a coal dust mine explosion (e.g. Benxihu Colliery, China, 1549 dead). Coal mines usually have natural gas pockets close by as well which increases the risk of mine explosions. Then there is soot causing all sorts of lung disorders. The worst power plant disasters in history were the cascading hydropower plant failures in China some decades ago.

      Of course nuclear has risk, but it is still safer than the alternatives.

    27. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      Plenty of rightwingers are anti-nuclear because of 'dem terrerizers' but also anti-renewable cause of 'damn hippy socialists'.

    28. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power would be competitive with coal in terms of cost if it were not for the massive amount of red tape

      Obviously bullshit when you consider how expensive it is in places without the "massive amount of red tape". Unless you have a military reason for parts of the infrastructure nuclear power doesn't justify the expense.
      In the USA because it is a gift of taxpayers money to private corporations there is a lot of "red tape" to ensure that extra amounts of taxpayers money don't disappear due to fraud.

    29. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Wow -- this post is almost as though it came from an alternative universe where I *didn't* list what sort of power environmentalists typically support.

      Wind power is noise pollution and dead birds. Geothermal causes earthquakes. Solar pollutes water streams because of the solvents used in silicon manufacturing. So yeah, make sure to keep burning that natural gas.

      Almost all prominent environmentalists support wind. Most of the opposition from wind comes from rich people who are afraid of having their property values decreased by turbines. Even the audubon society supports wind power, despite the "OMG THEY KILLS BIRDZ!" FUD. And the "noise" issue is -- let's be blunt -- a lie. I've been to a big wind farm on a windy day. You can barely hear the things when you're standing at their base.

      Geothermal causes tiny earthquakes, usually impossible to feel. The biggest one on record occurred from *drilling into a freaking fault line that had once destroyed the city* (something nobody's going to be dumb enough to do again), and even still, the quake was quite small. The opposition to EGS is quite limited and definitely isn't coming from the environmental movement.

      Almost all prominent environmentalists support solar. The amount of waste from solar manufacturing is tiny compared to the amount of waste in pretty much every other kind of power generation on a per-watt-hour basis. And is way overplayed, at that.

      Natural gas isn't perfect, but it's a good low carbon/low health-pollution peaking source, pairs nicely with solar thermal, and is semi-renewable.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    30. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the anti-nuclear types tend to want perfect technology and that of course can never exist.

      Wrong. They want trillions to flow into producing today's tech, en-masse, right now. End of story.

      Solar cell production releases NF3 a super greenhouse gas.

      NF3 is only just now becoming recognized as a greenhouse gas for a reason -- such tiny amounts leak that they're barely even measurable. And it's being phased out anyway in favor of fluorine. And is only used in thin film photovoltaics, not photovoltaics in general, let alone solar thermal which is what most people refer to when they're talking about large-scale solar power plants.

      Fusion requires Tritium (for now) which is only produced using nuclear fission reactors and a lithium blanket.

      Fusion itself can breed tritium.

      Geothermal can cause earthquakes. ... Wind kills birds and bats.

      Two very closely related nonsense claims. When will people stop pushing this FUD? Let's start with wind. There was ONE -- read it, ONE -- wind farm, built early on, that had bird kill problems: Altamont Pass. They built a bunch of fast-turning bladed turbines with towers shaped like perfect perches at low altitude in the middle of a bird flyway. I mean, if you were trying to design a raptor cuissanart, that's pretty much the design you'd use. NO wind farm today gets approved without a bird impact survey, and even if that wasn't the case, the way modern turbines are built has way less impact (much taller towers, slower rotation, and the towers are unattractive as perches). The bird kill rates of modern wind turbines are utterly dwarfed by that of other human activity, even taking into account the scale of wind farms versus the scale of other activities. The Audubon Society itself now supports wind farms because they impact birds less than most other forms of power generation. So, in short, this is FUD, plain and simple. Stop spreading it.

      The exact same thing is happening with EGS, which is about a decade behind wind in terms of commercialization. One EGS project drilled straight into a faultline that had previously destroyed Basel, Switzerland, and started fracturing it. This caused a *small*, but tangible earthquake. EGS always causes earthquakes, but they're usually too small to even feel. Will people drill into active faults right next to cities anymore? Of course not; they learned the lesson with Basel. But now EGS is irreparably smeared in the same way wind was by Altamont Pass.

      They all have problems and we will get no where by attacking every single technology that we have.

      Right -- fair and balanced, as if bogus claims are on equal footing as valid ones. "Some say" wind kills birds. "Some say" coal causes health problems. Both have problems -- there's your equivalence, right?

      You are out of touch with reality. Completely. Do you even comprehend how much pollution Coal plants produce?

      Do you even comprehend how much radioactive material several to dozens of billions of curies per reactor is? Nuclear has great potential but also great risk. It *only makes sense* that it is so heavily regulated. And if such heavy regulations make it uneconomical? Tough cookies. There are plenty of other zero-carbon generation techs already available.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    31. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You're off by a factor of about 20.

      You're acting like there's a single estimate of how much release there was. The Russians and the IAEA estimated 100m curies in 1986. Argonne estimated 30% of the core (3B curies) in 1986. Lawrence Livermore estiamted 50% of the core (5B curies) in 1986. The supervisor of the Russian cleanup effort estimated 80% of the core (6.4B curies) in 1991. And the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that it all was vaporized (9B curies).

      Since most of the estimates are in the billions range, that's what I used.

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    32. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear is already competitive with coal. Coal is maybe 3% cheaper right now, but it depends on the plant. Once yolu have built the nuclear plant, you run it as much as possible, since most of the costs are fixed regardless of production, whereas with coal, much more of the cost is in fuel. So when power demands are low, the nuclear units are left online, and the gas oil and coal are shutdown. It is to a utilities advantage to have a mix. If, no make that when, oil gas and coal prices go through the roof, your nuclear units make a ton of money.

    33. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much much lower CO2 emissions of the technology

      I just exhaled. Tax that, bitch.

      And if you try to tax breathing, 6 billion exhalers will encourage your cessation of the practice.

    34. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear "red tape" is reasonable.

      NIMBY and Greenpeace. Coal is responsile for the deaths of over 40,000 people a year in the United States due to various pollution caused by Coal plants. I wonder why people are screaming so loud to stop nuclear plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.

      Just for the sake of argumentation: I wonder if we have to wait 'til more than 40,000 people will die in a year in US for somebody to say: "Hey, redtape is justified if/when makes us better protected against radioactive leaks (and lies under oath? or miswording/misunderstandings, intentional or not?)".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    35. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by ReTay · · Score: 1

      "How much energy does it take to mine, refine, enrich, build a plant....."

      Oh boy here we go again with the I am going to make up every thing I can think of/was told to add on to the costs to make it seem as unreasonable as possible. Lets face it I can turn that argument on anything. Lets say...oh solar power. The panels have to be replaced way more then nuclear power plants. And you need hundreds of them to even make up for a fraction of the power of a plant.

      I get that you don't like nuclear power. Just say it and be done with it instead of making up some BS stats or suggesting that ONLY nuclear power should have to take care of its by products for ever and ever amen......

      Nuclear power can provide nearly limitless energy and if plants are modernized instead of ignored they may indeed be the safest least polluting form of energy out there.

      Meh you think radioactive waste is bad? Now arsenic THAT is forever

    36. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They want trillions to flow into producing today's tech, en-masse, right now. End of story.

      Only certain kinds of tech like wind farms and solar panels and in some cases, Ethanol...

      NF3 is only just now becoming recognized as a greenhouse gas for a reason -

      Don't forget chemicals used in the manufacture of these cells. My point was that no energy source is perfect and the longer we wait to replace fossil fuel plants the harder it will be to mitigate AGW. We need to use every clean tech we have and that includes nuclear power.

      Fusion itself can breed tritium.

      D+D => He3+n and D+T=>He4+n are neutron sources that an be used to breed Tritium from Li6 although the fuel will probably have to run a bit lean on Tritium to make up for neutron losses. This makes Q=inf slightly more difficult to acheive. However, the irradiation of various reactor components by neutrons could pose a problem eventually. It's an active part of the research.

      Two very closely related nonsense claims. When will people stop pushing this FUD? Let's start with wind. There was ONE -- read it, ONE -- wind farm, built early on, that had bird kill problems:

      Do you know why I mentioned it? It was the subject of a lawsuit brought on by C.B.D.

      Right -- fair and balanced, as if bogus claims are on equal footing as valid ones. "Some say" wind kills birds. "Some say" coal causes health problems. Both have problems -- there's your equivalence, right?

      They're stupid claims and so is the notion that we should abandon nuclear power as an option. That is the point.

      Do you even comprehend how much radioactive material several to dozens of billions of curies per reactor is? Nuclear has great potential but also great risk.

      What is the risk is by pumping out 30 billion tons of CO2 every year? What is the risk of building even more coal plants instead of using every single low carbon tech we have? Right now we can reduce emissions. In the long term we'll probably see more solar and fusion energy become commonplace, right now nuclear is a bridge to reduce emissions now while we get the others up and running. Do you know what is sick about all of this? France actually gets it. They didn't cower in fear over the technology and now they have one of the lowest CO2/capita of any industrialized nation. If the US merely swapped out Coal for Nuclear we wouldn't be so afraid of Kyoto's targets for CO2 reduction. Hell we'd pretty much be there now if we hadn't essentially stopped building new reactors.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    37. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Then I'd like to see Coal get its just reward. If Coal were regulated like Nuclear is, there wouldn't be any. It'd be uneconomical.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    38. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      It is estimated that 8,000 tons of Uranium and 20,000 tons of Thorium are released into the environment on a yearly basis just from burning Coal. I wonder what kind of environmental impact that has? Probably negative I'm sure. That's not even including all the Mercury, Arsenic, Sulfur Oxides, Nitrogen Oxides and various carcinogens. China is what happens when Coal remains the dominant source of energy instead of alternatives like nuclear. China's environment is effectively dead as a result. The acid rain from the Coal plants is enough to make farming difficult if not impossible in areas and is slaughtering any remaining wildlife. The health problems caused by remaining a fossil fuel society are numerous with estimates placing the deathtoll in the 5 digit range annually. That's more than died from all nuclear reactor accidents combined just in one year.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    39. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      *oopse there meant 6 digit... Hell the EPA estimates that just by changing diesel engine designs could result in a reduction of 15,000 fatalities due to air pollution annually. Since Chernobyl occurred that'd be ~360,000 dead just by using older diesel tech.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    40. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Try to explain the concept of evolution over time to most folk.

      Fixed that for you. People are on average, very stupid. It's a cultural thing that there's such a distrust of nuclear power and science in general in this country and it will end the US's economic dominance very soon if it hasn't already. Then China will be manufacturing all the west requires in terms of green tech and Europe will make the real strides toward a greener economy.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    41. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power would be competitive with coal in terms of cost if it were not for the massive amount of red tape.

      True that...I had no idea of this, but a few years ago, a friend working for the local utility told me that the company's nuke plant (which is 30+ years old, of course) produces the *cheapest* power of anything they have (coal, wind, etc.). IIRC, cost-to-produce was $0.007/kwh (yes, that's 7/10 of a cent!). I believe Coal was under a dime, but still signifigantly more than nuclear. Natural gas turbines meant to provide peak capabilities when wind can't keep up was more like $0.20/kwh.

    42. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I wonder why people are not screaming at least equally loud to stop Coal plants when Coal is by far the greater danger to life and the environment.

      Fixed that for ya.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    43. Re:It's been, what, 30 years? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Oh that's just a lie.

      Sure, you specifically might be roughly equally (which is stupid BTW, because coal is staggeringly more harmful) against both. Or your group generally, if any. Or many that you know. But that's far from univeral.

      Yes, you are somewhat right that "enviromentalists" (I consider myself one BTW, and I dream about being able to live close to a nuclear power plant in my country (which has none, even though one was 90% complete 20 years ago...but thrown away)) can't do much by themselves - but the general public can. And the simple fact is that the public can be swayed into state of paranoia regarding nuclear much, much, MUCH easier (also with great help of "enviromentalists") than this is the case with coal.

      Accidentally, my country also has the largest brown coal powerplant in the world (I can see firsthand what it does, with my friend and her family living downwind). But there are no protests from the population - it's just a big fireplace, right? Hardly anything from "enviromentalists" (and there was an occasion, with the recent addition of two energy blocks); they focus much more on nuclear power. The latter is a much easier PR for them.

      Just like proposing water power - that it would mean turning all our major rivers into concrete waterways (quite a change from their currently quite pristine state, with lots of swamps/etc. habitats) escapes most of the population; so again good PR in campaign against nuclear.

      And my region doesn't have many sensible locations for wind turbines, geothermal or solar, no tidal waves (Baltic...), so those even hardly enter into equation. Though most are proposed by "enviromentalists" on a much larger scale than is sensible anyway...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. Hurray! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

    Corporate malfeasance, a dash of coverup, and a more or less fully captured regulatory agency!

    I, for one, am fully confident that the present minor tritium leak is the only thing going wrong, or likely to go wrong in the near future. Everything else is absolutely fine and, if it weren't, those involved would do the responsible thing and fix it....

    1. Re:Hurray! by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Yeah exactly. If they are willing to lie about a tritium leak, whose to believe that something worse isn't also happening that they are covering up.

    2. Re:Hurray! by Knara · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they prolly put saccharine into the break rooms, too! And said that it was better than sugar! The bastards.

  6. mdsolar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    you're not biased.

    1. Re:mdsolar by SovBob · · Score: 5, Informative

      In case the username wasn't enough, here's some more evidence to suggest that mdsolar might have a bias.

      From mdsolar's profile page:
      http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/
      "Very recently, I've gotten involved in a startup that plans to rent solar photovoltaic systems in the residential market. My guess is this is going to catch on. My homepage is where you can sign up."

      There's also various submissions and journal entries going back as far as 2007 denouncing oil and nuclear power and extolling the virtues of renewable energy (particularly solar.)

    2. Re:mdsolar by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 1

      A few points:

      1.) At least mdsolar hasn't tried to hide their bias. It's right there in his or her comments and profile homepage.

      2.) If someone named "ILoveNuclearPowerYumYum" posted this very same submission, would this change the story?

      3.) Was nuclear technology denounced anywhere in the submission?

      Regardless of how mdsolar feels about nuclear energy, this doesn't change anything about the article with respects to a company outright lying about something trivial. This does not build good confidence or a good reputation. I'd like to see nuclear energy embraced, but in a responsible fashion. Hiding and lying about leaks, no matter how minuscule, is not responsible.

    3. Re:mdsolar by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that is at least as dumb as saying that Obama is like Saddam, because his second name is Hussein.

      You’re also not biased at all ...right? ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:mdsolar by MrKaos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      In case the username wasn't enough, here's some more evidence to suggest that mdsolar might have a bias.

      I think if you examined the posts that were moderated +5 none of these were really critical of Nuclear Power, one was funny and then there was yours which looks like a thinly disguised ad hom attack. I think the evidence indicates that, at least in this discussion, there is a clear bias towards Nuclear Power on slashdot.

      I wonder if we gather a larger sample of discussions perhaps we can identify a trend.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  7. Yes but by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes this leak isn't a big deal as a leak. Nor for that matter is the recent leak. The problem is they lied under oath. And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about. These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem. As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.

    1. Re:Yes but by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

      Right. So we crucify these guys for having lied under oath and deny their 40 year old reactor a new permit to keep running even longer past its expected life-span. Then we give money to *different* people to build a *new* reactor with the understanding that lies and cover-ups will result in Bad Things (tm) while admitting problems and fixing them are good.

      Honestly, given the standard amounts of radiation that come out of a coal power plant every day, all they have to do is build a few small leaks into the spec for the new reactor and they're ahead. Every year they don't have a leak or have fewer than "expected" they can advertise as being better secure than planned, possibly even encouraging the reporting and fixing of the leaks as its no longer "we're gonna die national news" but "everything's functioning perfectly local news".

      --
      No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    2. Re:Yes but by rmckeethen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is they lied under oath. And once people are lying about the state of things you don't know what else they are or will lie about. These might not matter, but they might very well lie about the next leak when it is a serious problem. As with many issues, the initial incident isn't nearly as much of a problem as the coverup.

      How do you know they lied? How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing? I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise. I'm not convinced that isn't the case here. TFA doesn't provide enough evidence one way or the other on this point. It certainly doesn't substantiate a deliberate coverup. There's just no hard evidence of that.

      The recent revelation of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee in 2005 seems, at least to me, to indicate that someone at Entergy is trying to be up-front and honest with the public and the NRC. I applaud that. Good for them. God knows, after Three-Mile Island in 1979, I can't imagine anyone in the US nuclear industry wanting to admit to any accident, benign or otherwise.

      As others have already pointed out, a tritium leak isn't particularly dangerous. I don't feel compelled to get my own knickers in a knot over the problem. But I do think it's telling how quickly a minor leak at a nuclear facility spirals into, "They're lying -- it's a coverup!" This type of knee-jerk anti-nuclear reaction is exactly why the US hasn't built a new reactor in over a quarter of a century. It's also why I'm dubious about new nuclear projects today. Until US citizens show a willingness to get facts in their hands and abandon the "if it's nuclear it must be bad' mentality we are never going to have the kind of debate we deserve to have over the pros and cons of nuclear energy.

    3. Re:Yes but by Improv · · Score: 1

      If they're not qualified to speak on a matter, they should not speak on it (or provide a big disclaimer). It may not be the kind of huge dangerous coverup that speaks of a conspiracy, but lying under oath on these matters is a big deal, even if the matter itself is reasonably benign - how can we hope to have broad consensus and many (qualified) eyes on the topic when the real facts arn't making it out there? Companies should just deal with the fact that kooks are going to read their public statements too - they still should be open and lying under oath is a really big deal.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    4. Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they lied? How can you be sure it wasn't an honest error by a company official who simply didn't understand the technical details of the reactor's plumbing? I don't know about you but, in my experience, these types of corporate misstatements and goof-ups are pretty common in any industry, nuclear or otherwise. I'm not convinced that isn't the case here.

      I don't know how many times Vermont Yankee has been sold since it was built (at least *three* I can find); but it's quite likely that they just didn't know the aforementioned pipes were there. We have to keep in mind that this is one of the most complicated systems ever designed, designed before cad/cam, designed before desktop computers, and designed by engineers who are at best long retired and at most likely dead for the last decade. It's much more likely that the institutional knowledge about the pipes just got lost, plain and simple.

      That said, nail 'em to the wall. The due diligence definitely wasn't done properly.

      IANANuclear Engineer, but I have done diligence work concerning nuclear acquisitions

    5. Re:Yes but by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is they lied under oath.

      Not necessarily. They didn't lie at all about the leak.

      What they are accused of lying about is "they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.".

      Now, given that juxtaposition (underground or buried pipes), and that the pipes in question were in a pipe tunnel (you know, the sort of place that people where walk along beside the pipes, looking at them, as opposed to underground or buried pipes like the water pipes into my house), it's just possible that the questioner meant one thing, and the answerer heard another.

      Note also that the answerer was not an Entergy executive necessarily - TFA merely describes them as "Entergy representatives"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They lied because they were under oath and said something that was not true. Company officials who simply don't understand the technical details should NOT be the company's voice when talking about said technical details. If they don't know the details, they should say so, and let someone more qualified answer the inquiry -- or, ask the person who does know.

      So either a) the person knowingly lied or b) the company was incompetent in assigning the right person to the job. Neither situation is acceptable accountability-wise from a private nuclear power company.

    7. Re:Yes but by thermopile · · Score: 1
      Wholeheartedly agree. Just ask Martha Stewart. She sold $230,000 worth of ImClone stock one day before the stock value crashed, to avoid losses of $45,000. In the grand scheme of things, $45k isn't a whole lot to either Martha Stewart, ImClone, or the Securities and Exchange Commission.

      But for the *coverup*, she got 5 months in jail and 5 months in home confinement.

      Similar story here, I think. I totally agree that the actual damages are minor. For a very good description of just how freaking minor this is, see this great description by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights.

      It is an utter shame that gigawatts of carbon-free electricity are likely to be taken off the grid because of this incident.

      --

      "Diplomacy is something you do until you find a rock." --Richard Pound

  8. Politicize this, much? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    This is clearly an issue of lack of oversight/integrity of a few operators, who are choosing to have unsavory business practices with regard to disclosure. Sure, if they lied they should be prosecuted, but this is hardly evidence that Nuclear Power is inherently flawed.

    But go ahead, politicize it. I have my one-liner ready: "No One Died When Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board Lied."

    1. Re:Politicize this, much? by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Sure, if they lied they should be prosecuted, but this is hardly evidence that Nuclear Power is inherently flawed.

      This is very true. The anti-nuclear crowd will eat this up because Entegy has basically fed them easy talking points. But the fact remains that when you have a company like this lying about minor stuff that tends to erode any confidence that they wouldn't be lying about any bigger issues that may have already happened or may happen in the future.

  9. I bet... by srussia · · Score: 1

    Entergy got subsidies for their plants. Their performance was close enough for government work. Predictable.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  10. New Plants have nothing to do with old... by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time. Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC. Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension. And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time. And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked.

    But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE. It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by idontgno · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A better car analogy: "I don't trust any hybrid because of that damn Prius braking problem. And the fact that Toyota denied there was any Prius braking problem for so long."

      But let the anti-nuke whackjobs be the anti-nuke whackjobs. It keeps them out of more annoying fringe circles.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, silver and gray cars are hit and run killers? Holy crap - is anyone doing something about this?!? We should confiscate those cars ASAP! Thanks for the heads-up!

    3. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. It shows that the NRC doesn't have the authority or will to enforce the regulations. The NRC will be the regulatory agency overseeing the new plants, so there is relevance.

    4. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time.

      I'd say that someone should go to prison, and it should be someone from the very top ranks of the company. And the company's stockholders should all lose every penny they invested. This time the only serious matter was the lying and coverup, next time it could be catastrophic. IMO fines are not enough; someone whould spend serious time with other thieves and murderers.

      But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE

      Agreed; the summary was somewhat politicized. We need new nukes, but they shouldn't be run by the sort of people who ran this one.

      But considering that the former head of NASDAQ is in prison for a billion dollar Ponzi scheme, how are you going to find someone trustworthy? I'd say let the state or local governments run it. At least then you have some sort of accountability. Our governmnent-run power plant here in Springfield, IL produces the cheapest power in the state, has the best uptime in the state, and their customer service is stellar. And they make a profit for the city by selling power to other companies. The reason is, if the customer service is bad, or the rates get high, or the power goes out too often, the Mayor loses his job.

      In the private utility industries the customer has no recourse and doesn't matter at all to the company; it's not like you can use the competing power company down the block. Their CEOs are beholden to nobody but the stockholders.

      All utilities, IMO, should be government-run (at the most local level possible).

    5. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Funny

      But yes, do the Anti-Nuke faction drive Prius'? or is is Priusi, Priusen? If so we can kill two birds with one stone.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    6. Re:New Plants have nothing to do with old... by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      A more apt car analogy- "The bumper fell off their 30 year old Dodge, and they denied that the bumper fell off or that it ever had a bumper. Taxpayers may be on the hook now because Obama bought a new Toyota in Georgia." No mention whether we should check the bumpers on other 30 year old Dodges?

  11. Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by rbanzai · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money. All other concerns are secondary including the safety of the public. It's not the technology that is dangerous, it's the terrible people operating it. I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process. This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.

    I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money.

    1. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      As opposed to government officials, who are either blinded by power or "following protocol" depending upon their lever in the organization.

      People are fickle. Nothing is going to change that - and the fact is, monetary incentive happens to be the most reliable, by far.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      So they cover up a leak, that to put it into a scale familiar to you, is equivalent to spilling about 10 gallons of gasoline and not telling anyone about it and you think they are running the plant "dangerously"?

    3. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      I'm sure everything will be fine and dandy when we shut down all these nuclear plants in order to switch to those safe, non-polluting coal plants...

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    4. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by dasunt · · Score: 1

      I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money.

      Is this different from any other industry?

      I would expect that the Chinese firms that make solar panel have pretty lax guidelines for disposal of the hazardous materials needed to make solar panels. I'd expect the mining companies that come up with the metals needed for wind mills and the additional power lines have some pretty horrendous practices as well. There have been hydroelectric dam failures. And heck, you don't even want to know the estimated number of deaths per year from a properly working coal power plant.

      Is there any reason that nuclear power should be any different from the others?

    5. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Just like pretty much every other company on Earth their primary interest is money.

      Obviously not. Once their license is shut down, the plant is fined by the NRC, and the company is sued into oblivion they won't be making much money. If they were concerned about money, they would have dealt with the problem.

    6. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      This little omission is just one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of cover-ups by the nuclear industry who are their own worst enemy when it comes to the public embracing nuclear power.

      Yes, because those engineers working in the plants themselves with their fingers on whatever control switches/safety shut offs there are don't have a conscience. In fact, if their plant has an issue and it kills a few folk in the surrounding area, more the the better. I mean, it thins the gene pool right and THOSE people aren't smart nuclear physicists. /endsarcasm

      Give me a fucking break. Have you ever met an engineer that has worked on a large, industrial scale project that has the potential to kill people? Have you met someone that works at a rocket launch facility? What about the overseer of a car manufacturing plant? Have you met someone that helps manage a hydro electric damn? They tend to be extraordinarily conscientious people who are absolutely terrified at the prospect of something going wrong under their supervision precisely because they don't want some public fiasco (much less the deaths of their neighbors) on their conscience. Keep your trolling nuclear power cover up conspiracy theories in that hole-punctured little brain of yours or get out into the real world and try meeting some of the people that work on these projects. Even those evil middle management types that we love to bitch about here on slashdot tend to display moral compunction for the sole reason that they don't want to get people killed.

      I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.

      And this little statement just goes to show what a snide little misinformed asshat you are. In practice, nuclear power works just fine and dandy. Ask France, they've been operating on primarily nuclear power for well over a decade without subjecting their citizenry to glowing green blobs of cancer. Keep your biased pseudo-philosophical cliches to yourself and get out of the way while the grown ups go to work to keep their respective industries safe.

    7. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I trust nuclear power. I do not trust the people responsible for providing it, or the people responsible for overseeing them. They are all blinded by money."

      I trust solar power. I just don't trust that it is cost efficient, can produce large amount of energy, can produce energy reliably, and I certainly don't trust those who are heavily invested in these industries to speak the truth because the 'green industry' is as corrupted by money as any industry... even more so given that the entire industry exists because of government subsidy, relies on government subsidy going forward, and will only become competitive if the government artificially increases the price of energy with a cap and trade tax. You're right, the green movement is all about money.

    8. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I believe nuclear energy can be safe in theory but in practice it's the people who inject the danger to the process.

      You do us all a disservice when you limit it to nuclear power companies. The only reason they are dangerous is because, by necessity, they handle radioactive material. Why doesn't equal concern, and equal regulation fall on hospitals, and any other industry that needs large quantities of the stuff? In fact that later is probably making more money off the radioactive materials than the former.

      It's simple, really. It's easy to be afraid of nuclear when there's little else on the line, but the decision is much more balanced when it's your broken rib, or your mother's cancer metastasizing.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by lennier · · Score: 1

      True, but there is another angle to this:

      The very nature of fission (at least the designs we currently have; possibly pebble bed or screw-reflector designs might sidestep some of this problem but I'm dubious) lends itself to centralisation. Because fission is a process which is fundamentally hazardous and produces toxic byproducts (radioactive isotopes) which we don't have good natural biological detection and defence against, it requires a certain minimum amount of high-tech monitoring protocols to be used with any degree of safety. A fire, you can burn yourself, but your skin will detect the heat and you can fairly easily learn to stay way. Poisonous industrial chemicals are worse, you could breathe fumes like the Bhopal disaster (though there'll often be visible cloud/mist to warn you to stay clear). But a piece of 'hot' uranium or a radioactive cloud, your body won't necessarily give you any cues until it's too late; if you see a blue flash from a criticality incident up close, you're probably already dying.

      This means that to deploy fission successfully, it really can't be decentralised beyond a certain point because the operators have to be trained, monitored, etc. So there's a certain minimum of high-tech, high capital civilisation required to keep it running. And this has a big effect: it forces the shape of the power generation infrastructure to be like a pyramid, with a few big operators (even with international government/military involvement due to weapon proliferation or terrorism concerns).

      Because of this pyramid structure forced by monitoring and safety concerns, it means big decisions must be made by a few people at the top - corporate executives, DOE officers, etc. And unfortunately, this means that the potential for corporate/governmental corruption - or even just the ordinary level of big-organisation blindness - is bigger than in an industry (like say, Internet development) where the technology is relatively safe and it would be okay for there to be lots of small semi-skilled players.

      So now we have an environment where the technology itself forces big installations, big organisations, with all the inefficiencies that implies, and the potential for big mistakes made by a few. That's not really an ideal situation; the technology is driving the shape of the social organisation that creates it rather than the other way around.

      A lot of these problems go away, or are minimised, if we don't look at fission as the solution but look at more decentralised energy alternatives like solar.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    10. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Which perfectly explains the impeccable safety record of US Naval nuclear reactors right?

    11. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Impeccable? Surely that's somewhat of a stretch. The USS Puffer comes to mind.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    12. Re:Nuclear companies cannot be trusted by rbanzai · · Score: 1

      And your post perfectly demonstrates why the majority of people will never trust nuclear energy proponents. Nothing but insults! :D

  12. Absurd by sackvillian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's ridiculous that the summary implies that, in the context of this leak, Obama setting aside funds for building new power plants is a negative thing.

    If anything, the fact that America's only nuclear power comes from relatively ancient, decaying reactors of obsolete design should be motivation for building new nuclear power plants. This might be the best tangible thing Obama has proposed to date and informed citizens should be applauding it.

    --
    Hey mate, spare a sig?
    1. Re:Absurd by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...and informed citizens should be applauding it."

      They are. Both of them.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Amen.

      I'm rabidly anti-Obama, because I disagree with almost every one of his policies on a fundamental level. The simple fact is, however, building more nuclear power plants is a good thing. I'd rather them happen through private industry, and without subsidy, but this is still a step in the right direction.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    3. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because I disagree with almost every one of his policies on a fundamental level.

      Cool! So you're against the war and torture and the patriot act, and the health industry bail out program etc etc also

      Private industry would not touch nuclear without some heavy tax breaks or other form of subsidy. One of the major reasons that mainstream energy sources remain more than price competitive with the alternatives is due to government subsidies.

    4. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm rabidly anti-Obama, because I disagree with almost every one of his policies

      Everybody does, because he's so damn centrist.

      • Troop surge in Afghanistan? Sure!
      • Relax stem cell research restrictions? Sure!
      • New nuclear power plants? Sure!
      • Increase spending on solar power? Sure!
      • Ditch the public option on healthcare? Sure!
      • First Latina Justice? Sure!
      • Tax cuts? Sure!
      • Withdrawl from Iraq? Sure!
      • Republican defense secretary? Sure!
      • Close Gitmo? Sure!
      • Wiretap warrants on Post-It Notes? Sure!
    5. Re:Absurd by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      I dunno how far your "aisle-crossing" will go. The mere fact that Obama's name is next to "nuclear power" will cause at least a few republican outlets to decry it as a leftists plot against... someone or other. They'll be hunting for da ebil librals. Hopefully they'll find out more people that lied at tritium and the like.
      But I'm with you, another push for nuclear power would be a good thing.

    6. Re:Absurd by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I'd rather them happen through private industry, and without subsidy, but this is still a step in the right direction.

      The private market refuses to lend money for nuclear plants without the Federal Government co-signing the loan.
      On the same topic, the private market has also refused to insure nuclear plants since day one

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I am opposed to the treatment of the war in Iraq, and could probably be convinced the rationale for the war itself was flawed - the typical arguments don't hold up, though, as there is a big difference between incorrect intelligence, shared between most major nations and misleading. Afghanistan, however, was justified, though I am opposed to how we are handling the situation with the opium growers there.

      I'm against the Patriot Act, any healthcare bill that has the citizenry paying for others' healthcare in a compulsory way or further regulates the insurance industry, and against all of the bailouts, from day one.

      Private industry would be much more apt to work with nuclear power if not for the huge regulatory burden. *Some* standards and regulations are probably necessary here, but there I have a very low tolerance for red tape and all the expensive nonsense that comes with it.

      I consider myself an extremist within the right, for sure. I share much with Libertarians, and often identify myself as an Objectivist (though I disagree with Rand's premise on the topic of religion).

      In short, I'm me; I don't go check with anyone before I form my own opinions.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    8. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      The same purpose could be served by self-insurance, or by an industry organization with multiple members who share the risk among themselves.

      In fact, such an arrangement would give further monetary incentive for self-regulation, whereas the current system divorces the risk somewhat from those who are operating the facility.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    9. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I would argue that he isn't centrist, he's merely a Marxist with very poor leadership skills.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    10. Re:Absurd by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      That actually hurt my brain a little bit.

      I'm curious though...What do you think a Marxist believes?

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:Absurd by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The nuclear industry does put money into a fund to cover accidents. It is just that the amount of damages is limited by legislation, so you do not get frivolous lawsuits or unreasonable lawsuits as happens so commonly in the US of A.

    12. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nuclear power fits under the blind squirrel and the nut. Obama's a nut but he did get this right.

    13. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of a big topic for a Slashdot post, but in short, a Marxist believes that the lower economic classes (the proletariat) are exploited by the upper economic classes (the bourgeoisie), via the fact that they generally consume less than the value their work provides. They do this quasi-voluntarily, because the Marxist proposes the false dichotomy that a worker has the option to work for an employer, or starve.

      As for how this relates to Obama, let's take a well-known example, the "Joe the Plumber" video. Obama's explanation to Joe was (paraphrased): "You've made some money in this world by working hard and building a business. Now, I'm promising to come in, take some of that wealth from you, and spread it around so that it is easier for others to do the same". Implicit in this is the belief that the employer is somehow lording over the employed by the mere fact that they are employers.

      I reject the notion that it is somehow wrong that the laborer should have to work very hard to become an employer. In fact, the greatest issue that I have personally faced in owning a business is that of government regulation, not the action of a higher economic class.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    14. Re:Absurd by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      So, you base his marxism on one comment made before he was president? Even Adam Smith believed in taxes, and Smith also believed in taxing the rich at a higher level than the poor.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    15. Re:Absurd by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      I gave an example - an example does not equal an entire body of evidence.

      While I admit to not having exhaustively read Smith, from what I *have* read, he did not favor anything resembling the progressive tax system we have today. Instead, he advocated a tax on luxury goods. In fact, he argues against taxation on labor, and cautions against taxes on profits, as they disincentivize productivity.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
  13. what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Tritium does not produce neutrons (few radioactive materials do). It emits only[1] electrons which can only penetrate a few mm of air.

    [1] It also emits nearly indetectable electon neutrinos. Billions of neutrinos pass through your body every day

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends by lwsimon · · Score: 1

      Yep - in fact, tritium is often used in night sights for handguns, as they glow brightly without outside power.

      Trijicon sights are very popular, and their site shows that a set of sights totals about .054 curies. So, this is like a box of 40 sets of night sights. Most decent gun stores are more of a radiation hazard than this leak, based upon that calculation.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    2. Re:what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Ah, what is the difference between tritium and hydrogen?

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
    3. Re:what's-a-few-neutrons-among-friends by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      IIRC (it's been many ages since I took HS physics), a regular hydrogen atom is one proton. A tritium atom is one proton and two neutrons.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  14. dear market place fundamentalists and libertarians by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the market does not take care of itself

    repeat: the market does NOT take care of itself

    with things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize. you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulate

    no, it is not red tape that interferes with the normal functioning of the marketplace, it is the only way things fucking work right

    for examples like this, for the example of the economic meltdown in 2008, for the example of healthcare, and for examples like enron

    no, it does make you a fucking communist to admit that the market does not solve ALL problems. it simply makes you wise and intelligent for simply recognizing that THE. MARKET. DOES. NOT. SOLVE. ALL. PROBLEMS. full stop

    for most sectors of society, indeed, a market free of most regulations IS the ideal. but even then, in something like food, for example, you still want the government running around, and you still want to spend tax money on all those pesky government employees and their horrid, horrid bureaucracy, to fucking make sure you're not eating melamine or toxic e coli. yes, you want to pay fuckign taxes for that, asshole

    if you had no inspectors, the manufacturers would likely suffer business wise. true. BUT THEY WOULD ALSO KILL PEOPLE. get it? in other words, some failures that market players can suffer are so severe, a simple market correction is not the only way they should be punished. furthermore, some "failures", such as leaking tritium, or overindulging on bad mortgage loans, are so horribly disruptive as to kill people or destroy an entire economy

    then you need government bailouts. after which some of you assholes will still blame the government for that, as fucking blind as you are, when it was YOUR FUCKING THINKING THAT LED TO THE DISMANTLING OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS THAT CREATED THE MELTDOWN

    please adjust your idiotic simplistic worship of market forces: they are not the fucking answer to everything. really. welcome to reality assholes

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  15. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen... by OmniGeek · · Score: 1

    While you are correct in noting that a beta emitter isn't necessarily harmless (and emphatically correct that the perjury is by far the bigger issue), I'd like to note that tritium, being an isotope of hydrogen, tends to escape straight up, very fast. Molecules of "normal" hydrogen are VERY light, and rise so fast when released that they can reach escape velocity, plus hydrogen is good at diffusing through containers. Thus, it's safe to conclude that the tritium in question bolted for the stratosphere at its first opportunity, and didn't hang around to endanger anyone. Alas, the same cannot be said of the plant management...

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
    1. Re:Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Well, it leaked underground, and probably was in the form of tritiated water (HTO) which would tend to stick around a little longer.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Sure, if it's diatomic tritium. The article isn't exactly clear what form it is, but if they're finding it in water around the plant, we're probably talking about tritiated water. That is, water where at least one of the hydrogens is tritium. I'm not sure why they'd have gaseous tritium anyway.

      In any case, the radiation levels they're finding are well within the normal ranges of background radiation. Nothing to worry about. What is worrying is the cover up. I really hope it doesn't damage the prospects for greater use of nuclear energy in the US.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen... by TheClam · · Score: 1

      Sure, it escapes straight up if it's diatomic tritium, like the usual hydrogen molecule.

      Not so much if the tritium atom takes the place of a hydrogen atom in water.

  16. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by russotto · · Score: 1

    with things like energy utilities, you do NOT privatize. you heavily involve the government and you heavily regulate

    Right, because government officials are both benevolent and competent. As with Chernobyl, as with China's pollution.

  17. Illegal, Immoral or Fattening by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Everything is Illegal, Immoral or Fattening as the saying goes. There's nothing on this planet that doesn't have risks associated with it and while I don't condone covering something up with lies, this is another example of something that's blown out of proportion.

    Is air travel safe? Yes, but wait, those folks who died a year ago on the "regional" Continental flight would disagree.
    Is the TSA doing their job? Yes, but wait, that guy who shoved explosives in his pants was from another country and we can't enforce our policies overseas. In the meantime your name doesn't match your boarding pass Tom, it needs to say Thomas.
    Is the air we breathe save? Yes, but not in the summer in LA or Houston or any major Metropolitan area. If you're old, young or have Asthma, just stay inside.
    Is driving safe? Yes, but if you own a Toyota don't expect to be able to steer or stop.
    Is climbing mountains safe? Yes, but just don't get too close to the edges of those volcanoes and watch out for: bears, cougars, bobcats, snakes and falling rocks.
    Is taking a shower safe? Yes, but more people die in the home than in the highway, a lot of those die in the bathtub.
    Is Nuclear Power safe? Yes, but aging plants and huge projects are always problematic.
    Will corporate America ever learn to tell the truth? Yes, under subpoena and after advice from their attorneys.
    Is being a "Tree Hugger" safe? Yes unless you count the STDs from all those "Rainbow Reunions."

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  18. Straw man arguments and misrepresentation by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Go read
    http://www.essortment.com/all/libertarianwhat_rcrx.htm

    You could have googled. it's the second link.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Straw man arguments and misrepresentation by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      I do believe his comment began with "dear market place fundamentalists and libertarians". As in, the people who believe the market will solve all problems. I don't think he was talking about anyone who rational and logical, like an actual libertarian.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
  19. Slow Down by Aldhibah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Before we talk about nailing the company to the wall perhaps we should look into the reporting requirements a little closer. The linked article itself states, "The NRC is investigating why it took Entergy five years to report the leak, but for it to have been reportable, it has to meet certain off site dose limits. It is also investigating how Entergy responded to the problem." So we don't even know if the leak met reporting requirements. Also, there is much hay made over Entergy lying about the existence of the pipes. The company apparently did not deny the existence of underground pipes but some company representative stated before a public service commission that he/she was unaware of any underground pipes carrying radioactive particles. I don't know the context of the original statement but a close reading would seem to imply the steam pipe in question was not intended to carry radioactive particles and only the failure of several check valves allowed the particles to get into the pipe. I would guess that the steam leak was found because of the trace radiation.

  20. And this is the argument against nuclear by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, it can be done safely. But, when you've got Corporate American running things with CEOs who'd sell their own mothers to bury one quarter of lackluster PR, you get these kinds of results. Toyota tried to bury a potentially life threatening flaw in order to postpone a little bad press resulting in a major scandal years later. This is the fundamental flaw in Free Market thinking. Companies aren't going to do the Right Thing because profitability dictates it. They'll lie about it then leave the train wreck for next guy.

    If Toyota is willing to lie about a little brake problem that's probably killed people, you trust a company not to lie or cut corners when it comes to expensive waste disposal?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:And this is the argument against nuclear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, JB. I concur. It's not that there isn't sound scientific evidence that it CAN be managed safely, it's that those safeguards can be over-ridden by greedy and/or stupid people that don't ever have to really deal with the consequences.

      "When we tested the drinking water it was safe. Why would we tell people downstream and create a panic over a non-issue?"

    2. Re:And this is the argument against nuclear by RudeIota · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Absolutely right. I'd like to add that reasonably free-willed capitalism can't sustain itself without 'moral ethics'.

      Unfortunately, we've entered a period where our society has disregarded ethics in favor of profit. Of course, profit is almost always the primary motivator in the free-market, but profit needs to be accompanied by ethics or I'd wager the system will ultimately fail. This kind of stuff is often the result of those lack of moral ethics.

      For all of you dirty business men/women out there who think you make a quick buck at the expense of public health, safety, product quality etc.. ALWAYS remember this: Where ever morality is found to be absent from capitalism, legislation will be substituted in its place. I, for one, don't personally like 'morality' being legislated.

      If you're really a free-market person, then surely you can appreciate doing the *right* thing -- because if you don't -- government intervention in the market becomes YOUR fault.

      --
      Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
  21. Tritium by rossdee · · Score: 1

    AFAIK tritium is an isotope of hydrogen, with an atomic weight of 3. It is radioactive, but its still hydrogen, and is a gas lighter than air. If it leaks its going to rise up to the top of the atmosphere, so its not going to affect anyone unless they live above the plant.

    1. Re:Tritium by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Nope. Gases mix. If not, we would all be dead since there would be no oxygen down here.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:Tritium by quenda · · Score: 1

      and is a gas lighter than air.

      Bad assumption. In reality it is heavy water. Molecular weight of 20 - still lighter than air, but heavier than regular water vapour.

  22. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admit it: you're actually a libertarian trying to make non-libertarians look like idiots.

  23. Nu-Cu-LAR! by headkase · · Score: 1

    Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!" The power has to come from somewhere. Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does. And also current designs, as in not from 30 years ago, actually don't melt down: at all. Nuclear material still takes care to handle but of all the trade-off's its actually darn good everything taken into account.

    --
    Shh.
    1. Re:Nu-Cu-LAR! by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Nobody wants the nuclear power plant in their back yard because it is: "NUCULAR!!!" The power has to come from somewhere. Yet everyone will happily accept that coal-powered plant in their front yard which actually emits more radiation (through trace amounts in the coal) than a nuclear plant does.

      [citation needed]

      Seriously, have you ever seen the public outcry over siting new non-nuclear power plants? No one wants them near them -- especially coal power plants -- either. Wind turbines are too ugly. Hydroelectric dams destroy too much land. Anything that burns fossil fuels raises issues with airborne pollution, especially coal or oil fired plants.

      NIMBYism isn't restricted nuclear power plants.

      The only difference with nuclear power plants is that energy companies don't want to build them -- unless the public indemnifies the operator against any liability. Why? Because not only does the public not like them, the operators and insurers don't feel they are safe enough, either, which is why they aren't willing to build them if they are financially on the line in the event of an accident.

  24. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by theelectron · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because the USSR and PRC governments and cultures are equivalent to the USA. Capitalism has created it fair share of problems, including TMI, even when compared to communism.

  25. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    While I broadly agree with the subject of your post, the tiny release of tritium here is unlikely to kill anyone. Since 1955 there has only been about 250kg of the stuff produced in the first place, and the release here was on the order of 2 microcuries. You get a *significantly higher* amount of radiation from natural background sources. It's also a beta emmiter, so unless you ingest it (and it's a very light gas that will have dissipated quickly, so unlikely) you are not going to be harmed by it at all.

    You're facing more danger crossing the road, or eating a Big Mac.

  26. Citations. by headkase · · Score: 1

    Coal Ash more radioactive than Nuclear Waste

    Meltdown proof reactors (search for meltdown to find the relevant part)

    And the better overall part?: No greenhouse gases.

    --
    Shh.
  27. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    Right, because government officials are both more benevolent and competent than a private industry whose only concern is profits.

    Of course, if you don't like government officials, I'm sure we can do away with the FDA. You trust manufacturers to put the right ingredients on the label, yeah?

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  28. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

    Normally I'm against such an abrasive attitude, but it was quite satisfying to read your rant. Market fundamentalists are like any other fundamentalist - shortsighted and foolish.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  29. Depends on what the definition of "is" is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did they lie? From Brattleboro Reformer:

    The leak was prior to statements made by Entergy representatives to the Vermont Public Service Board, in which it said they were not aware of any underground or buried pipes that carried radioactive materials.

    and

    Ray Shadis, technical consultant for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, said in 2005, Entergy was filing license extension documents with the NRC claiming that the off-gas system was not included in its aging management plan because it does not interact with the plant's safety systems.

    Note that they didn't lie about the leak and by design the pipes would not be carrying radioactive fluids.

    Based on levels, it may be that this didn't rise to the level of a reportable leak.

    Which brings us to the problem of what definitions people were using and if they were being completely truthful.

  30. I admit my ignorance by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?

    Is it used for pipe radiography? Seems you'd prefer a gamma emitter for that.

    Is it being bred? Surely a reactor designed for isotope manufacture would be more convenient.

    1. Re:I admit my ignorance by mpoulton · · Score: 1

      Where does tritium fit into the operations at a power plant?

      It is a fission product, with very low yield. It is also produced from neutron activation of lithium-6, and from thermal neutrons and He3. In other words, it's an inadvertent byproduct of the reactor, and it shows up in the cooling loop.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    2. Re:I admit my ignorance by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Heavy water is often used in reactor cooling/moderation. For that matter, light water in the presence of neutron emitters (such as a fission reaction) will slowly become heavy water. In any case, sometimes the deuterium or tritium ions split from their oxygen atoms, especially under the energetic conditions within a reactor. Unless they quickly re-bond (either with oxygen or other hydrogen ions) you now have monatomic hydrogen in your water stream. That stuff is damn near impossible to contain - one of the reasons hydrogen as a fuel source for cars has never really taken off; it either has to be kept super cold or it escapes slowly through almost any valve or seal - and so you get tritium (monatomic, possibly also molecular) slowly leaking out. It's lighter than air, but in a small space it may accumulate for a while before something happens, like a maintenance shaft being opened, that wafts it out into the open. Viola, a "tritium leak"!

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  31. Loan Guarantee by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The loan guarantee is connected because Obama promised support for nuclear power only if it was safe. Manifestly it is not.

    1. Re:Loan Guarantee by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      Define 'safe'.

      This is a tiny leak that is a regulatory problem, not a safety problem. The tritium levels are regulated because it isn't expensive to contain it, not because it poses an extreme and eminent danger.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:Loan Guarantee by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Manifestly?? Don't insult our intelligence, this is an insignificant "safety hazard."

    3. Re:Loan Guarantee by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oooooo, scary tritium. Looks like hydrogen but has two scaaaary extra neutrons.

      When you get done tilting at this windmill, I think you need to go take on carbon-14. It also has two extra neutrons. Scaaaaaary.

      Newsflash bub, it's in your water already. It's in ALL water. It's in the air. And it was there before we started using nuclear power, and it'll be there after we're gone.

      Fearmongering to try and sell your fricking solar panels is pathetic.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Loan Guarantee by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Looks like I assumed too much of you intelligence. The way the company behaves, it is very unlikely that they are running their plants safely. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/02sirenswe.html

    5. Re:Loan Guarantee by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      So one guard was caught sleeping on the job and you use that to judge the entire company and the thousands of employees working there?

    6. Re:Loan Guarantee by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You don't think they might post guards in pairs?

    7. Re:Loan Guarantee by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      Here I thought the loan guarantee was only mentioned because it has put some attention back on nuclear, and this is a bad time for a plant to get negative attention.

      There is no form of power generation that will exclude all other forms of power generation. There are areas of the world which don't get consistent sunlight, aren't close to any usable hydroelectric, and have inconsistent wind. Power in those areas is limited to 3 main choices: coal, oil and nuclear. As far as I can tell, the plant in question is in Vermont. Solar with current technology isn't even viable in Virginia which gets more daylight.

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    8. Re:Loan Guarantee by maxume · · Score: 1

      The guy you are responding to markets solar panels in Maryland.

      (The government tax rebates are one of his big selling points)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Loan Guarantee by wintercolby · · Score: 1

      He'd be better off marketing wind power, if it's Delmarva, but Solar, really? I costed out installing solar panels in Virginia. It turned out that they wouldn't pay for themselves before needing repair/end of warranty. And what exactly happens when Gallium-Arsenide, which contains arsenic, leeches into ground water when the general population disposes of photovoltaics irresponsibly?

      --
      Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
    10. Re:Loan Guarantee by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      Who said he was the only guard? Or the first and last guard between you and the nuclear reactor core?

      Besides, what do you think someone can actually do to a nuclear reactor? Shut it down? lol.

    11. Re:Loan Guarantee by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Melt it down.

    12. Re:Loan Guarantee by TheKidWho · · Score: 1

      The chances of terrorists bypassing all of the security systems of a nuclear reactor which prevent it from nuclear meltdown are incredibly slim.

  32. Re: Anonymous Coward by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    And you are?....

  33. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by Improv · · Score: 1

    Bravo.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  34. It's 2.5million more than they said there was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's 2.5million more than they said there was. So what happens when it's 250 million? Or an even bigger accident?

    1. Re:It's 2.5million more than they said there was by conureman · · Score: 1

      It's actually only 6.37 times what they said it was, you unmathematical clod. ;p

      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  35. There are additional BIOLOGICAL problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are additional BIOLOGICAL problems: chemically reactive as water, but the wrong weight. Therefore T2O won't be the same shape as H2O. Organic compounds will not shape correctly or react at the same rates. Tritium/Hydrogen is a big part of DNA. Wrong weight and there's no need to have it hit by a cosmic ray: it's carrying a beta particle that will break the chain right in it.

    1. Re:There are additional BIOLOGICAL problems by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Does duplicating DNA rip the hydrogen from water as a supply of hydrogen?

      I would have thought it came from whatever long-chain hydrocarbons were being busted apart in innumerable reactions.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:There are additional BIOLOGICAL problems by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Some protons in the nucleotide biosynthesis do indeed come from water, some from other sources. Additionaly, some protons, for example the protons of the -OH groups of the sugar component of nucleotides, can exchange with water along the lines of -OH + T2O -> -OT + TOH. So tritium can indeed be incorporated into DNA. While doing tritium labeling experiments in the lab, I always treated the stuff with respect.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  36. VT Yankee workers break into press conference by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Today a rowdy group of Vermont Yankee worker broke into a press conference being held by Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility to shout lies about renewable power: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100223/THISJUSTIN/100229968 Nuclear Hooligans.

    1. Re:VT Yankee workers break into press conference by maxume · · Score: 1

      But sparks flew when several of the Entergy employees crashed a press conference held by the organization Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, which opposes the relicensing of the plant.

      Vermont Yankee workers began yelling questions and comments at the speakers, resulting in a heated exchange on the benefits and fallbacks of nuclear power and renewable sources such as wind and solar - all before a crowd of cameras and reporters.

      "I hate how this debate has become wind versus nuclear," said Vedranal Wren, an operator at Vermont Yankee who lives in Brattleboro. "I want both."

      Don Mayer, the owner of Small Dog Electronics, a member of VBSR, fought back against accusations from Vermont Yankee workers that solar power was not renewable. While it takes a lot to produce the panels, the equipment doesn't "have a half-life of a thousand years," he told the frustrated workers.

      It sounds like they arrived and were disruptive, it does not sound like they broke into anything.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:VT Yankee workers break into press conference by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I meant that as in crashed a party or broke into a conversation but I can see how you read that differently.

    3. Re:VT Yankee workers break into press conference by BCoates · · Score: 1

      Care to quote one of the 'lies'? I don't see any in the article.

    4. Re:VT Yankee workers break into press conference by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Might want to RTFA.

  37. tritium danger by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When combined with carbon in sugars and starches, it stays in the body when consumed.

    1. Re:tritium danger by maxume · · Score: 1

      Only until it decays.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:tritium danger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hydrogen. What hydrogen does, it does, just with an additional 2 stylish neutrons. It doesn't bioaccumulate.

    3. Re:tritium danger by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yes, and you don't have to wait long for that. Hum....

    4. Re:tritium danger by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Until the sugar and starch decays, moron. What you're talking about is basically a water molecule. How long any individual water molecule stays in the body is pretty hard to determine.

      Unlike carbon-14 which binds into your bones! Scaaaaary!

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    5. Re:tritium danger by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh, wait for it..... Decays to fat.

    6. Re:tritium danger by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      And the dwell time of an individual fat molecule is? I'm sure you know right off the top of your head.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:tritium danger by maxume · · Score: 1

      I was actually talking about radioactive decay.

      (I would describe it as a 'heckling' comment, it was a poor attempt at a joke (I gave myself an 'Oh shoot' when I realized that expulsion was probably more likely than decay))

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:tritium danger by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      For me it seems like an eternity.

    9. Re:tritium danger by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Funny

      When combined with carbon in sugars and starches, it stays in the body when consumed.

      Well then we gotta do something! NO MORE SUGARS! DEATH TO BIG STARCHES!

    10. Re:tritium danger by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The dwell time in the body, for a given molecule of HTO, is between 7 and 12 days. Pretty much everyone in the world has some HTO in their body right now. Likewise carbon-14, likewise potassium-40. All those put together are less toxic than sitting out in the sun for a day.

      Radiation is a fact of life big guy.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:tritium danger by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      However, the fat residence time is much much longer.

  38. The Real Threat by gedrin · · Score: 1

    I think we should examine the real threat here. Tritium poisoning, while a vital and serious problem affecting everyone, is actually so uncommon that I can't find any death per year figures. Toyota seems to be much more dangerous, with a few hundred of break failures when it sells about 2,000,000 cars a year in the US (and the break failures are in a range of years, so several million cars).

    It is time we look at the real threat...showers. Far more lethal than Toyota brakes and tritium combined - many times over, the shills for Corporate America have been manufacturing these death chambers for years while keeping the sheeple ignorant of the danger. Just ask any of their CEO's and they'll lie, telling you that its safe to take a shower, when they KNOW thousands of people die each year in these menaces. It's high time we spoke out aganist the threat and shut down the companies that make these lethal contraptions.

    --
    Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
  39. Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    There is probably less than 70 years of uranium available at the present rate of use. Increasing use would cut the time to the point where a plant built today would run out of fuel before it gets a chance to develop leaks. http://www.physorg.com/news177839133.html

    1. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Nuclear Energy Agency disagrees with those numbers. They say there is at least a 230 year supply. And that isn't even taking into account any increases in efficiency (most of the US nuclear plants were built using 1960s technology, newer plants being built today are more efficient), finding undiscovered resources, etc. into the equation.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    2. Re:Not enough uranium by amorsen · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of fissionable material. The unknown is whether it is economical to extract it. However, even 70 years should be good enough for better technologies to take over.

      Not that I'm particularly in favour of nuclear, but anything is better than coal.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    3. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      So, apparently they are not up-to-date in their estimate.

    4. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1
      No, it is just the difference in figuring out rate of usage, and estimating current supplies. If you asked 10 scientists this same question, you would have 10 different answers. So I would say that we have between 70 - 230 years worth of uranium left. But uranium isn't the only thing we can use for production of nuclear energy, so it is at best a moot point.

      That estimate is also using only current reactor technology (which is basically from the 1950s and 1960s). Making more efficient reactors is inevitable. From the end of the article I linked -

      Fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    5. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      It isn't just raw costs, it is also other factors. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources available, polluting far less than coal burners do.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    6. Re:Not enough uranium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, a troll complaining about being modded a troll. Guess some people have trouble with douchbaggery.

    7. Re:Not enough uranium by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You have to learn the difference between reserves and resources.

    8. Re:Not enough uranium by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Wow. A meltdown. Like Three Mile Island? How many people died there? 0? Do you have the faintest idea of how many coal miner deaths there are just in China every year?

    9. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      A more recent and more careful estimate such as I linked to may be more informative. You can also find out there why your last statement is moot.

    10. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      All you have proved is that two different scientists have two different opinions. Guess what? If you asked scientists three and four about their opinions, you would then have four different opinions. Because that is what they are - opinions. You may think yours is more accurate, but that doesn't matter to me or to the world's uranium supply. And all of this is moot as I pointed out multiple times earlier, becasue uranium is not the world's only fissionable material. Not only that, but they are talking about our CURRENT SUPPLY. There is literally tons of uranium out there - it just isn't as cheap to procure at this moment as the supply we already have was. New technology could change that any day.

      Who would have ever imagined that someone with "solar" right in his nickname would have a biased opinion towards nuclear energy production??

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    11. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      In a lot of the US you can't eat the fish in the streams because of mercury but in parts to the UK you can't raise sheep because of the fallout from Chernobyl. If we stop using coal we'll be able to eat the fish but the fallout will last longer. That gives nuclear a greater impact.

    12. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Since what you linked to has been criticized as unrealistic, you'll have to get your folks to respond. If they haven't then presumably they are revising their view. This is not just opinions. It is possible to learn things as time goes on.

    13. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl? So you are taking the very worst nuclear example (a reactor of that type could never have been built anywhere but Russia)and holding it up as an example? What about the hundreds of other nuclear plants that have been running for over 40 years that have not had any significant problems?? Three Mile Island is about the worst incident in the US you can point to, and that only resulted in like 20 curies worth of radiation being released. I can guarantee you that coal mining, production, and burning for fuel has caused far significant more health problems than nuclear energy has. Ever hear of "coal miners lung" before?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    14. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Ok, I get it. You don't understand how scientific opinions work. Duly noted.

      I am not saying the figures I linked are correct. I am saying that these are OPINIONS, and not FACTS. I really hope you at least realize the difference between the two. The fact that there is a difference should be enough to make it clear. Unless you actually think that the figures I linked to are flat out lies, which if you are claiming your figures are facts, may well be true.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, as can be seen here, running less than 40 years seems to lead to problems.

    16. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      You are desperately grasping at straws now, and ignoring every other question I have raised that you *know* makes your argument look silly.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    17. Re:Not enough uranium by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      60k made up deaths from an environmentalist party coalition site. Reading these numbers is like reading a RIAA estimate for damages from copying a single song. There were 57 direct deaths and even the highly debatable estimate in the UNSCEAR report is way less than that number.

    18. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Not really. You might want to read the report.

    19. Re:Not enough uranium by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 1

      But what about the disarming of nuclear weapons and using that for full? is/was this not an option?

    20. Re:Not enough uranium by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Guess what, luddite - Chernobyl can't happen in any reactor complex built in North America. I know why because I understand the physics. Do you?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Radium is a completely 100% natural element, as is Thorium. (All man does is enrich it.) Guess what kind of energy the sun runs on? Hint: it isn't coal, and solar energy is what it produces. Without nuclear fusion, there would be no solar power for anybody to collect.

      If you truly want to avoid using coal or nuclear power, have fun in the dark. Because unless you are living off the grid already, you are most likely using power from one or the other right now. (Unless your computer runs on God's own methane.)

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    22. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yep, enriched uranium from weapons would work nicely. Although generally it works the other way around.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    23. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the nature of nuclear waste. The biosphere is adapted to natural decay products. It is not adapted to fission products. Fission is very very rare in nature while natural decay chains are not.

    24. Re:Not enough uranium by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      I understand waste. I also understand that the amount of waste produced compared to the amount of energy produced is very small. Yes, there are always going to be some problems, but strictly speaking for the US, the amount of energy produced so far versus the amount of negative incidents is very acceptable for me. Especially considering the only real alternative being used enough to power large cities is coal, which is far worse for the environment and your health than nuclear energy will ever be. So you can rant all you want about the few incidents there have been, but it doesn't really amount to much, and by being anti-nuclear power in the US you are effectively being pro-coal.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    25. Re:Not enough uranium by delt0r · · Score: 1

      And 70 years is total BS. I don't know any credible source for that figure. Without reprocessing *existing* mines have the better part of 200 years worth. 60x that with reprocess and there's 5x that in Th. So 200*60/4.5=2600 years worth of U assuming we replace all fossil fuel with it. Then we have a another 10000 years worth of Th *at least*. Oh and the Russians have a resin that can extract U from the ocean --10x more again.

      Nuclear is not a silver bullet, i will give you that. But if we don't do stupid things it can really work. Wind and solar only "work" in fantasy land. We simply use too much power. Period. Even the bloody greenie Luddites use too much power for solar/wind to work. Run the numbers.

      Oh and even with the melt downs nuclear is way ahead of coal as far as safety goes. 3 mile island was an example of how safe a melt down can be. Russian military "idiots" are an example of how stupid we can be. They didn't even build a containment building, thats slack even for the former USSR standards.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    26. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      You obviously did not read the papers I linked to. I'll highlight this one http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf and you can go back an read another on why your breeder idea won't work.

    27. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to be supportable once the source data are considered. http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.1421

    28. Re:Not enough uranium by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Non peer reviewed paper by a well known "doomer". I did say credible sources. Even the first paragraph is a giveaway. "Policy makers don't discuss uranium resources" is demonstrably false. The IAEA have a department working on just that. Right now we are not even *looking* for uranium because what we have found is more than enough for quite some time (and this completely ignores the ocean sources). Its discussed and everyone is quite happy with the resources we have left. But hay why believe all those scientist. They didn't say what you want to hear.

      According to this sort of thinking, there is not enough copper for the generators in wind turbines either. (peek copper has been coming for a long time now).

      Breeders do work, and *are* working. Where did all the Pu come from? How do you think the Th "doped" fuels work? It just cheaper right now to sleep in our own crap. You would think we had learnt that lesson.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    29. Re:Not enough uranium by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      I always find the oceans have uranium argument to be amusing. Guess you didn't read the rest of the paper. Seems pretty quantitative to me.

  40. Pebbled Bed Nuclear should finally get embraced by tyrione · · Score: 1

    with the help of the Obama Administration. The PBMR with Westinghouse should finally give Ernesto Fermi his due.

  41. Entergy offers bribe on eve of Senate vote by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Entergy has announced it will sell 3% of its power VT Yankee at close to its old rate of 4 cents/kwh though it has not agreed to a price for the other 97%. http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_14455061

  42. Maybe they didn't lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a pipe in an underground pipe tunnel the same thing as a buried pipe?
    The articles seemed to use "underground" and "buried" interchangably, but I didn't see an exact quote as to what Jay Thayer was asked and how he responded.

  43. Good point. by OmniGeek · · Score: 1

    Indeed, I wasn't considering that possibility. Ah, logic...

    --

    "My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
  44. Problems with plants that got 20 year extentions by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maryland's Calvert Cliffs reactors seem to be becoming unreliable: http://wjz.com/wireapnewsmd/NRC.inspectors.sent.2.1514222.html And, South Carolina's Oconee just sprung a leak as well http://www.independentmail.com/news/2010/feb/09/oconee-nuclear-station-reports-tritium-exceeds-ind/ It is probably a mistake to run these plants past their 40 year design lifetime.

  45. Did anyone else read that as: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    “Enterprise Admits 20005 Trilitium Leak”

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  46. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What? I'm sorry, but I'm failing to grasp how an essentially monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choice due to massive regulations, is supposed to somehow prove a "free-market" failure. This is a failure on multiple levels, and I'm not complaining about regulations on nuclear power plants, I'm just saying, this has NOTHING to do with free markets.

  47. *sign* by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Nuclear power could be such a good thing. But it isn't they way they're doing it. This comes from the simple reason that we're stuck with corporate greed like this. Entergy has been underfunding the decommissioning fund for Vermont Yankee. Then with the stock market crash it went even further down. Then there was the cooling tower that collapsed. That was dramatic. Then they lied to us about the pipes saying there were no under ground pipes. Then they said yes there were underground pipes but they carried no radioactive materials. And then they lied about lying. And then lied about lying about lying. There comes a time when we need to just cut these goons off at the ankles. They've gone too far.

  48. Traveling Wave Reactors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read about the clean future of nuclear techology, the Traveling Wave Reactor.

    We shouldn't accept anything less- our future doesn't lie in continuing to use power plants based on 1950s techology.

  49. deregulation and lack of regulation by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    is the issue with nuclear power plants leaking tritium, enron, a shitty healthcare system, and the market implosion of 2008

    a "monopolized market, where there is extremely limited choices due to massive regulations", is the only thing that makes sense with healthcare, electric utilities, nuclear plants, and the banking system. even food: melamine and e colil. you think the maarket takes care of those problems asshole?

    do you fucking understand the fucking obvious now?

    there has been a regular libertarian and free market fundamentalist drumbeat for a decade or more now saying we deregulate everything and everything will smell like roses

    and what do we get?

    you tell me, shitstain

    correct your idiotic ideology, it is destroying this country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  50. Ditto! by oogoliegoogolie · · Score: 1

    What you said!

    You know, the nuclear industry has only themselves to blame for the public's mistrust. For half a century the industry has followed a policy of cover-up, denial, talking down to the public, and an unbelievably condescending attitude that nothing can ever go wrong. Essentially they practice "security by obscurity", but we know how effective that is in other industries.

    I'm a proponent of nuclear NRG, but they need to clean house, get rid of the bozos running the show, and become more forthcoming with information to earn back more of the public's trust.

  51. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's completely fucking ridiculous that flamebait like this is getting modded insightful on this site. Seriously, this is one of the (many) anti-libertarian rants I've seen lately on this site, and they often tend to get modded UP instead of down. Just because you used the word "nuclear" a few times does not mean that this is on topic AT ALL.

    I'm starting to think that the Slashdot user base is getting stupider by the minute. I'm increasingly seeing horrible summaries and outright flamebait getting posted to the main page, and it usually takes several minutes of wading through all of the bullshit political rhetoric to find someone who has has the knowledge and the time to read the article and point out the falsehoods.

    Seriously, shut the fuck up your self important jackasses. No one wants to hear aimless rambling. Go circle jerk with your friends on DailyKos.

  52. Re:dear market place fundamentalists and libertari by ReTay · · Score: 1

    "the market does not take care of itself
    repeat: the market does NOT take care of itself"

    Wrong, full stop. A free market will indeed take care of itself. We don't have a free market so no it won't take care of itself. It seems you are a fan of government involvement. But to equate our current market to a free market is ignorance or plain dishonesty.

  53. SHIT. by Kagura · · Score: 2, Funny

    All of our nuclear reactors are leaking QUADRILLIONS of neutrinos per second! Close down these radiation death machines NOW! Rah rah rah!

  54. VT Senate Leader: Don't trust Entergy by mdsolar · · Score: 1
  55. why did the market crash in 2008? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    because the government was hard at work for the last 10 years removing regulations created after the great depression

    do you in any way dispute or deny that simple fact?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  56. why did the market crash in 2008? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    because the government was hard at work for the last 10 years removing regulations created after the great depression

    do you in any way dispute or deny that simple fact?

    so what would happen if there were no regulations at all?

    what would happen is the 1800s, historical fact, moron. where greedy booms continually busted into financial panics, wiping people out constantly. why? BECAUSE THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS YOU MORON

    do you know your history? do you honestly want to stand in opposition to well recorded and obvious historical fact?

    http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm

    panic of 1819

    panic of 1837

    panic of 1857

    panic of 1873

    panic of 1893

    why did these happen. because of HUMAN NATURE

    NOT

    THE

    GOVERNMENT

    do you deny that? are you going to tell me the tired line every naive utopianist has ever regurgitated: "all we have to do is convince people to behave in ways they never have in all of recorded history and libertarianism and free market fundamentalism will work! yay!"

    fucking retards

    fact: an unregulated market NATURALLY bubbles and pops

    simple. fucking. fact

    do you deny that?

    are you going to sit there in denial and deny the fucking truth of the REALITY of the world you live in? not your fantasy life, not your castles in the sky about how things might work if everyone just acted magically unlike human beings. FUCKING FACT: MARKETS NEED TO BE REGULATED HEAVILY BY GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO FUNCTION WELL

    go ahead, keep denying that

    you're a fucking retard in denial of obvious historical fact if so

    stop choking on your ignorant propaganda and open your fucking eyes you ignorant idealistic naive assholes, you are destroying this country

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  57. Entergy claims it has save $300 million (!) by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Entergy claims it has save Vermonters $300 million over eight years because of its electricity rates. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2010/02/26/leaking_credibility_vt_yankee_must_step_up_or_face_closure/ But this is just about what is lacking in the decomissioning fund for the plant that Entergy has failed to contribute to. Sure hope Entergy has that money available now to make up the deficit.