Home Energy Industry Wind Industry Behind This Site About Us Contact Website Report Index

Sakrisson Energy Solutions David Sakrisson Observing Problems ... Presenting Rational Solutions Working for the Benefit of Humanity   ...   Rather than the "Special Interests"

Reconsidering  the  Use  of  Nuclear  Energy A documented report by:  David E. Sakrisson Independent Researcher and Investigative Reporter Copyright © 2011-2015 by David E. Sakrisson All Rights Reserved Click on your browser's Reload button to make sure you are viewing the latest edition of this page. A  NUCLEAR  PUSH In recent times, there has been a strong push for nuclear energy by certain government officials, which includes President Obama and his administration.  These officials want the public to believe that nuclear energy is safe and will help meet our energy needs, fight climate change, reduce dependence on foreign oil and be environmentally-friendly. To view information on this issue, simply click on the buttons below. Obama renews commitment to nuclear energy Obama defends nuclear energy Obama eliminates fossil fuel research support, funds nuclear US energy chief:  don't delay new nuclear plants Obama...Official:  Nuclear Plants Essential To Our Carbon Reduction Goals Obama’s support for nuclear power faces a test NUCLEAR  CHIEF  RECONSIDERING It appears that a former government official is now reconsidering the use of nuclear energy.  He has declared that  "regulators can’t guarantee against an accident causing widespread land contamination."  It appears they simply  "just roll the dice"  in some of their important decisions which could adversely affect the public. It appears that this former government official's remarks are making quite a stir in the nuclear industry.  Possibly it is about time things like this were said openly.  The public needs the real truth. Ex-NRC Chief's Remarks Over Nuclear Power Reactors Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed Former U.S. Nuclear Chief:  ...Nuclear Plants Should Be Phased Out THE  BEST  SOLUTION In recent times, nuclear energy has often been put forth as the solution to many or virtually all of our energy and environmental woes.  But, certain questions need to be asked. Is nuclear energy truly the best solution for eliminating these serious woes?  Are there any other technologies which could meet our energy needs, help fight climate change, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil:  ones which are far safer and more economically feasible than nuclear energy? The answers to the above questions are addressed in this discussion and, to a much greater degree, in other reports found within this website.  But now, it is time to learn the real truth about nuclear energy. A  FAILED  CONCEPT In 1954, Lewis Strauss, who then chaired the Atomic Energy Commission, indicated that electricity would be produced at such a low cost that it would be  "too cheap to meter."  Over the years, this concept of nuclear power being  "too cheap to meter"  has proven to be totally false.  Quite the opposite has proven to be true, and the costs just keep rising. The first article linked below declares:  "A similarly bold statement was also made in the 1950s by Walter Marshall who became Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in 1981 and Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board two years later.  It has come to haunt the advocates of nuclear power, because nuclear power has proven to be far from cheap." Nuclear Power - ”Too Cheap to Meter”? BBC News:  Nuclear doubts gnaw deeper The bottom line is this:  Nuclear energy will never produce electricity which is anywhere close to being  "too cheap to meter."  With the use of nuclear power, electric rates and taxes to pay for government subsidies to the nuclear power industry have continually risen upward. DRAINING  THE  ECONOMY The first article linked below was written prior to the infamous nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan.  Nevertheless its date, this article brings up some very important points about nuclear energy.  The article notes that  "the U.S. nuclear industry has received $100 billion in government subsidies over the past half-century." The seventh article below, called 'Gambling on nuclear power:  How public money fuels the industry', declares that the aggregate subsidies to the nuclear power industry are  "well over US$ 150 billion."  In other words, the nuclear power industry is a major drain on our economy. Nuclear power obviously cannot compete on its own in the free market.  It comes nowhere close to paying for itself.  Nuclear energy, therefore, is not a wise investment, especially in these tough economic times.  But the same can be said for most of the other renewables, which  "also receive their share of government largesse." The bottom line is, most  "renewable"  energy programs are becoming a serious burden to taxpayers.  They are simply enslaving taxpayers and future generations.  We really need to find a better, more economically feasible route for our environmentally-friendly energy needs.  Once again, a logical answer to our energy needs is shown in other reports in this informative website. Now, onward to some very important articles. Is Nuclear Power Viable? Subsidies for Nuclear Power Industry Shift Financial Risks to Taxpayers Nuclear Power Subsidies:  The Gift that Keeps on Taking Nuclear Loan Guarantees:  Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead? All Risk, No Reward for Taxpayers and Ratepayers After 50 Years, Nuclear Power is Still Not Viable without Subsidies Gambling on nuclear power:  How public money fuels the industry Cost, Not Japan Crisis, Should Scrub Nuclear Power Fukushima disaster puts focus on hidden subsidies to nuclear power The first article linked above notes that Amory Lovins (a veteran energy expert and chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute) believes we should  "focus on energy efficiency and micropower, shifting away from the old model of the massive central plant sending out electricity — i.e., your local nuke — in favor of smaller plants, even residence-scale ones, built close to population centers." According to Lovins, reducing carbon emissions will be cheaper and safer if we turn away from nuclear in favor of alternatives.  He declares further:  "The bottom line is that nuclear buys two to 10 times less climate protection than its competitors."  Not only is nuclear power a drain on our economy, it gives very poor climate protection per dollar spent. NUCLEAR  NOT  GREEN  ENERGY The article linked below indicates that nuclear energy is not as  "green"  as it is claimed to be by those who support the nuclear industry.  For starters, considering just the emissions from construction, mining, milling and fuel enrichment, plus heavy water production, the carbon foot print of nuclear power plants is up to 15.42 tons per GWh of power output. Is Nuclear Power Really "Carbon Neutral?" The articles linked below add more information regarding the overall carbon footprint of commercial nuclear power plants. How green is nuclear power? Greenwashing Uranium:  Nuclear energy is not green energy Looking beyond the carbon aspect of nuclear power, there is an ongoing, large release of harmful radioactive materials which constantly work to poison the environment for humans and all living things.  This poisoning of the environment, poisoning of the air, water and food, is definitely not a  "green,"  environmentally-friendly practice, nor is it good for the health and safety of citizens and future generations. This continual practice of releasing dangerous radioactive materials into the environment will be examined later in this discussion.  The health problems which this dangerous radioactivity creates for citizens will also be examined.  Furthermore, it will be noted how government and nuclear industry officials continually downplay the seriousness of these dangerous releases of radioactivity into the environment. DIRTY  AND  DANGEROUS  NUCLEAR  ENERGY It appears that the government is being used by the nuclear power industry as a vehicle to promote a false  "green"  image for nuclear energy.  The article linked below declares:  "Nuclear power facilities release a variety of cancer-causing radionuclides, including Tritium, Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Plutonium-239 and dozens more.  Nuclear reactors also release other toxins into our air and water." Nuclear Energy is Dirty Energy The article above declares:  "Nuclear power releases toxic radiation on a routine basis; it is not carbon-free  —  its carbon footprint is substantially higher than its competitors; it uses far more water in an era of water scarcity; it requires a vast and polluting nuclear fuel chain simply to function." The article below shows a resistance toward nuclear energy by those who believe in safe and truly "green" energy.  The article declares:  "More Than 3,000 Write Obama in Less Than 48 Hours,"  rejecting Obama's proposal for more nuclear power plants. Safe, Clean Energy Advocates Reject Obama's Call for More Nuclear Power REGARDING  CLIMATE  CHANGE The article linked below declares:  "Nuclear power is being widely promoted as a  “solution”  to global climate change.  Unfortunately nuclear power is not a solution and it is further counterproductive to any real remedy for human impacts on climate.  Those selling the expansion of nuclear power are on a par with any salesman of counterfeit medicine; one must closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind." Nuclear Power Expansion is Not a Remedy for Climate Change It is true that we must  "closely examine the motives of anyone associated with nuclear schemes of any kind."  We must examine the true motives of government and nuclear industry officials alike.  We must examine especially the  "hidden"  motives of those who advocate for nuclear power. In relation to motives:  further down in this discussion it will become obvious that those pushing the commercial nuclear power scheme are likely pursuing the creation of products for the nuclear weapons industry, as if we truly needed more.  It also appears that the nuclear power industry helps to further the goals of the eugenics movement:  that movement backed by government officials and elite billionaires. NUKES  WON'T  SAVE  CLIMATE The article linked below makes some very important points.  It shows why nuclear energy will not be able to truly help in the climate change arena. Top 10 Reasons Nukes Won't Save Climate In all reality, the serious push for nuclear energy is not actually about improving the  "climate change"  situation.  Climate change is simply an argument used as a cover for the real intentions of nuclear power.  The real intention appears to be about having the materials available to pursue either subtle or all out nuclear war.  A massive nuclear war truly could have an effect on population and climate change, but not for the better. The webpage linked below expands on the reasons why nuclear energy is not a viable answer to the climate crisis.  Actually, the nuclear power industry simply compounds our serious problems. Nuclear Power:  No Solution to the Climate Crisis ENERGY  EFFICIENCY The article linked above, plus the article linked below, clearly shows that Energy Efficiency, or improving energy efficiency, is an important option for the 21st century.  An increase in energy efficiency is one of the quickest ways to bring about a reduction in the human-caused components of climate change. Nuclear energy too risky when efficiency works Increasing energy efficiency during the production of electrical power, plus increasing efficiency in our numerous engine-driven devices which power civilization, is the quickest way to cause a positive reduction in detrimental climate change factors, plus a drastic reduction in dependence on foreign oil.  Increasing overall efficiency is also the quickest way to bring about a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. That is one of the main purposes of this website:  to show an important route to increasing the overall energy efficiency during electrical power production, plus increasing the efficiency of the numerous engine-driven devices which help to power and uphold civilization.  Another purpose of this website is to show an important route for drastically reducing greenhouse gases and the detrimental effects of climate change. A  TIME  TO  CONSIDER Some powerful groups are strongly pushing for nuclear energy, claiming it is environmentally friendly.  But, what about the large and growing stockpiles of dangerous and deadly nuclear waste which are scattered around the country?  Furthermore, how environmentally-friendly is all the radiation which spews throughout our environment, as the result of serious nuclear accidents? Advocates for nuclear energy have long insisted that it is a safe technology.  If it is so safe, then what about Fukushima, Japan?  Does that ongoing, uncontrolled nuclear disaster look very safe or environmentally-friendly?  How many more months, years or decades will this disaster continue?  Then again, what about Chernobyl?  Coud that nuclear scenario be classified as safety in action?  What about Three Mile Island?  And what about...oh yes, another catastrophic accident waiting to happen. Is the nuclear power industry truly a safe and environmentally-friendly industry?  Actually, the truth is just beginning to come out.  We have only seen a very small tip of the proverbial iceberg.  Truly, we are just beginning to realize the magnitude of the serious problems which are presented to the human race by the nuclear power industry.  There is, indeed, much more to follow. THE  NUCLEAR  FUEL  CYCLE The article linked below provides information on the nuclear fuel cycle.  The article declares:  "Like coal, oil and natural gas, uranium is an energy resource which must be processed through a series of steps to produce an efficient fuel for generating electricity.  Each fuel has its own distinctive fuel cycle:  however the uranium or 'nuclear fuel cycle' is more complex than the others." The article declares further, regarding fuel rods from nuclear reactors:  "Used fuel still contains approximately 96% of its original uranium, of which the fissionable U-235 content has been reduced to less than 1%.  About 3% of used fuel comprises waste products and the remaining 1% is plutonium (Pu) produced while the fuel was in the reactor and not 'burned' then." The Nuclear Fuel Cycle Again, the  "used"  fuel assemblies taken out of nuclear reactors still contain approximately 96% of their original uranium.  The article above tends to indicate that only about 4% of the uranium in fuel rods is converted into usable energy, which is available for operating the nuclear power plant.  This is not a very good fuel efficiency rating. AN  INEFFICIENT  TECHNOLOGY The article linked below indicates that once-through nuclear power plants only extract about 5 percent of the energy potential in their fuel and convert it into usable power.  Nuclear power does appear to be an extremely inefficient technology.  Some are hoping that MOX fuel will improve the efficiency, but, as shall be seen later, it appears the use of MOX fuel presents its own set of very serious problems. MOX Technology Advances Both Here and Abroad The informative article linked below declares:  "In the 1970s nuclear power cost half as much as electricity from coal burning:  by 1990 nuclear power cost twice as much as electricity from coal burning (Slingerland et al, 2004).  Today the costs of nuclear power are estimated to be, on average, between 2 and 4 times more expensive than electricity generated by burning fossil fuels, about $0.05-0.07/kWh." The economics of nuclear power PROCLAIMED  SAFETY Once again, nuclear energy has often been touted by its advocates in government and industry as being extremely safe.  But, they neglect to voice, especially in public, that which could and does readily occur during a massive earthquake or other extreme disaster, like that which has occurred at Fukushima, Japan in recent times.  They also tend to ignore the magnitude and extent of that major disaster which occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear facility. Nuclear advocates tend to ignore the reality of harmful or deadly radiation spreading, unseen and often undetected, throughout the environment when a nuclear facility gets out of control and a major disaster occurs.  Nuclear advocates also seem to turn a blind eye toward all the tritium and other radioactive emissions which are steadily spewing into our environment from their so-called  "safe"  nuclear facilities. Indeed, it appears that nuclear advocates prefer to live in total denial, or may possibly be associated with the eugenics movement and its agenda for population reduction, as shall become rather obvious later in this discussion and in other reports on this site.  It also appears that nuclear advocates would like the rest of us to become utterly blinded to the reality of dirty, deadly, inefficient and costly nuclear energy, and its detrimental side effects. THE  PROBLEM  OF  "SPENT"  FUEL  RODS Nuclear advocates often neglect to speak about the nuclear waste building up in various places around our country, waiting for who knows what:  possibly another disaster.  Nuclear energy advocates tend to ignore the fact that these  "spent"  fuel rods scattered across our country are still potentially dangerous and could go critical, under certain circumstances, spreading deadly radiation far and wide across the land. For information from 2011 regarding  "spent,"  yet highly radioactive fuel rods at the damaged Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan, plus the potential for these rods to create problems or to dangerously go critical, simply click on the buttons below.  The articles and video linked below, from 2011, also include information about used and dangerous fuel rods scattered around the United States at its many nuclear facilities. A New Threat in Japan:  Radioactive Spent Fuel Spent fuel rods at New England nuclear power plants generates fear Nuclear Plants In 31 States Vulnerable Coakley warns on spent fuel rods Beaver Valley nuclear plant to expand storage for spent fuel rods Spent fuel rods add to trouble at Japan nuke plant Fukushima Spent Fuel Pool Could Go Critical Fukushima's Spent Fuel Rods Pose Grave Danger Nuclear worries heating up Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Radioactive fuel rods:  The silent threat Delays in policy on storing fuel rods compound crisis US spent-fuel storage sites are packed with no place to go VIDEO:  Where the U.S. stores 345,000 spent Nuclear Fuel Rods And, what has happened since 2011?  Has the storage problem for so-called  "spent"  nuclear fuel rods improved at all?  From the articles linked below, it appears the problem has only grown worse. No Yucca Mountain, and more Indian Point concerns Scientist testifies about danger of Pilgrim's spent fuel rods FAQ: How will San Onofre store its spent nuclear fuel? The lethal legacy of nuclear waste at San Onofre Spent fuel rods stored at Seabrook, other nuke plants under review Storage of Radioactive Spent Fuel Rods Still Haunts Nuclear Industry MORE  NUCLEAR  WASTE  PROBLEMS Nuclear power plants, and a stockpile of nuclear waste which has been created over the years, are often located relatively close to major population centers such as:  Boston, Chicago, New York City, Philidelphia, and Washington DC.  If the waste nuclear materials were to catch fire, they could render a very large area permanently uninhabitable.  This large quantity of somewhat vulnerable nuclear waste also creates a serious security threat to the people of the United States. For more information on nuclear waste problems, simply click on the buttons below. America's Atomic Time Bomb:  Hanford Nuclear Waste Hanford Plant in Northwest reported as 'America’s nuclear bomb' Nuclear waste:  America's 'biggest security threat' DRY  CASK  STORAGE  RECONSIDERED It is time to take another look at the article called  'Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel,'  which is linked below.  Scroll down to the section called  'Advantages of Dry Cask Storage'.  The article declares:  "Dry casks are made of steel and concrete, with the concrete providing shielding from radiation, and are stored outdoors on concrete pads." Safer Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Now, take a look at the picture of fuel-rod storage casks in the article linked above, sitting out on a concrete pad.  Isn't that a perfect target for a determined, suicidal terrorist cell, who are armed with the proper devices? For further information on dry cask storage, including some of the serious problems discovered, click on the buttons below.  In the third article linked below, it should be noted that dry casks have a design life of about 25 year.  Some declare that they will last longer.  Only time and major disasters will give us the true answer on this one. Concrete crumbling at nuclear storage site Get the Facts on High-Level Atomic Waste Storage Casks! Dry Cask Storage Project underway at Fermi 2 John Tuma:  "All waste remains where it is first put" Connecticut Yankee:  Fuel Storage The article linked below presents some further concerns about the safety of dry cask storage units. NRC Commissioner's Meeting on Dry Cask Storage VULNERABILITY  OF  DRY  CASKS Under the section titled 'Radioactive Waste:  Terrorist Bull’s Eye', the article linked below declares the following: "A 1998 test at the U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland showed that radioactive waste storage casks are vulnerable to anti-tanks missiles.  The first missile obliterated the concrete shielding around the cask, and the second missile punched a hole through the cask wall to the inner waste chamber.  Combined with incendiaries, the resulting fire could release catastrophic amounts of radioactivity into the environment." The tests by the U.S. Army prove that highly radioactive nuclear fuel stored outdoors in casks, on concrete pads, are truly vulnerable to terrorist attack.  When the time is determined by the powers that be, a number of the nuclear waste sites may be attacked by terrorists, with devastating effects on the citizens of this country. Dry cask storage of highly radioactive used fuel rods, in open-air settings, shows a total disregard for public health and safety.  This method of storage is actually a total invitation for a terrorist attack.  Possibly that is what has been intended all along:  to make Americans sitting ducks. Say Yes to Michigan, Say No to the “Plutonium State Park” Other information about the nuclear power industry, including records of leaking radioactive materials, is contained in the article above.  Looking at tritium once again, the article declares:  "It must be pointed out that tritium can bind into the human biological system at the most intimate level, including in DNA, for decades, causing cellular and genetic damage to this and future generations." The document linked below presents further information on the vulnerability of nuclear fuel rod storage casks.  It does not appear that they are as indestructable and safe as the nuclear industry is portraying them to be. Armor Piercing Missile Perforates...Radioactive Waste Storage...Cask A  DISASTER  WAITING  TO  HAPPEN When things are working perfectly, yes, at a very casual glance, it appears that nuclear energy could be an important solution to our energy and environmental woes.  But, when things go wrong, as they have a number of times in the past, nuclear energy can produce immense problems in a very short period of time. Nuclear catastrophes can and do produce major environmental damage, with many other lingering problems.  In relation to this matter, let us consider some relatively recent history. A  DISASTER  UNFOLDS On Friday, March 11, 2011, Japan was rocked by a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake which was centered off its northeastern coast.  Approximately fifteen minutes later, an enormous tsunami made landfall.  In places, the tsunami swept miles inland.  It caused immense destruction along hundreds of miles of Japan's northeastern coastline.  Estimates place the death toll at more than 19,000 people.  Many more are left homeless. AN  ONGOING  CRISIS The crisis in Japan did not end with the massive earthquake and tsunami.  The Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant lost electrical power to its cooling system as a result of the tsunami and began to experience major problems.  Among these problems are included a meltdown of nuclear fuel rods and the spread of nuclear radiation. It has been a number of years since the initial crisis began in 2011, and it still is not fully under control.  Furthermore, it strongly appears there will be serious residual problems in humans and the environment for many years or generations to come. For information about the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant and its ongoing problems, at least those which have been made public, click on the buttons below.  The long list of articles are in somewhat chronological order from top to bottom. From 2011 Japan Nuclear Accident:  Worse than Worst, Again How bad is it?  Depends on which nuclear expert you ask Japan's nuclear accident 'beyond belief' Japan's nuclear setbacks mount Controlling Japan nuclear plant could take months Japan nuclear crisis is here to stay Japan's nuclear clean-up continues to unravel Japan's Nuclear Disaster ... Level 7 on ... Nuclear Event Scale Japan's nuclear crisis may take 6 to 9 months to control The 100-year battle to make Fukushima safe Japan Nuclear Plant Worker Dies Hole in Reactor May Be Cause of Water Level Drop Japan halts nuclear cooling plan VIDEO:   Fukushima – One Step Forward and Four Steps Back Japan evacuates villages outside nuclear zone Japan nuclear crisis:  Fukushima shutdown for January From 2014 Fukushima nuclear meltdown worse than initially reported From 2015 Muon scans confirm complete reactor meltdown at Fukushima Reactor #1 TEPCO abandons robot stranded inside Fukushima plant Video Inside...Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown Shows Colossal Radiation INTO  THE  OCEAN The ocean and water resources are definitely taking a horrible beating from the Japan nuclear fiasco.  For just a small sampling of information, click on the buttons below. From 2011 Japan nuclear:  Fukushima seawater radioactivity rises Plant ... Starts Pumping ... Radioactive Water Into Pacific Japan dumps thousands of tons of radioactive water into sea Japan slammed as new leak found at stricken nuke plant From 2013 Fukushima's Radioactive Water Leak:  What You Should Know From 2014 Japan...Dumping 100s Of Tons Of Radioactive Water...Into The Pacific From 2015 Radioactive Fukushima Water Leak Was Unreported for Months Inspectors urge Japan to dump water from Fukushima plant into ocean HOLDING  BACK  ON  THE  TRUTH What has been claimed all along by the experts, and what has basically been denied by TEPCO and Japanese authorities, is now being admitted to publically. The article linked below declares:  "The operator of Japan's tsunami-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant on Tuesday said it believed fuel had partially melted inside three reactors, as long suspected by experts." Don't you just love it how those in control deceive the general public as to what is really going on, until the controllers are left with no option but to admit to the truth?  The bottom line is:  it appears those in control cannot ever be trusted to tell the truth to the general public, especially when it really counts. Now for the article. Japan's TEPCO admits further reactor meltdowns NUCLEAR  MELT-THROUGHS The nuclear fuel at the devastated Fukushima plant appears to have burned through the pressure vessel at three of its reactors.  This serious situation is presented in the article linked below. Fukushima nuclear plant may have suffered 'melt-through' INSIDE  FUKUSHIMA The webpage linked below contains three different videos taken from a remote-controlled helicopter.  These videos show the destruction within the Fukushima nuclear plant.  The videos can be stopped at any point desired, so you may study the destruction inside these nuclear plants. After viewing these videos, you will have a better understanding of a part of the mess which is being dealt with at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.  This same type of devastation could occur at nuclear plants elsewhere, including in the United States. Video Taken by Aerial Robotic Vehicle ,,, Reveals Devastation MOX  NUCLEAR  FUEL There is a very important issue to raise at this point.  Reactor 3 was the only reactor at the Fukushima facility to use a fuel different from the rest of the reactors.  This fuel is called MOX, or mixed oxide.  MOX nuclear fuel rods are composed of uranium fuel with a small amount of plutonium mixed in.  It appears there may be problems when MOX is used in Boiling Water Reactors (BWR). The use of MOX fuel in nuclear reactors appears to present a greater potential for a serious nuclear accident.  The use of MOX fuel appears to present greater dangers in the event of a nuclear accident, than does uranium fuel.  For information regarding the use of MOX fuel in nuclear power plants, simply click on the buttons below.  Information about the use of MOX fuel in commercial nuclear reactors in the United States is also included. In Japan Third Japanese reactor to load MOX Fukushima reactor receives MOX MOX ... Unit 3 reactor two million times more deadly than ... uranium Plutonium In Fuel Rods:  Cause For Concern? In the United States In the United States:  Plutonium at nuke plant? Secret Plan ... to Use ... Plutonium in Washington ... Reactor MOX Fuel From Weapons-Grade Plutonium Serious Security Issues at MOX Plutonium Factory Japan lessons for TVA? Why Environmentalists Say NIX to MOX Plutonium Fuel India India perfects MOX fuel N-tech Cocks a snook at China, USA, France Proliferation Proliferation and safety problems of MOX use REACTOR  3  EXPLOSION It is said by most mainstream news sources that the explosion at Fukushima Reactor 3, on March 14, 2011, was a result of a hydrogen build-up.  But, there are some who believe that the explosion was not simply of a hydrogen nature, but that there was a nuclear component as well.  Click on the articles linked below for more information on this matter. Fukushima Radiation Update Investigator:  Fukushima Blast Was Nuclear Explosion Watch the videos, linked below, of the Reactor 3 explosion.  Take a close look at the shape of the column and cloud formed in this explosion.  Then examine the photos of nuclear explosions linked below in the section called 'Comparison Photos'.  There is a resemblance. Fukushima Reactor #3 Explosion MOX Fuel Japan quake:  Fresh explosion at Fukushima nuclear plant COMPARISON  PHOTOS Below are linked photos of the columns and clouds formed by just a few nuclear explosions.  Compare these with the videos and pictures of the explosion at Fukushima Reactor 3. Please remember when viewing these photos that they are from large nuclear test explosions and not at all from small-scale nuclear explosions, like that which may have occurred at the Fukushima Reactor 3. Operation Teapot, 1955 Able, 1946, viewed from Eneu Island Able, viewed from the air George test, 1951 Buster Charlie, 1951 De Baca, 1958 AT  THE  SEAFLOOR The article linked below is from the China Post.  It declares:  "Japan has revealed radiation up to several hundred times normal levels has been detected on the seabed off the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant."  The contaminated deposits of radioactive iodine and cesium are located along a 190 mile (300 km) north-south line which is between 15 to 50 km off the east coast of Japan.  The contamination from the  "highly radioactive materials"  could  "affect the safety of seafood." This line of radioactive iodine and cesium at the seafloor brings up a question.  Is this radioactive material a product of an apparent nuclear explosion at Reactor 3, in the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant?  Has govenments and company officials, plus those "in the know,"  been hiding the truth from the general public all this time? Japan detects high radiation levels in seabed near plant The complete truth regarding dangers from the Fukushima accident are obviously not being given to the general public in a timely manner, if at all.  This brings up questions.  What kind of radioactive material may be drifting in the atmosphere from this apparent nuclear explosion at Reactor 3, at Fukushima?  What is this doing to our environment?  What has truly drifted in the atmosphere to the west coast of the United States and spread across the nation?  What will be the long-term effects of this nuclear catastrophy? Answers to the above questions may become apparent in the sections below called 'DANGER FROM FUEL RODS' and 'DEPLETED URANIUM "DUST".'  The bottom line:  there may not be any good news on this issue.  We may be dealing with a long-lasting disaster of extreme, possibly worldwide proportions. POISONING  THE  LAND The article linked below declares:  "Radioactive soil in pockets of areas near Japan’s crippled nuclear plant have reached the same level as Chernobyl, where a  “dead zone”  remains 25 years after the reactor in the former Soviet Union exploded."  Soil samples outside the 20-kilometer (12 miles) exclusion zone also show harmful radioactivity. Fukushima Risks Chernobyl ‘Dead Zone’ Radioactivity in the soil near the devastated Fukushima nuclear reactors could indicate further that the Reactor 3 explosion was much more than just a hydrogen explosion.  The evidence tends to point toward a nuclear explosion. RADIATION  MONITORING The article linked below declares:  "The U.S. government has abandoned efforts to monitor elevated levels of radiation that infiltrated the nation’s water and milk in the wake of a nuclear catastrophe in Japan."  This does not sound like a good situation. Feds Abandon Extra Radiation Monitoring of Milk, Water Canada and U.S. cut back radiation reporting EPA to raise limits for radiation exposure while Canada turns off fallout detectors The EPA may Kill You with Radiation Fallout The last three articles linked above, if true, are especially disturbing.  It appears that the EPA may be playing the numbers game and drastically increasing the  "safe"  levels for radioactive iodine-131. By fudging the numbers, the EPA can still declare that the radiation reaching the United States from Japan is  "safe,"  when in reality, it appears that the radiation levels can create some serious health problems for individuals in the future. This almost sounds like a eugenics operation.  Further research needs to be done regarding this matter. THE  RADIATION  "CLOUD" If the information presented in the articles linked below is true and accurate, we may be facing some serious problems resulting from the nuclear catastrophy at Fukushima, Japan.  It appears that we may be dealing with a cloud of radiation, traveling toward us via the atmospheric winds and jetstream. It appears that the EPA is only checking for certain radioactive materials, one of those being iodine-131.  But, what about the other radioactive materials?  There are a number of other potentially harmful radioactive materials which may also be coming our way from Japan. More investigation is needed regarding the cloud of radiation from Japan, to get a true picture of what we are dealing with at this time, plus the potential long-term health risks. Radiation Detected In Rain In More States S.F. Rainwater:  Radiation 181 Times Above US Drinking Water Standard Radiation in Bay Area rainwater high, but weakening As long as the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan continues, an array of potentially harmful radioactive materials will continue to travel eastward, toward the United States and Canada. THE  TIME  TABLE It is time to consider the cold, hard facts about the time table initially set for the stabilization and cold shutdown of the damaged Fukushima nuclear facility.  That time table and stabilization/shutdown date for the end of 2011, or even January 2012, was basically an arbitrary target.  It can and did totally change, without notice. New problems continually arose which totally made void the suggested time table and target date.  At the time, it was voiced that the nuclear facility would not be stabilized and achieve cold shut down by January 2012.  It has always been the case that another major earthquake could put everything back to the beginning:  an utter and desparate fight for basic survival. For information from 2011 regarding cascading problems and a changing target date, simply click on the button below. Daiichi radioactive water levels see sharp rise, storm approaches BEYOND  DESIGN  SPECIFICATIONS The acticle linked below declares:  "The magnitude 9 earthquake that struck a Japanese nuclear plant in March hit with almost 30 percent more intensity than it had been designed to withstand, raising the possibility that key systems were compromised even before a massive tsunami hit."  Because of the damage at the Fukushima nuclear plant, experts believe that the uranium fuel in three reactors had melted down soon after the quake. The article also declares:  "A finding that the reactors or key safety equipment were damaged by the quake itself could complicate the growing debate on the future of nuclear power in Japan at a time when Tokyo is under pressure to tighten safety standards."  Experts feel that it will take  a decade or more  to resolve the nuclear fuel problems at the Fukushima nuclear facility. Fukushima nuclear plant not built to take megaquake UNSAFE,  SLIPSHOD  MEASURES The articles linked below include information regarding Toshiso Kosako, a professor at the University of Tokyo who is an expert on radiation exposure.  Prime Minister Naoto Kan appointed Kosako to be a government advisor on the Fukushima nuclear crisis.  At the end of April, Kosako stepped down as a government advisor over, as the articles declare,  "what he lambasted as unsafe, slipshod measures." Criticism up on Japan govt handling of nuke crisis LOVE  OF  MONEY,  ROOT  OF  ALL  EVIL In our "modern" world, how do you win over the opposition?  Yes, it appears that virtually everyone has their price.  It appears that the powerful companies in Japan know the age-old trick:  feed them money until they love what you are saying.  Then there are the govenment subsides:  yes, make the people dependent on them.  That appears to be what happened with nuclear plants in Japan. There was initially a fierce opposition to the construction of nuclear power plants.  Then, it appears the people were bought out.  In the end, these people were left with a dangerous and deadly contraption sitting next door.  But now, they are stuck with it and, eventually, their decision may come back to haunt them.  So it is with all who let money do their thinking for them. In Japan, a Culture That Promotes Nuclear Dependency How Japan Buys Love for Nuclear Power The articles linked above tend to expose a fundamental truth about our world.  Money, entertainment and pleasure usually buys the masses and keeps them in line, while peer pressure works to keep the thinking individuals  "in line."  That is the way our modern world works, isn't it? GOVERNMENT  COLLUSION Regarding the many lawsuits in Japan lost against dangerous nuclear power plants, the report linked below declares:  "The lawsuits reveal a disturbing pattern in which operators underestimated or hid seismic dangers to avoid costly upgrades and keep operating.  And the fact that virtually all these suits were unsuccessful reinforces the widespread belief in Japan that a culture of collusion supporting nuclear power, including the government, nuclear regulators and plant operators, extends to the courts as well." The concept of collusion, and possible serious corruption, between government and favored industries is not a new concept.  It seems to be an ongoing and somewhat dangerous phenomenon in our world, in many cases, to the detriment of society.  It appears that this same problem is also occurring in the United States.  Now, for the article which shows the unheeded forewarnings which Japan was given regarding serious dangers at certain nuclear plants. Japanese Officials Ignored or Concealed Dangers The article linked above shows that the Hamaoka Nuclear plant was built  "directly above an active earthquake zone where two tectonic plates met."  Advances in seismology have led to the discovery of active fault lines under or near a number of Japan's other nuclear power plants. It should here be noted that advances in seismology have led to the discovery of active fault lines under or near a number of nuclear power plants in the United States.  But, the dangers have often been downplayed by government and industry officials. THE  UNHOLY  ALLIANCE Has there been collusion in the United States between corrupt government and corrupt business, for quite some time?  In answer to this question, let us consider the words of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, which he proclaimed clear back in April 19, of 1906.  His words are as follows: "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.  To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today." Once again, the words above were stated clear back in 1906.  How much more serious and interwoven in our society is this problem today?  Other reports on this site tend to indicate that this invisible government has ties to the eugenics movement and the worldwide population reduction agenda. The above words of Theodore Roosevelt are found within the very informative article, which is linked below.  The article is by Leuren Moret, a scientist who formerly worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where work is done with nuclear weapons.  In the article, Roosevelt's words are found in Part 4, in the 11th paragraph of that section. Five admirals, Carlyle Group and Rand take over BACK  IN  THE  NUCLEAR  BOMB  BUSINESS The article linked above, in Part 1, makes a very interesting declaration.  It appears that, in spite of all international treaties, the United States is back in the nuclear bomb building business.  It appears that it is making modern nuclear bombs of all sizes. It is time for a couple of questions.  Where are all the nuclear materials going to come from, for making all these nuclear bombs?  Furthermore, why is there such a strong push for more commercial nuclear power plants? As one piece of the nuclear bomb puzzle, it appears that the pump and treat program at Hanford Nuclear Reservation is possibly a cover for a tritium collection program.  Tritium is an important part in building extremely devastating, boosted nuclear bombs and other nuclear weapons. NUCLEAR  BOMBS  FOR  TERRORISTS The article linked below declares:  "Conventional wisdom says that low-enriched uranium is not suitable for making nuclear weapons.  However, an article in USA Today claims that  “rogue”  states and terrorists have discovered that this is untrue.  Not only that, but terrorists could separate plutonium from irradiated fuel  (often called  “spent fuel”)  more easily than previously thought." Nuclear Bombs from Low-enriched Uranium or  "Spent"  Fuel Linked below are articles from USA Today about nuclear bomb making.  The first article speaks about a secret the United States government has known all along:  that being the use of low enriched uranium, and other materials, for readily making nuclear bombs.  It appears that terrorist groups now know this secret. Fuel for nuclear weapons is more widely available Lots of ways to make a nuclear weapon BOOSTED  BOMBS The article linked below speaks of tritium and  "boosted"  nuclear bombs.  A mixture of deuterium-tritium gas has proven to greatly enhance the devastating capabilities of a nuclear bomb.  When using a tritium mixture, a much smaller and lighter weight bomb can be used to accomplish a given end.  Tritium enhanced bombs can readily be used by terrorists, as the article below declares.  These bombs can easily be delivered with a relatively small vehicle. The article linked below declares:  "The Watts Bar NPP in the U.S. has been used for weapons-grade tritium production since October 2003.  Rods with lithium have been inserted between the uranium fuel elements and the irradiation by neutrons converts it to tritium." "In order to prevent the costly building of new reactors, the DOE chose to use civilian NPPs, a plan that raised protests from many anti-nuclear organizations.  The proposed Watts Bar and Sequoyah reactors are vulnerable to severe accidents as their containment systems are considered to be inadequate, which will also make them more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, especially if they become 'part of the nuclear weapons complex'." In regards to public hearing on the use of civilian reactors for weapons production, the article below declares:  "Objections were not heard as they were considered 'inadmissible' and thus no public hearings were ever held." It appears that citizens no longer have any say regarding the important things which go on in the United States.  It appears that, basically, citizens are simply slaves which must go along for the forced ride:  forced on them by the unholy alliance which has hijacked our country and the world. Now for the article: The Proliferation Risk of ITER The article above declares:  "Tritium may be the most important proliferation risk in fusion reactors."  Other important information about the nuclear industry is also addressed in the article. TRITIUM,  COMMERCIAL  REACTORS  AND  NUCLEAR  BOMBS The first webpage linked below charges that  "the Department of Energy's (DOE's) plan to produce tritium for nuclear weapons in commercial nuclear reactors is tantamount to turning one or more of the nation's civilian nuclear power plants into nuclear bomb plants."  "Utilities in Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington State have expressed interest in producing tritium for warheads." The other webpages linked below discuss tritium and other radioactive materials for nuclear weapons which are being produced in commercial light-water reactors.  Faked tests and false reports at nuclear facilities are also discussed in the pages which follow. DOE Bringing Civilian Nuclear Power Plants into Nuclear Weapons Business Safety Evaluation of ... Tritium-producing ... Test Assemblies The Military-Industrial-Utility Complex and the NIX/MOX Campaign U.S. Utility Gets Green Light for Weapons Work Nuclear Power Plant Fuel -- a source of Plutonium for Weapons? Does it appear that commercial nuclear power plants will help to prepare the United States for a coming, very major nuclear war or holocaust?  Would the use of these nuclear products also fit into the population reduction plans for this world, which have been spoken about for years? HANFORD,  NUCLEAR  RESERVATION At this point, another thought comes to mind.  What may be a byproduct of the vitrification plant which is being built at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in Washington state?  Is an important purpose for that plant the production of tritium and other materials which will be used for making nuclear warheads? As a further note about Hanford, it appears the pump and treat program may simply be used as a method for recovering large amounts of tritium for use in nuclear bombs.  Hanford, and the potential for its products, is like a eugenicists dream come true. GOVERNMENT  COVER  UP As usual, it appears that governments are in collusion with the nuclear power industry.  It appears that governments are not honest with citizens about what is really going on.  It appears that governments are not honest with their true reason for having such a strong desire to pursue nuclear energy, considering all its negative effects on people and the environment. To make matters worse, it appears that governments have no problem covering up the true facts concerning the seriousness of an accident at a nuclear power plant.  This has been clearly shown during the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 and the Fukushima disaster which began in 2011. Now, let us look further at Japan. HAMAOKA  NUCLEAR  FACILITY The articles linked below regard the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant, in Japan.  There are concerns regarding this plant, in the event of a major earthquake which is predicted for the surrounding region.  Ultimately, it appears that this plant is being shut down:  at least temporarily, for a relatively short period of time.  It appears that a  "tsunami wall"  is to be built around this plant, before it is restarted. Please note again, in the section further above called "Government Collusion,"  that the Hamaoka nuclear facility is built  "directly above an active earthquake zone"  where two tectonic plates meet together and can slip.  It appears that there is a large fault line near this nuclear facility.  When the major earthquake occurs, this nuclear facility will most likely become another piece of bad history.  Nevertheless, despite all warnings, it appears that fools and eugenicists will continue, unabated, on the nuclear course. Japan's Hamaoka nuclear plant to halt operations Japanese nuclear plant a time bomb? The Hamaoka nuclear facility may eventually be reinforced against tsunamis.  But, it cannot make itself immune to the devastating effects of massive earthquakes.  In relation to this matter, it should be noted that new information raises the potential that the reactors at the Fukushima facility were damaged by the earthquake, before the tsunami ever arrived.  This information is found in linked articles in the lower portion of the section much further above, called 'AN ONGOING CRISIS'. UNRESTRAINED  CONSUMPTION The article, linked below, declares:  "The crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant must prompt the Japanese to ask themselves whether their appetite for convenience is worth the catastrophic risks of relying on nuclear power stations situated on seismic fault lines."  The article states:  "Many Japanese believe that we will not be able to lead comfortable lives without nuclear energy.  But there are alternatives." People of the United States should pay heed to the article below.  There are much safer alternatives to nuclear energy:  just one of them is presented in this website.  And now, for the article. Japan risks nuclear disaster for consumer convenience ANOTHER  LEAKING  NUKE  PLANT As the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant unfolds, it appears that Japan is having problems at another nuclear facility in the western city of Tsuruga.  This nuclear facility at Tsuruga is located off the Sea of Japan, at Wakasa Bay. Wakasa Bay is due west of Tokyo, on the west coast of the main island of Japan.  At Wakasa Bay are located 15 nuclear reactors.  It is  "the largest concentration of nuclear power plants in the world."  Click on the button below to read the article. Failure to Address Nuclear Problems as Another Plant Leaks FIRE  AT  YET  ANOTHER  NUKE  PLANT Japan is definitely not having a good time with their nuclear plants.  It appears that they are simply having one problem after another.  A person could almost begin to wonder if nuclear power plants are just an accident waiting to happen:  possibly a very serious, deadly and environmentally destructive accident waiting to happen. In relatively recent times, Japan had a fire at another TEPCO nuclear power plant.  The fire was located at the Fukushima Dai-ni nuclear power complex, which is located approximately 7.5 miles (12 kilometers) south of the on-going nuclear catastrophy at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex.  For information regarding the fire, simply click on the button below. Workers extinguish small fire at Japanese nuke plant SECOND  THOUGHTS As the nuclear nightmare at Fukushima, Japan began to unfold, other countries, plus the Japanese public, began to  "wake up,"  come to their senses and have second thoughts about nuclear energy.  Click on the buttons below for articles relating to this matter. From 2011 Turks protest against nuclear power after Fukushima accident Thailand freezes nuclear power plant plans Crowd protests nuclear power plan Hundreds protest Russia-backed nuclear project in Bulgaria Japan's Nuclear Nightmare Arouses French Fears Japan's Nuclear Crisis Stokes Fear in Europe Nuclear Power Protests in Spain Japan's nuclear troubles may have political fallout in Italy YouTube:  Hundreds Protest Against Nuclear Power in Hong Kong Nuclear Nations Turn To Natural Gas And Renewables Germany says no nuclear power by 2022 No to nuclear and no to Berlusconi Italian voters reject Berlusconi initiatives Protests Challenge Japan’s Use of Nuclear Power Japanese public rejects nuclear power From 2012 Nuclear Power Protests Find Wide Support in Japan From 2013 60,000 in Tokyo protest government plans to restart nuclear power From 2014 Clashes as anti-nuclear protests hit Taiwan Taiwan Rocked by Anti-Nuclear Protests 'Remember Fukushima':  Thousands Rally Against Nuclear Restart in Japan China's nuclear expansion threatened by public unease From 2015 Protesters in Taiwan Rally Against Nuclear Power Taiwan's Anti-Nuclear Rallies Witness 45,000 Protesters Protests as Turkey builds first nuclear power plant Outcry and fear as Pakistan builds...reactors in dangerous Karachi SWAYING  THE  GULLIBLE ? It appears that the nuclear industry and certain governments are working hard to con the public regarding the safety of nuclear power, even as the nuclear disaster at Fukushima, Japan is not fully under control after all these years.  It appears that those supporting the nuclear industry would like the general public to believe that nuclear energy is something which is very docile. The webpage linked below shows that in 2010, France had  "1,107 incidents at French nuclear plants, with 143 requiring public notification."  Are the French simply playing Russian Roulette with their people? France’s campaign to win public over to nuclear power It appears that the French have been somewhat lucky ... at least so far.  In a recent explosion at a nuclear waste treatment site, only one person died.  Information about that explosion in France is found in the webpage linked below.  Regarding the extent of radiation leakage from the accident site, has the public really been told the truth? Explosion at French Nuclear Site Leaves One Person Dead France nuclear explosion:  No radioactive release beyond site, say officials LOOKING  AT  THE  FACTS Government officials have not always been honest with the public as to the seriousness of a crisis, therefore, let us consider a few known facts.  It appears that, at times, radiation can be especially intense in the immediate vicinity of the damaged and leaking Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant.  This has been shown by emergency workers having to withdraw from the plant at various points.  But, there is another problem to consider. The radiation leaking from the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant is spreading in lesser amounts, via the air and ocean, across the face of the earth.  Furthermore, radioactive water from Fukushima is being dumped directly into the Pacific Ocean.  Regarding the radioactive materials spread via the air, do not necessarily believe down-played government reports as to its danger. The elite of our country and the world may be extensively briefed on the true seriousness of the situation, so they can  "get out of the way"  if necessary.  But, the common citizens are basically left to blindly fend for themselves, not truly understanding what they are dealing with. DANGER  FROM  FUEL  RODS Sometimes, very useful information may be found from sources other than the mainstream media.  With our  "filters"  in place, let us now examine important information about old nuclear fuel rods, from sources which we may not normally consider. At the striken Fukushima nuclear plant, there were explosions and numerous fires.  A number of these fires were related to the highly-radioactive nuclear fuel rods stored outside the reactor in the upper levels of the building.  These fires were causing smoke to pour from the damaged reactor buildings.  The buildings themselves were inaccessible because of high levels of radiation. By logical deduction, one would have to say that the smoke pouring from the reactor buildings was full of tiny, yet highly-radioactive particles.  These radioactive particles may be microscopic in nature or even, because of the violent explosions, submicroscopic or in aerosol form. The second article linked below declares:  "The rods must be kept cool because otherwise they start to burn and, in the case of reactor number 3, would release plutonium and uranium in the form of vapor into the atmosphere." Dust particles or vaporized plutonium and uranium in the air is important to our discussion and will be considered more closely in the next section, called 'Depleted Uranium Dust.' Facts on radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods Alarm Over Spent Fuel Rods Threatens “Chernobyl on Steroids” The danger of “spent nuclear fuel rods” at Fukushima Fukushima's Spent Fuel Rods Pose Grave Danger Japan’s Radiation Scare:  The Good News and the Bad LOGICAL  DEDUCTIONS With the finding of cesium at the bottom of the ocean, to the east of the damaged reactors at Fukushima, a number of the statements in the article linked immediately above are possibly void.  Because of the cesium and other deposits in the ocean, it appears that the radioactive emissions into the environment have indeed come from the storage pools for used fuel rods, and possibly from the reactors as well. Yes, used fuel rods are extremely dangerous, and so are the many radioactive products which come from these used rods.  There is a potential that these dangerous materials can get into the air and environment from a fire or explosion at a nuclear power plant, such as has occurred at Fukushima, Japan.  When contaminated air or food is inhaled or ingested by people or other living things, it can lead to serious problems, especially at a later date. NO  IMMEDIATE  HEALTH  EFFECTS The seriousness of low level radiation intake should become clear via the articles linked in the sections below regarding the Gulf War Syndrome, depleted uranium and the effects of low level radiation. At this point, the reader should take special note that virtually all govenment and industry spokespersons declare that low level releases of radiation into the environment, such as from the damaged Fukushima nuclear facility, will have no immediate health effects.  But, what about later in time?  What about our descendents and future generations? Yes, it is time to recognize the deception inserted into that which official sources may be telling us.  The example articles linked below, at some point within the text, include statements about radiation exposure having no immediate health effects. Japan cites radiation in milk, spinach near plant Japan:  New radiation leaks harmful to health IAEA concerned about lack of ... information from Japanese authorities 'No health hazard' as evacuation call goes out WHO:  Japan Radiation Localized, No Immediate Threat WORD  "SPIN" Many sources of information state that the releases of radiation, such as from the Fukushima nuclear facility, are less than a person would receive from a chest x-ray.  Now, a chest x-ray generally occurs in less than one second, and does not insert any radioactive particles into the body, so the radiation exposure is somewhat limited. The radiation exposure from a nuclear accident occurs over a much longer period of time, therefore, can create much greater problems for people.  As the result of a nuclear accident, radioactive particles may be internalized and remain in the body for years to come, creating various problems. The govenment and nuclear industry spokespeople are telling a form of  "shaded"  truth.  They are making a statement, yet, telling it in a manner which is rather deceptive to an uninformed populace.  What they truly should be saying is something like the following:  "Immediately, this very moment, you may not be experiencing a health problem.  But, at a later date, you and future generations coming from you may have hell to pay." NUCLEAR  QUESTIONS What kind of vaporized radioactive waste is floating around in the air we breath, as a result of nuclear accidents, such as that which has occurred at Fukushima, Japan?  What kind of microscopic and submicroscopic radioactive  "dust"  particles are you sucking into your body with every breath?  How much more internal radiation are you receiving from radioactively contaminated food and water? What nature of damage is being done to the cells of your body because of the accumulated small doses of radiation which are released internally by these  "dust"  particles and radioactive aerosols?  Yes, we may all be dealing with a vast invisible cloud of silent, ongoing, relatively slow working, indiscriminate killers for years to come.  The ultimate outcome may be realized in the birth defects and deformities of future generations. In relation to the Fukushima accident in Japan, what nature of radioactive debris are the people on the West Coast of the United States receiving from these stricken nuclear reactors?  What is the nature of nuclear radiation which is spreading across the country?  On another note, what would we be dealing with in the United States if one of our own nuclear plants was to experience serious problems and release a cloud of radioactive dust or aerosols? U.S.  NOT  PREPARED As the world watches, the acts of desperation used in an attempt to bring the damaged Fukushima nuclear plant under control make it very clear that the infrastructure was not in place to deal with such a disaster.  It is beginning to appear that the controlling hierarchy is simply  "grabbing at straws"  in their management of this serious crisis. If a similar disaster were to happen in the United States, it does not appear that it would fare much better.  It does not appear that the United States has the proper infrastructure in place for dealing with such a problem, either.  To watch an NBC News video relating to this matter, simply click on the button below. Expert:  US not prepared for nuclear crisis REJECTED  WARNING A number of the reactors in the United States have the same type of emergency venting system which failed at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.  Years ago, engineers at a nuclear plant in the United States warned about the dangers of this type of venting system and were virtually ignored.  For more details about this situation, read the article linked below. U.S. Was Warned on Vents Before Failure at Japan’s Plant A  MAJOR  DESIGN  FLAW It appears that the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear facility in Japan was escalated because of a failed cooling system for the reactor and the spent fuel storage units.  When outside electrical power was put out of commission, the pumps which operate the critical cooling system could no longer operate.  At that point, workers turned to the backup diesel generators, but they were not operational. This situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant has exposed a major and extremely serious design flaw which exists in other nuclear power plants as well:  a design flaw which could lead to deadly, catastrophic failures at other nuclear plants in the future. Let us now consider this situation somewhat logically.  First, nuclear power plants are supposed to be supplying the grid with electrical energy.  Why then does outside electrical energy even need to be used to power critical systems within the nuclear plant?  This sounds somewhat foolish and a backwards way of doing things. Should not nuclear power plants be somewhat self contained?  Should not they be able to supply all power for their critical systems?  They should only rely on outside electrical sources as a second line of defense, after all critical power sources within the plant have failed.  Any backup diesel generators should also be located where they are not prone to damage by natural forces. NUKE  PLANTS  AND  COOLING In a nuclear power plant, heat created in a nuclear reactor is used to make pressurized steam in a closed system.  This pressurized steam then drives a steam turbine.  The output shaft of the turbine is connected to an electrical generator. The turning of the generator is supposed to produce power for the outside grid.  Now, again, why does the nuclear reactor require any outside electrical source to power its extremely critical cooling system?  Something is not adding up here. A  MORE  LOGICAL  DESIGN If we are so hell-bent on using these rather dangerous nuclear monstrosities, at least let us use a more logical design in the very critical cooling system for the reactor.  There should be a separate boiler within the reactor which only powers a turbine which operates the pumps for the cooling system. When using the above design of cooling system, the hotter the reactor gets, the faster the cooling pumps would turn and the greater would be the cooling effect in this very critical system.  Using this more logical design, the cooling for the nuclear reactor would be somewhat self-regulating.  This more logical design could make nuclear reactors somewhat safer, but not altogether safe:  especially in the face of a devastating earthquake. When using the above design, outside electrical power would not be the primary energy source required for cooling the reactor.  If an earthquake or a tsunami wiped out the outside grid, the nuclear reactor could still be  "safely"  operated and brought to a controlled shutdown, if that was required.  This is a rather simple concept which should have been integrated years ago into nuclear power plants.  But, as things now stand, we have many accidents just waiting to happen in the nuclear power industry. SCRAMBLING  FOR  CAR  BATTERIES The articles, linked below, note how engineers at the damaged Fukushima nuclear facility had to pull batteries out of cars  "in a desperate effort to revive reactor gauges that weren't working properly." As a lesson to us all, it is important to note the following:  "At first, engineers weren't aware that the plant's emergency batteries were barely working, the investigation found — giving them a false impression that they had more time to make repairs.  As a result, nuclear fuel began melting down hours earlier than previously assumed." Fresh Tales of Chaos Emerge From Early in Nuclear Crisis Saving a reactor with car batteries There are virtually identical  "sister reactors"  operating in the United States which are of the same design as those at the devastated Fukushima nuclear facility.  In the event of a major, combined, natural and nuclear disaster in the United States, will we be dealing with similar problems as are being dealt with at Fukushima?  Now is the time to learn from the problems encountered at Fukushima, rather than waiting until we are in a desparate battle for survival. MORE  IMPROVEMENTS  NEEDED A nuclear reactor is considered by many to be high technology.  Because of the danger a nuclear reactor presents, it is supposed to be something which is well though out.  Why then are critical gauges and instrumentation relying primarily on an outside power link in order to function properly?  This sounds very risky, as clearly proven at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.  Improperly operating gauges and the resulting lost time only compounded the problems at Fukushima, allowing for a quicker meltdown of the fuel rods. Once again, a necessary improvement in nuclear plant design would be an auxiliary electrical generator operating directly off the nuclear reactor itself.  With this improvement, as long as the reactor is operational and producing heat, the auxiliary generator is producing power for the gauges and instrumentation.  Only if the auxiliary generator system fails would a switch be made to an outside power link or to backup batteries. The above improvement in instrumentation power would give three layers of security to the system, rather than the two layers commonly used.  It would not leave workers scrambling in the dark with car batteries, attempting to connect them to instrumentation systems in order to discover the seriousness of what they are truly dealing with. Emergency workers at a nuclear power plant should not be left to scavenge for flashlights, as they were at the Fukushima facility in Japan.  Lighting within a nuclear power plant should not depend primarily on an outside power link.  The outside power can often fail in a major natural disaster or by a terrorist act. Lighting within a nuclear power plant should be powered by an auxiliary generator operating off the nuclear reactor itself, with an outside power link only as a backup.  A battery unit could provide even further backup for the lighting system. Let us learn from the mistakes at Fukushima and correct the design errors at U.S. nuclear plants, before we experience major problems because of our folly. GE  NUCLEAR  REACTORS General Electric (GE), a U.S. company, designed the failed nuclear reactors at the Fukushima nuclear facility.  There are 23 nuclear reactors in the United States which are of the same design as the failed Fukushima reactors.  All were designed by GE. This presents a serious problem for U.S. citizens, in the event of a major, combined natural and nuclear disaster.  It also presents a serious problem to United States citizens in the event of a major world war. For information regarding GE nuclear reactors, simply click on the buttons below. GE-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S. Mark 1 Reactor Design Caused GE Scientist To Quit In Protest Japan nuclear crisis may damage US image Experts Had Long Criticized ... Design of Stricken Reactor GE Designed Fukushima Nuclear Containment Systems CITIZENS  IN  HARMS  WAY The article, linked below, declares:  "Some 90 million people worldwide live within 30 kilometres (18.6 miles) of a nuclear reactor, equivalent to the exclusion zone around Japan's crippled Fukushima plant, a study released Friday shows."  "The United States alone has nearly 16 million people within this range..." Tens of millions live in nuclear 'danger zone':  study GOVERNMENT-DECLARED  SAFETY  ZONE The article linked below, called 'NRC's Pro-Nuke Spin on Evacuation Zones', declares:  "The U.S. government has been directing Americans within 50 miles of the Fukushima reactors to evacuate.  That’s a somewhat more realistic distance than a 10-mile evacuation zone"  which is currently in force in the United States. Regarding the preceding sentence, in the United States the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) insists on the safety of only a 10-mile evacuation zone surrounding leaking nuclear reactors.  Possibly the U.S. NRC believes that the radiation emitted by Japanese reactors is five times worse than that same radiation emitted from U.S. reactors. NRC's Pro-Nuke Spin on Evacuation Zones A  POPULATION  IN  DANGER A 50-mile evacuation zone surrounding a damaged or leaking nuclear reactor would place one-third of the population of the United States within this zone.  Yes, about one-third of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant:  so says the article linked above, called 'NRC's Pro-Nuke Spin on Evacuation Zones.'  But there is more to consider about safety than just a hypothetical circle around a reactor. The wind and swirling air currents are a large factor in the spread of nuclear radiation.  On the upwind side of a spewing nuclear reactor, it may be relatively safe.  But on the downwind side, things are much different.  It should also be noted that the wind can change direction at any time, and spread the radiation in a new direction. The faster the wind speed, the sooner the radiation may reach distant places.  The stronger the winds, the further the radiation may be spread.  In case of a nuclear accident during a time of strong winds, even a 50-mile distance from the reactor on the downwind side may not be anywhere near enough. THE  STATE  OF  LONG  ISLAND The article below also provides some information regarding the Indian Point nuclear plant at Buchanan, in New York state, and the Millstone nuclear complex near New London, Connecticut, and what could be the result, especially to Long Island, from nuclear accidents at these facilities. Now for the bottom line.  If either the Indian Point nuclear plant or the Millstone nuclear complex experienced a nuclear accident, the people on Long Island could be in some serious trouble, for the evacuation of Long Island has been declared impossible.  So says the article linked below. The comments at the end of the article are especially informative. NRC's Pro-Nuke Spin on Evacuation Zones TRAPPED  ON  AN  ISLAND The article linked below declares:  "If a huge natural or man-made disaster ever struck Long Island, there would be several local, state and federal plans in place to help people, according to officials in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.  Evacuating the island, however, is not one of them."  The remaining articles linked below also deal with the inability to rapidly evacuate Long Island in the event of a major disaster. A Fast Long Island Evacuation?  Impossible Fukushima, Indian Point and Fantasy Suffolk Closeup:  Evacuating L.I. — a nuclear dead end A  PROPER  EVACUATION  ZONE After watching the disaster unfold in Fukushima, Japan, a number of wise officials in the United States are calling for a more realistic 50-mile evacuation zone around dangerous U.S. nuclear reactors.  Remember, during a nuclear accident, the wind can carry that harmful or deadly radiation for quite some distance.  For information regarding increasing evacuation zones, simply click on the buttons below. Lawmakers ... Demanding a 50-mile Evacuation Zone Counties air nuclear concerns in wake of Japan’s quake TORNADO  PROBLEMS The articles linked below show that nuclear power plants are not tornado-proof.  During a tornado, emergency equipment and backup systems could be compromised or put out of commission.  In certain cases, this could allow for cascading problems at a nuclear plant, which eventually could lead to a serious emission of radiation into the surrounding environment. There is one important fact to note in the articles linked below.  None of the nuclear power plants received a direct hit by the tornadoes.  They simply experienced secondary effects from the tornadoes.  Fortunately, the backup systems at these reactors did function.  A direct hit by a powerful, debris-filled tornado could leave a very different picture. The first article linked below declares:  "'No one really knows what would happen if a very powerful tornado hit a nuclear power plant directly,' said nuclear policy expert and ABC News consultant Joe Cirincione, and that’s because it has never happened before."  The article continues:  "'Unlike the reactors at Fukushima, many of the backup power systems at U.S. reactors are shielded in one way or another,' Cirincione said, but he warns that even the strongest plant couldn't withstand a direct hit." Tornado Hits Virginia Nuclear Plant Nuclear plant near tornado-hit town was 'vulnerable' 'Tornado Alley' reactor not fully twister-proof Wolf Creek nuclear plant vulnerable to tornadoes Emergency Declared at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant A  CLOSER  LOOK It is now time to take a closer look at nuclear energy.  What are we even doing with large-scale nuclear power plants, why are we even using them, if we do not have the infrastructure in place for dealing with a major disaster resulting from the use of these plants?  This sounds like gross irresponsibility and incompetence.  It sounds like we are gamblers and playing  "Russian Roulette"  with our future. Possibly it is time to reconsider if large-scale nuclear energy is truly a wise choice, especially in our changing world.  If nuclear power plants could be made safe against all natural disasters and other calamities, that would be one thing.  But, it is becoming extremely clear that nuclear power plants are not failsafe.  In other words, it appears that these plants are not really safe at all, considering our changing world. For information regarding the safety of nuclear plants, simply click on the button below. Obama on nuclear energy:  "Nothing's completely failsafe" It appears that nuclear power plants are more like a very serious or devastating accident waiting to happen.  But then again, possibly that is what has been intended for a long time, especially by certain individuals.  Some sources claim that there have been drastic population reduction plans in place for our world, for quite a number of years.  Some  "fringe"  reports on the subject are linked below. A Secret National Security Memo The Population Control Holocaust Eugenics...World Bank Population-Reduction Lending Schemes Conspiracy to reduce world’s population LOGICAL  QUESTIONS  AND  DEDUCTIONS If a serious nuclear accident were to occur, would it be of benefit to any particular group of individuals in this country and in our world, besides those who we commonly refer to as terrorists?  Is there a rich and powerful group or organization which desires to drastically reduce the population of this earth?  Again, what about the rich and powerful eugenicists who control our world, and those who are behind them? BACK  TO  NUCLEAR  PROBLEMS It is time to examine other problems being realized in Japan, resulting from the major nuclear accident at Fukushima.  It is time to give some history regarding serious problems and deaths in the nuclear arena in the United States.  It is time to consider how geologic events and other natural phenomenon can have a serious and devastating effect on the nuclear industry.  It is also time to consider the effects which computer hackers and terrorists can have on the nuclear industry.  These issues will be examined in the remainder of this report. RECOVERING  AND  DISPOSING  OF  THE  DEAD For information regarding only one minor, yet serious problem associated with the use of nuclear energy, in the face of a major natural disaster or other catastrophe, simply click on the button below.  This is real life surrounding the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan.  This picture could be repeated near other nuclear reactors in the event of a major disaster. Radiation slows recovery of dead near Japan plant Please note, in the article linked above, that radiation concerns resulting from a damaged nuclear plant can greatly complicate the recovery of bodies after a major disaster.  As an example, police in full radiation suits could not recover a corpse because of its high radiation levels, which set off radiation alarms carried by the officers.  Radiation can also complicate the disposal of bodies.  Problems like these have greatly slowed the processes regarding dead bodies. KILLED  BY  A  NUCLEAR  REACTOR Once again, radiation problems created by nuclear reactors can greatly complicate the recovery and disposal of dead bodies.  The articles linked below present the difficulties surrounding the recovery and disposal of the bodies of three technicians who were killed during the explosion of a nuclear reactor, right in the continental United States. The SL-1 Incident, 1961 Video:  Nuclear Reactor Incident Initial Emergency Response 1961 Video:  Victim Recovery Post Emergency Response SL1 Incident 1961 Video:  Post Emergency Response Radiation Incident 1961 Wikipedia:  SL-1 January 1961:  SL-1 Explosion Aftermath The bodies of the technicians killed in the SL-1 reactor explosion were hard to recover.  After recovery, the bodies of these three technicians had to be gruesomely cut into pieces.  Some of their body parts were so radioactive that they had to be buried in a high-level nuclear waste dump at the reactor site.  The remaining parts of their bodies were put into lead-lined coffins and buried in a special containment vessel at three different cemetaries. THE  SL-1  MOVIE The movie linked below was part of a training program in the United States, regarding nuclear energy.  This movie was made surrounding the events which happened during the SL-1 nuclear accident. 40 minute Movie:  SL-1 The Accident:  Phases I and II At the end of the movie linked above, the speaker indicates that we can now readily deal with nuclear accidents and bring things under control.  That may have been true regarding small-scale experimental reactors dating to the early 1960s.  But, as has been proven at Chernobly and especially at Fukushima, Japan, large commercial reactors present a completely different situation. Large scale commercial nuclear reactors can be far more dangerous and more difficult to control in the event of a nuclear accident, than were the earlier, small-scale experimental reactors.  Accidents at large scale commercial reactors may even be impossible to control in certain situations. CONTAMINATED  FOOD  SUPPLIES Radiation from damaged nuclear reactors can contaminate food and water supplies, potentially making them harder to market or even making them totally unusable.  In Japan, radiation has contaminated tap water, leafy vegetables, eggs, meat and milk.  For information about this nature of problem resulting from a nuclear crisis, simply click on the buttons below. Tokyo water 'unfit for babies' due to high radiation Radiation poisoning of food supply in Japan FDA halts imports of dairy, produce from Japan This same food problem could readily occur in the United States, in the event of a serious crisis with one or more of our nuclear power plants. REGARDING  NUCLEAR  REACTORS It is time for a little background information about nuclear reactors and their operation.  It is time to consider the radioactive fuel and what can be the results of a meltdown or a major nuclear accident.  It is time to seriously consider how nuclear accidents can affect our world.  Click on the buttons below to receive some food for thought. What Happens During a Nuclear Meltdown? Looking Back at Chernobyl:  In Germany, Fears of Food Contamination Effects of the Chernobyl Disaster on Sámi Life Chernobyl accident still haunts UK UNSCEAR:  The Chernobyl accident Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster Revisited   (3 pages) A  NUCLEAR  FRENZY At this point, let us return to the subject of a renewed push for the use of nuclear energy and the building of more nuclear power plants in the United States.  It is time to see if the proper planning has been performed, for the safety of us all, or if things possibly are being done in a haphazard method to best serve special interest groups and political sponsors.  For introductory information relating to nuclear power and used fuel rods, simply click on the buttons below. Dealing With Exelon Helped Shape Obama Nuclear View Obama's nuclear power push faces obstacle:  Waste The danger of spent-fuel rods and the Yucca Mountain project Storing spent fuel rods in pools poses a major nuke-plant danger Greater Danger Lies in Spent Fuel Than in Reactors QUESTIONABLE  PROCEDURES Storing of nuclear waste and spent, yet highly radioactive fuel rods on-site at nuclear power facilities may appear as being safe when everthing is going okay.  But, what happens in the event of a major natural disaster like a massive earthquake, or some other calamity?  Will the storage containers remain completely intact and fully safe as they are violently slammed around or thrown to the ground?  Will the public still be fully protected from the potential for dangerous radiation to be leaking into the environment? In relation to the use of nuclear energy, do the leaders always make good choices?  Are the true facts always presented to the public or is the public often deceived by those who should be helping to protect them?  Do various agencies seem to have a way of skewing the truth, so that the use of nuclear energy can continue unabated?  The button below links to an article which is truly food for thought. Like a Kamikaze Terrorist Wrapped in Bombs MAJOR  CONCERNS Included in the major concerns regarding nuclear energy are the disposal of highly radioactive spent fuel rods, fire hazards, core meltdowns, major earthquakes and radiation leakage.  Can these issues be overcome by nuclear engineers and their advanced designs?  Can these nuclear plants be made immune to virtually any major problem or threat? On the other hand, another question needs to be asked.  With the use of nuclear power plants, are we simply playing  "Russian Roulette"  with our world?  Or, is nuclear energy intended for use in population control or reduction? THE  COMING  DISASTER It is time to face reality.  Concerning a major and deadly nuclear crisis, it comes down to this:  it is no longer a question of if a disaster will happen, it is only a matter of when, where and how widespread will be the next one. The article linked above indicates that major earthquakes are the biggest hazard to nuclear power plants.  It is known that massive earthquakes can cause immediate damage and destruction to vital systems in nuclear plants.  It is also well known that earthquakes can result in fires.  This brings up another problem. The rising heat columns from fires at nuclear facilities, along with the wind, can work to spread radiation.  The radiation in the smoke column can travel into the atmosphere and, if the conditions are right, be spread worldwide. AN  OVERWHELMING  FORCE Nuclear engineers, after decades of effort, have concluded that major earthquakes can overwhelm anything, virtually any safety measure, which they design into a nuclear plant. Please take special note of that which one nuclear expert declared, in the article linked below, when addressing the issue of the range of threats to nuclear installations.  He declared:  "There are simply too many, and you don't have the resources"  to deal with them all. How dangerous is nuclear power?  Three lessons from Japan. THROWING  CAUTION  TO  THE  WIND As the world watches the ongoing nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan, it appears that another country has thrown all caution to the wind.  Turkey blatantly intends to build nuclear reactors, even near a fault in a known earthquake zone.  It appears that, for the love of money, Turkey is turning a deaf ear to all objections from its neighbors in the region.  Turkey callously has declared that the nuclear plant is necessary to keep the country's strong economy going. Considering what has occurred at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan, and considering that which happened at Chernobyl in 1986, could Turkey possibly be displaying a little arrogance and folly?  On the other hand, could there be another potential reason that Turkey is so adamant to build these nuclear power plants? For introductory information regarding this matter, simply click on the button below.  A brief examination of certain driving forces involved with nuclear energy will follow shortly. Turkish nuclear plans on Mediterranean raise fears A  POTENTIAL  MOTIVE In regards to Turkey's ambitions, and possibly in even a far greater degree to those of a nuclear crazed Iran, it appears there may be no other option at this point, but to bring up certain religious beliefs. In the Moslem world of Islam, there is a particular belief which is strongly held by a certain segment of the people, a belief which may tie directly into a strong and stubborn desire for nuclear plants.  For information regarding this fundamental belief, simply click on the buttons below.  Some of the sites may look a little unusual, but the information in them may be worth considering. Does Iran ... WANT A War ... So ... Mahdi Can Return? Mahdi Countdown and Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Waiting for Islam's Messiah LOOKING  FOR  TROUBLE It appears that certain religious groups strongly desire a time of great trouble upon this earth.  It appears that they desire and welcome a time of intense misery, virtually worldwide.  Some people are looking to coming wars as being the time of trouble, but what could a terrorist organization or a religious fanatic with a  "death wish"  do with a nuclear power plant?  What kind of misery did Chernobyl cause?  Furthermore, what potential misery could a nuclear plant cause, especially one which is intentionally built in an earthquake zone? DESPITE  ALL  WARNINGS The article, linked below, declares:  "The leaders of earthquake-prone Iran have rejected concerns by the country's top scientists about a plan to build a national nuclear reactor network."  The article states:  "The report by Iranian scientists warns that 'data collected since the year 2000 shows the incontrovertible risks of establishing nuclear sites in the proximity of fault lines' in Khuzestan and 19 other Iranian provinces." It appears that those who are driven by delusions and hallucinations will no longer pay heed to common sense and logic. Quake-prone Iran backs nuclear expansion plans despite risks EARTHQUAKES  AND  NUCLEAR  PLANTS At this point, we must ask ourselves some important questions.  Because the author resides in the United States, the first question will be directed toward the United States.  But, similar questions could be directed toward any country.  The first question is this:  Knowing what nuclear engineers have declared about nuclear plants, that major earthquakes can overwhelm virtually any built-in safety measure, is it truly safe to build nuclear plants in the United States? SAFER  OPTIONS Let us look at some more questions.  Is the United States, and yes, other countries, so lacking in technology that nuclear energy is the only route to pursue for our energy needs?  Are we that technologically blind? Are there possibly other options which are much safer than nuclear energy, options which could readily fill all of our energy needs?  Are we so captivated and bewitched by nuclear energy that we refuse to even seriously consider anything else? Within this website is shown a much safer option than nuclear energy.  This option could readily work to fulfill all our energy needs, plus it is environmentally-friendly.  This much safer option can be used in stationary settings, such as electrical power generating plants, and it can also be used in the transportation sector. THE  EARTHQUAKE  QUESTION By the information presented in this discussion, it appears that earthquakes can be very detrimental to nuclear reactors and nuclear power plants, even when nuclear engineers have produced their best designs.  In relation to this information, another important question needs to be asked.  Are we, in the United States, immune to massive earthquakes? CASCADIA  EARTHQUAKES It is time for some basic information and history.  Simply click on the button below for a small sampling of earthquake history regarding the Pacific Northwest of the United States.  It should be noted, also, that geologists are still locating new faultlines which can add to potential earthquake hazards.  These newly discovered faultlines complicate and could drastically change the picture of our true predicament. Wikipedia:  1700 Cascadia earthquake The Cascadia earthquake of 1700 was massive.  It is estimated to have had a magnitude of up to 9.2.  It encompassed the region from Vancouver Island, in British Columbia, Canada, all the way south into northern California, USA.  Some scientists believe that the massive and still somewhat unstable Bonneville Slide may be linked to this earthquake. THE  BONNEVILLE  SLIDE The buttons below link to pictures that include the Bonneville Slide.  Bonneville Dam with its powerhouses are found in the center of the pictures.  The Bonneville slide came from mountains located off the left side of the pictures, and moved toward the right, initially sealing off and damming the Columbia River.  The river finally eroded through the massive slide and formed the relatively narrow channel seen in the photos. Army Corps of Engineers:  Bonneville Dam looking east Aerial View of the Bonneville Dam Complex The button below links to additional information about the Bonneville slide.  Massive slides like this obviously happened in the past and they can readily happen in the future at other locations in the Pacific Northwest, with dire results. USGS:  A New Look at an Old Landslide BAINBRIDGE  ISLAND During one massive earthquake in the past, the southern end of Bainbridge Island, in Puget Sound, was raised 21 feet.  What is called the Seattle Fault appears to have been responsible for the intense shaking which caused major ground movement.  For introductory information about earthquake hazards in this area, simply click on the button below. Recent Earthquakes a Reminder That Kitsap Could Be Next QUAKE  POTENTIALS When it comes to earthquakes, what has happened in the past could readily happen in the future.  There is also the potential that what happens in the future could be even worse than that which has happened in the past.  For the geologist, the earth has clearly shown what it can do.  What has happened in one area may also happen in others.  This type of ground movement is not conducive to the safety and longevity of a nuclear power plant. CASCADIA  QUAKE  AND  TSUNAMI It is well known in the scientific community that the Pacific Northwest could once again experience a massive earthquake of 9.2 magnitude, or one even greater.  As indicated in the  "Wikipedia:  1700 Cascadia earthquake"  article further above, scientists have concluded that a tsunami produced by one of these massive earthquakes could reach 80 to 100 feet in height.  In comparison, the tsunami in Japan was only about 33 feet in height.  But there is more to this story. The information accessed via the button below helps to form a picture of that which could happen in the Pacific Northwest, if it were to experience a devastating 9.0+ magnitude earthquake.  Earthquakes like this could be very damaging to nuclear reactors.  They could also be damaging to dams on rivers. Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquakes MORE  FAULTS The Cascadia fault complex is not the only seismic feature to be concerned about in the Pacific Northwest.  Let us now consider the South Whidbey Island Fault.  It appears there is the potential that this faultline extends into the region of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.  This could present a major problem in the event of a large earthquake.  Click on the button below for an introduction to this faultline. Earthquake fault much larger, more dangerous than thought The first article linked below regards the reactor at the Hanford Nuclear reservation and its similarities to the failed reactors at the Fukushima facility in Japan, the on-site storage of spent fuel rods, plus the proximity to seismic fault lines.  The second linked article discusses the earthquake potential for the Hanford region. Lessons for Washington in Japan's nuclear crisis New Study Says Earthquakes Near Hanford Not As Unlikely As First Thought There are other northwest-southeast trending geologic puzzles and fault zones in the Pacific Northwest which scientists have not yet totally assessed for their hazards.  What potential problems could these geologic features present in the times ahead, as we consider earthquakes and nuclear plants?  For a rudimentary sampling of information, simply click on the button below. Wikipedia:  Olympic-Wallowa Lineament RISK  FACTORS  AND  THE  CENTRAL  U.S. It appears that the Pacific Northwest may not be a good place to build a large-scale nuclear facility.  It appears that there is too great a risk for a major earthquake.  Where else could we safely build a nuclear plant?  How about the middle of the United States?  Is this region safe from earthquakes?  For a sample of earthquake history from this region, simply click on the buttons below. USGS:  New Madrid Earthquakes 1811-1812 Wikipedia:  1811-12 New Madrid earthquake A  GREAT  SHAKING The New Madrid earthquake shook the eastern United States with great intensity.  The shaking was so strong that it caused churchbells to ring in far away Boston, Massachusetts, and even shook what is now Toronto, Ontario, Canada.  It is also said that the quake caused cracks and breaks in the sidewalks of Washington DC, plus toppled chimneys as far away as the state of Maine.  Does this sound like a safe region in which to build nuclear plants? THE  CURRENT  PREDICAMENT The article linked below discusses the New Madrid fault line.  The article declares:  "There are 15 nuclear power plants in the New Madrid fault zone -- three reactors in Alabama -- that are of the same or similar design as the site in Japan experiencing problems." In the event of a major earthquake on the New Madrid fault line, the central part of the U.S. could have a massive  "Fukushima experience,"  thanks to the nuclear power industry. Little-known U.S. Fault Lines Cause For Seismic Concern CONSIDERING  THE  RISKS The potential for major earthquakes in other portions of the United States is also a real threat to the safety of nuclear power plants.  A massive earthquake could readily cause mechanical and electrical failures in nuclear facilities located in these other regions, with dire effects.  For information relating to this matter, simply click on the button below. What are the odds?  US nuke plants ranked by quake risk As this point, we need to ask a few important questions.  Are we all gamblers?  Do we like to live in denial?  Do we like to play  "Russian Roulette"  with our world?  If we do not care about our own lives, at least let us not deprive future generations of their healthy lives, because of our foolishness. NUCLEAR  ACCIDENTS Now for just a sampling of that which can happen with nuclear power plants.  In the midst of this examination, let us remember that, of the accidents presented, none shows the full magnitude of a worst case scenario. The combination of a massive natural disaster and the virtual destruction of a large nuclear facility could produce detrimental effects which are far beyond our imagination.  It should also be noted that the public is often not informed of the true dangers relating to these accidents. Now, for the buttons. Wikipedia:  Three Mile Island accident Wikipedia:  Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents Chernobyl:  A Nuclear Accident With No End? Chernobyl Cleanup Survivor's Message for Japan Japanese nuclear plant's containment vessels remain suspect COMPUTER  HACKERS Computer hackers present us with many problems in our modern world.  In minor cases, they are a real nuisance.  In major cases, they can be very destructive and deadly. For information about computer hackers and how they are steadily affecting our world, simply click on the buttons below.  This information lays the groundwork for realizing how vulnerable our nuclear power plants are to cyber-attack. Hackers Have Attacked Foreign Utilities, CIA Analyst Says Hackers Expose Climate Change Hoaxers Lies and Conspiracy Hacker Attacks on Critical Utilities Double Since 2009 How N.Korean Hackers Could Inflict Maximum Damage Smart Grid Exposes Utilities to Smart Computer Hackers Hackers Use Stolen RSA Information to Hack Lockheed Martin Was Stuxnet Built to Attack Iran's Nuclear Program? Is Stuxnet the 'best' malware ever? Iranian hacker ... stealing digital SSL certificates HACKERS  AND  NUKE  FACILITIES The articles linked below introduce the problems which nuclear power plants face from computer hackers.  It appears that nuclear power plants are not as hard to hack as some people may think.  A determined hacker could potentially create some very serious problems with a nuclear power plant, possibly even resulting in a catastrophic nuclear event such as observed at Chernobyl or Fukushima. UglyGorilla Hack of U.S. Utility Exposes Cyberwar Threat Nation's nuclear power plants prepare for cyberattacks How easily can a power plant be hacked?  Very America's Hackable Backbone Power Plants World Wide Vulnerable To Hackers North Korea Blamed for Nuclear-Power Plant Hack Hackers have 'begun targeting nuclear power plants,' ...expert warns Russian... 'Trojan Horse' malware inside U.S. critical infrastructure Middle Eastern Hackers Attacking U.S. Power Companies SABOTAGE  AND  TERRORISM We live in a changing world.  Terrorism is a part of this world.  It appears that nuclear power plants could be a target for determined terrorist cells.  It appears that these nuclear facilities could be somewhat of an easy target.  For information on terrorists and nuclear plants, simply click on the buttons below. The devastation resulting from a terrorist attack on an American nuclear power plant could, once again, be similar to that experienced by Chernobyl or Fukushima.  What would be the result of such a nuclear catastrophy in the midst of the United States? Nuclear Plants Called Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack Targets for Terrorism:  Nuclear Facilities Nuclear Plants In 31 States Vulnerable UK's nuclear plants are at serious risk of terrorist drone strikes U.S. nuclear power plants vulnerable to 9/11-style attacks:  report Study:  All 107 U.S. nuclear reactors vulnerable to terrorists OPERATING  NUCLEAR  REACTORS It is time to consider a few very important facts.  How many operating nuclear plants are there which are located just in the United States?  The information linked below indicates that there are 104 nuclear reactors in current operation in the United States which are used for power production.  In addition to these power reactors are 36 research reactors which are operated by universities and other organizations. The public may not be aware of the location of these nuclear research reactors.  Please note that one of these reactors resides in the middle of Cambridge, Massachusetts.  This may not be the only nuclear reactor located directly within a city.  Again, do we desire to continue living in denial in regards to that which could occur during a massive earthquake, a terrorist attack or other catastrophe? U.S. NRC:  Operating Nuclear Power Reactors Nuclear research reactor perseveres in city center Maps showing location of U.S. power and research reactors U.S. Non-Power Research and Test Nuclear Reactor List REACTORS  WORLDWIDE Let us now consider information about nuclear reactors located around the world.  It appears there are approximately 436 nuclear reactors currently producing electrical power.  Add to that number the many research and military reactors.  It appears there is much potential for dangerous radiation to be spread, with dire effects. Beyond the information presented below about operating nuclear reactors, it should be noted that a little research on the Internet will reveal many more nuclear reactors which are in the planning stage or in the process of being built. Truly, what have we humans created for ourselves in the event of a massive natural disaster, major terrorist strike or another world war? Wikipedia:  List of nuclear reactors Wikipedia:  Nuclear power Nuclear power plants, world-wide World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements U.S.  REACTORS'  SAFETY  QUESTIONED The first article linked below concerns problems with a number of nuclear reactors in the United States.  The article declares:  "Federal inspections ordered after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan found many U.S. commercial nuclear reactors vulnerable to severe earthquakes, floods or fires, particularly in combination."  The other article presents further information. Safety Gaps Found at Nuclear Plants Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed THE  BOTTOM  LINE It is time to consider the bottom line.  Nuclear accidents such as at Chernobyl and Fukushima have clearly shown the dangers of nuclear energy.  Knowing these dangers and the long-term ramifications, do you desire to see the widespread use of nuclear power scattered across the face of our earth?  What if there are much safer, environmentally-friendly and cost-effective methods which can readily provide for all of our energy needs? A  BETTER  WAY In this website is shown one relatively simple method which could readily be used to produce large amounts of safe power to fill virtually all of our energy needs. The technology shown in this site could readily be used in new or existing power generating plants to make them even more efficient, cost-effective and environmentally-friendly.  This same technology can also be used to improve fuel efficiency and fuel mileage in the transportation sector, while reducing harmful emissions. The widespread and proper use of the technology shown in this site can translate into much lower operating costs, a drastic reduction in harmful emissions and greenhouse gases, while presenting the potential for a lower cost of living. Welcome to Sakrisson Energy Solutions:  Home of  "A Better Way"  to provide for our critical energy needs. Home Page Contact Website Report Index

This site was originally hosted at http://desakrisson.topcities.com     The site is no longer there, but here.
This site is constructed, updated and Copyright © 2006-2015 by David E. Sakrisson.   All Rights Reserved.