INDIAN POINT: THE TRUTH

NY Post ^ | September 9, 2003 | ROY SINCLAIR

[presidio9]

ANTI-NUCLEAR activist group Riverkeeper has been in the news recently with fresh accusations regarding the Indian Point Energy Center. The only consistency from their side of the debate has been a major distortion of facts and attempts at unjustified scare tactics. Perhaps most glaring is Riverkeeper's recent claim that closing the two plants at Indian Point would be in support of New York's economy and the safety of its residents. As New Yorkers were reminded on Aug. 14, a blackout is devastating to the local economy and presents a wide range of potentially harmful situations.

[presidio9]

The thing that I find most annoying is seeing the lefty environuts exploit the 911 tragedy to put forth their anti-nuclear agenda. Any concerns they claim to have about terrorism is feigned. For them this is about preventing the storage of spent fuel rods in the American Southwest. The create these ads showing the different risk radii around Indian Point. What they negelct to point out is that Indian Point pre 911 was more secure than the White House is today, and 3 Mile Island, the worst reactor leak in our nation's history has yet to produce a confirmed death. The very same people who are saying we should never act "unilaterily" to protect our national defense are the ones pulling their hair out over the fact that Indian Point is somehow "vulnerable." It is completely dishonest.

[chimera]

Attempting to tie the Chernobil accident into the current debate completely invalidates any claim this wacko group may be trying to make. Its a non-issue and a logical fallacy (distraction).

[Concentrate]

The article doesn't mention anything about the spent fuel rods stored on site at Indian Point or any other nuclear facility. The spent rods are not protected by concrete walls. The author just skipped over the entire topic. No bias there.

[Steely Tom]

The article doesn't mention anything about the spent fuel rods stored on site at Indian Point or any other nuclear facility. The spent rods are not protected by concrete walls. The author just skipped over the entire topic. No bias there.

Yeah.

Why are those fuel rods stored on site, anyway? Why aren't they sent somewhere where they can be stored safely?

(steely)

[presidio9]

The article doesn't mention anything about the spent fuel rods stored on site at Indian Point or any other nuclear facility. The spent rods are not protected by concrete walls. The author just skipped over the entire topic. No bias there.

That is incorrect. This is from a March 22, 2002 letter to the citizens of Westchester from County Executive Andrew Spano, a Democrat who "would prefer that the nuclear power plants be closed":

"Indian Point protects its spent fuel rods under 27 feet of water mostly in underground pools with 6 feet thick walls. However, a safer way to store them is in something known as dry casks. We have met with the top officials at Entergy, who have now agreed to expand their plan to move the spent fuel rods to dry cask storage. Since this is a long process, we have also asked Entergy to take additional protective aerial measures to further ensure the safety of the spent fuel pool. "

Stop believing the lies Riverkeepers are telling you.

[chimera]

Sure they are. They're in a pool underwater. The pool walls aren't made of paper.

Run some decay calculations sometime and estimate the radionuclide content in decayed fuel, based on its power history and burnup. Compare it to the inventory in an active core. Estimate the source term for a reasonable release from a breached spent fuel assembly, accounting for removal mechanisms such as soluability and plate-out. Apply a reasonable meteorological dispersion model. Estimate the likely radionuclide mix and come up with downwind dose estimates. Use this to evaluate the adequacy of approved emergency plans.

I have done all of these things. The result? Unless you're standing next to the storage pool when it is hit, you're not going to have much to worry about except some on-site cleanup work. If you are standing next to the pool, you're probably going to be more worried about impact effects than radiological hazard.

[finnman69]

This is why they can't close this plant

[chimera]

My former associate in a consulting group has been running some (benchmarked and certified) finite element analysis programs for a research study looking at containment structure strength. He has narrowed the study focus to look at several containment designs, including those considered to be the least robust (and those are pretty darn strong) and assuming various aircraft types. He has played out the usual passenger jet scenarios, and also run cases for fully-loaded cargo aircraft, including the biggies like the Antonov AN124 (world's largest) and the C5A. I can't share the details since they're proprietary, but let me say only that in all cases, the worst we're looking at is patching up some scratches on the exterior of the containment, and cleaning out the debris from the surrounding area.

[Clemenza]

Blame the Soccer moms and sh-t for brains suburbanite p--ssies who now dominate the area around Turkey Point. They shouldn't have moved there in the first place if they didn't want to be near a power plant.

NY should also allow Shoram to be fully operational. Sadly, the Lawn Guyland Mommies wouldn't allow it to open.

[Petronski]

Look at what happened in Congress:

Nuke Plant Guarantees Out of Energy Bill; Plan to Help Nuclear Plants With Loan Guarantees Shelved

[gridlock]

Riverkeeper is not in the business of "keeping the River", or protecting the environment, or keeping the people of New York safe. Riverkeeper is in the business of raising money. One good way to raise money is to scare the bejeezus out of the rich soccer moms of Westchester County and SouthWestern Connecticut, some of the most affluent communities in the USA.

To this end, truth does not matter, the river does not matter, and the health and safety of the people of these communities does not matter. What matters is being seen as a dynamic and important player in this area, and one worthy of financial support. This is achieved by manipulating the media and lying whenever necessary to support the public relations effort.

[Age of Reason]

In fact, new construction of major generating facilities has not kept pace with New York's increasing demand since the 1970s. In the last 10 years, electricity usage has increased by about 25 percent, but no major power plants have been built.

End immigration and demand will stop growing.

Simple.

Problem solved.

[Age of Reason]

NY should also allow Shoram to be fully operational.

I'd rather do without electric can openers and hair dryers.

[presidio9]

What, exactly, do you perceive the threat from the Shorham facility to be?

(Hint: You are misinformed)

[Age of Reason]

What, exactly, do you perceive the threat from the Shorham facility to be?

(Hint: You are misinformed)

Yeah.

And they said the Titanic was practically unsinkable.

I would never trust something so huge and complex as a nuke reactor.

Never--especially when the price for being wrong is so unthinkable.

[Clemenza]

Okay, let's keep burning gas and coal so all the ditsy Lawn Guyland soccer moms can be happy.

Opposition to Nuclear Power and incinerators is a case of NIMBYism at its worst. Never mind the fact that north shore Suffolk was not that heavily developed when Shoram was built.

Let's open the plant and deport the soccer moms to New Jersey. NUCLEAR POWER NOW!

[Concentrate]

Instead of in my backyard, they could open a new plant in yours; on the West Side, instead of the stadium. ;)

I agree it's impossible to close Indian point at this point. We'd need a major disaster before closing any plants would be prudent.

The problem with Shoreham NPP is that there is no viable evacuation plan possible on Long Island. Burning fossil fuels, wind and passive solar devices are the best bet for now and the future.

The excess fuels from NNPs should be stored at that site in Nevada they've been talking about for about 25 years.

[presidio9]

Man are you uninformed. Tell us what, exactly you think the risks are? I understand that you are not a physicist, and nuclear technology is foreign to you. Neither am I. I am also not a brain surgeon, but I would trust a brain surgeon to do his job. The Shorham plant represents 0 danger to the public, and the enviornmentalists know this. There has never been an accident at this type of reactor, because unlike with Russian modela, they are overengineered for safety. The nutjobs are using people like to to advance their real cause, which is desert nuclear storage facilities. Open your eyes man!

The French generate 75% of their power in nuclear facilities.

[presidio9]

The problem with Shoreham NPP is that there is no viable evacuation plan possible on Long Island. Burning fossil fuels, wind and passive solar devices are the best bet for now and the future.

I can't believe I am hearing this on FR. The terrorists have won.