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."

9 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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".

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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"
  6. 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?
  7. Re:WHAT! by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Funny

    DEATH BY SNU SNU!

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. 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.)