Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

Showing Original Post only (View all)

marmar

(78,238 posts)
Fri Apr 1, 2016, 09:17 AM Apr 2016

A Fukushima on the Hudson?: The Growing Dangers of Indian Point [View all]


from TomDispatch:




A Fukushima on the Hudson?
The Growing Dangers of Indian Point

By Ellen Cantarow and Alison Rose Levy


It was a beautiful spring day and, in the control room of the nuclear reactor, the workers decided to deactivate the security system for a systems test. As they started to do so, however, the floor of the reactor began to tremble. Suddenly, its 1,200-ton cover blasted flames into the air. Tons of radioactive radium and graphite shot 1,000 meters into the sky and began drifting to the ground for miles around the nuclear plant. The first firemen to the rescue brought tons of water that would prove useless when it came to dousing the fires. The workers wore no protective clothing and eight of them would die that night -- dozens more in the months to follow.

It was April 26, 1986, and this was just the start of the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the worst nuclear accident of its kind in history. Chernobyl is ranked as a “level 7 event,” the maximum danger classification on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. It would spew out more radioactivity than 100 Hiroshima bombs. Of the 350,000 workers involved in cleanup operations, according to the World Health Organization, 240,000 would be exposed to the highest levels of radiation in a 30-mile zone around the plant. It is uncertain exactly how many cancer deaths have resulted since. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s estimate of the expected death toll from Chernobyl was 4,000. A 2006 Greenpeace report challenged that figure, suggesting that 16,000 people had already died due to the accident and predicting another 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus still to come. A significant increase in thyroid cancers in children, a very rare disease for them, has been charted in the region -- nearly 7,000 cases by 2005 in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.

In March 2011, 25 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, damage caused by a tsunami triggered by a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake led to the meltdown of three reactors at a nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan. Radioactive rain from the Fukushima accident fell as far away as Ireland.

In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency had, in fact, warned the Japanese government that none of the country’s nuclear power plants could withstand powerful earthquakes. That included the Fukushima plant, which had been built to take only a 7.0 magnitude event. No attention was paid at the time. After the disaster, the plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power, rehired Shaw Construction, which had designed and built the plant in the first place, to rebuild it.

Near Misses, Radioactive Leaks, and Flooding

In both Chernobyl and Fukushima, areas around the devastated plants were made uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. In neither place, before disaster began to unfold, was anyone expecting it and few imagined that such a catastrophe was possible. In the United States, too, despite the knowledge since 1945 that nuclear power, at war or in peacetime, holds dangers of a stunning sort, the general attitude remains: it can’t happen here -- nowhere more dangerously in recent years than on the banks of New York’s Hudson River, an area that could face a nuclear peril endangering a population of nearly 20 million. .........(more)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176122/tomgram%3A_cantarow_and_levy%2C_could_nuclear_disaster_come_to_america/#more




22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Shutting Indian Point, as is the case with shutting any nuclear plant, will kill people. NNadir Apr 2016 #1
+1e6 phantom power Apr 2016 #6
As usual, the conclusion you offer isn't supported by the data. kristopher Apr 2016 #15
As usual... your keyhole-narrow focus has forced you to defend the ridiculous FBaggins Apr 2016 #18
With the Clean Power Plan in effect kristopher Apr 2016 #19
Laughable spin FBaggins Apr 2016 #20
Yes legislation has the power to alter reality. kristopher Apr 2016 #21
There's that active imagination again FBaggins Apr 2016 #22
One possible effect of solar flares and loss of the ultimate heat sink - is multiple Baobab Apr 2016 #2
A High-Pressure Pipeline Next to a Nuclear Power Plant. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Lodestar Apr 2016 #3
The pipeline is nearly 1/4 of a mile away from the nuke plant whitefordmd Apr 2016 #7
When YOU live within a 1/4 mile of this infrastructure I'll give your opinion Lodestar Apr 2016 #8
My opinion is not changed by where I live whitefordmd Apr 2016 #11
How Anti-Obama. How Pro-Fossil Fuel. wtmusic Apr 2016 #4
There are no growing dangers, but nice try. wtmusic Apr 2016 #5
"the nuclear renaissance is real"? Lodestar Apr 2016 #9
Despite the endless nonsense, nuclear energy remains, by far, the world's largest... NNadir Apr 2016 #10
Ha...was wondering when you'd show up. Lodestar Apr 2016 #12
No, being anti-nuke requires you accept fossil fuels, pollution, and climate change. wtmusic Apr 2016 #13
No it doesn't. kristopher Apr 2016 #16
Japan Inches Closer to Nuclear Revival as 3rd Reactor Starts wtmusic Apr 2016 #14
You're right. Sometimes the truth just sucks. Take your slant here... kristopher Apr 2016 #17
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»A Fukushima on the Hudson...»Reply #0