...Nuclear MELTDOWN in Japan, is US Threatened???

On May 12, 6:49*am, bob haller wrote:
Actually group reactors can be more failsafe than any single isolated
reactor, because if one should fail the others can pick up the load
and basically act as the primary power backup. *Even the ultimate
backup APU should be a small but extremely robust reactor module
(similar to that of a submarine reactor) that could survive a category
10+ seismic event, as well as function while being totally submerged
shouldn't be a problem.

reactors grouped together are unsafe! If a single reactor at a multi
reactor plant has a meltdown or high level radiation release for ANY
reason, the plant operators must be evacuated for their own safety.

which leaves a entire multi reactor plant with no controlers...

While looking back we see the obvious reactor poor designs they ran OK
for 40 years.

a new design reactor built today may have such a issue in the future.

I am not discounting the hazards of anything but other than a failed
nuke power plant what can make a entire region uninhabitible???

basically overnight?

You are very afraid of your own shadow. In which case you'd only be
happy if 10,000 or more needless deaths from hydrocarbon based energy
took place each and every year, and otherwise millions of others are
having to suffer needlessly as well as forced into bankruptcy. Got
it, as now for certain we know which side you're on.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 12, 6:52*am, bob haller wrote:
nuke power has promised near free power since the industry began..

how about the waste? that still hasnt been addressed. and mining raw
materials for nuke power has issues of its own.........

nuke power, it sounded great but its really too hazardous to use

Thorium energy and the likes of those AP-1000 reactors could have
delivered clean and relatively failsafe energy that was nearly too
cheap to meter from the very get-go, but instead you Big Energy and
Rothschild guys wanted to lay your dirty and bloody hands as much of
our hard earned loot and plutonium as we could possibly create. Way
to go Bob.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 12, 7:35*am, bob haller wrote:
On May 12, 9:12*am, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 11, 12:47*pm, bob haller wrote:

On May 11, 8:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 4baac3e8-6b62-4d0d-9c88-ba0775752914
@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

japanese government is bailing out the power company TEPCO to cover
damages from nuke plant disaster.

would the US government if confronted by *a simiar situation in say
new york area have the ability to pay off the millions of people hurt?

Now that would be a real federal budget buster.

Millions of homes uninhabitible, downtown NY lost, such a event would
make katrna look like a drip in the ocean. and nearly no one has
insurance that covers nuke accident or acts of war...

Off to the killfile for you. *I'm sick and tired of your gloom and doom
predictions and quite obviously off-topic what-if crap.

Jeff

Thats fine but do consider the US can barely afford a space program as
is

But if we have a nuke disaster the taxpayers will be footing the bill,
and that cost can be so high space programs will be ignored, instead
whaty money there is will be paying for stuff like reloacting people
added healthcare costs etc...

But you believe everything our government agencies like NASA or DoD
has to say, so obviously you are a total hypocrite and/or a FUD
master.

The consumers and taxpayers have always been paying for everything
anyway (especially paying for corporate screw ups, including
government screw ups), so what exactly is your point?

Why not do energy the right way to begin with, and maintain it that
way?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theres NO WAY to be 100% safe with nuclear, and 99.8% safe isnt safe
at all.

imagine NY city area suddenly uninhabitible, bin ladens WTC would be
forgotten.....

Nuke plants are idea terrorism targets

So theres a dead zone for 70 miles around your city, where you moving
too? hpw will you pay for all your losses?

The economic effects alone of such a disastewr would likely put us
into a complete depression

Like I said, go live in a dark non-electrified cave and never get
yourself out of bed, and you'll do just fine. You can even utilize
all the extra dead bodies that hydrocarbon generated energy will soon
provide for your heat and food, though not free of charge because that
dirty, toxic and even radioactive energy will soon cost everyone $1/
kwhr. I hope you're pleased with that outcome.

Under your plan of no nuclear energy of any kind, in a couple hundred
years there would become no affordable hydrocarbons to burn, and by
2112 only $10/kwhr energy, but once again you really don't care about
that. Of course you also don't care about the mass Earth is losing, so
there's nothing there to discuss.

You must be related to the Rothschilds.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 12, 2:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 12, 7:35*am, bob haller wrote:





On May 12, 9:12*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On May 11, 12:47*pm, bob haller wrote:

On May 11, 8:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 4baac3e8-6b62-4d0d-9c88-ba0775752914
@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

japanese government is bailing out the power company TEPCO to cover
damages from nuke plant disaster.

would the US government if confronted by *a simiar situation in say
new york area have the ability to pay off the millions of people hurt?

Now that would be a real federal budget buster.

Millions of homes uninhabitible, downtown NY lost, such a event would
make katrna look like a drip in the ocean. and nearly no one has
insurance that covers nuke accident or acts of war...

Off to the killfile for you. *I'm sick and tired of your gloom and doom
predictions and quite obviously off-topic what-if crap.

Jeff

Thats fine but do consider the US can barely afford a space program as
is

But if we have a nuke disaster the taxpayers will be footing the bill,
and that cost can be so high space programs will be ignored, instead
whaty money there is will be paying for stuff like reloacting people
added healthcare costs etc...

But you believe everything our government agencies like NASA or DoD
has to say, so obviously you are a total hypocrite and/or a FUD
master.

The consumers and taxpayers have always been paying for everything
anyway (especially paying for corporate screw ups, including
government screw ups), so what exactly is your point?

Why not do energy the right way to begin with, and maintain it that
way?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theres NO WAY to be 100% safe with nuclear, and 99.8% safe isnt safe
at all.

imagine NY city area suddenly uninhabitible, bin ladens WTC would be
forgotten.....

Nuke plants are idea terrorism targets

So theres a dead zone for 70 miles around your city, where you moving
too? hpw will you pay for all your losses?

The economic effects alone of such a disastewr would likely put us
into a complete depression

Like I said, go live in a dark non-electrified cave and never get
yourself out of bed, and you'll do just fine. *You can even utilize
all the extra dead bodies that hydrocarbon generated energy will soon
provide for your heat and food, though not free of charge because that
dirty, toxic and even radioactive energy will soon cost everyone $1/
kwhr. *I hope you're pleased with that outcome.

Under your plan of no nuclear energy of any kind, in a couple hundred
years there would become no affordable hydrocarbons to burn, and by
2112 only $10/kwhr energy, but once again you really don't care about
that. Of course you also don't care about the mass Earth is losing, so
there's nothing there to discuss.

You must be related to the Rothschilds.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

theres space solar, which is on topic for here

The UN says a nuke plant disater can be expected every so many years.

How would the US recoover if california or new yourk were suddenly
uninhabitible?

Nuke power on its way out.....

Chubu Electric starts work to shut down Hamaoka nuke plant
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 13, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. began work early Friday to temporarily shut
down its Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture at the
government's request, by inserting control rods into one of its two
operating reactors, its officials said.


After halting the No. 4 reactor as early as the afternoon, the utility
is slated to shut down the No. 5 reactor Saturday, bringing fully to a
stop the plant, located on a major active fault zone.


The plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors are already set to be
decommissioned, while its No. 3 reactor has been suspended for
checkups

On 13/05/2011 11:43 AM, bob haller wrote:
Nuke power on its way out.....

Chubu Electric starts work to shut down Hamaoka nuke plant
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 13, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. began work early Friday to temporarily shut
down its Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture at the
government's request, by inserting control rods into one of its two
operating reactors, its officials said.


After halting the No. 4 reactor as early as the afternoon, the utility
is slated to shut down the No. 5 reactor Saturday, bringing fully to a
stop the plant, located on a major active fault zone.


The plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors are already set to be
decommissioned, while its No. 3 reactor has been suspended for
checkups


"Kan has explained the plant should stay shut while a higher sea wall is
built and other measures are taken to guard it against a major quake and
tsunami. Local media said the suspension would last about two years."

So, no, it's not on its way out. They're just going to make it safer.

Sylvia.

On May 12, 1:24*pm, bob haller wrote:
On May 12, 2:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On May 12, 7:35*am, bob haller wrote:

On May 12, 9:12*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On May 11, 12:47*pm, bob haller wrote:

On May 11, 8:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 4baac3e8-6b62-4d0d-9c88-ba0775752914
@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

japanese government is bailing out the power company TEPCO to cover
damages from nuke plant disaster.

would the US government if confronted by *a simiar situation in say
new york area have the ability to pay off the millions of people hurt?

Now that would be a real federal budget buster.

Millions of homes uninhabitible, downtown NY lost, such a event would
make katrna look like a drip in the ocean. and nearly no one has
insurance that covers nuke accident or acts of war...

Off to the killfile for you. *I'm sick and tired of your gloom and doom
predictions and quite obviously off-topic what-if crap.

Jeff

Thats fine but do consider the US can barely afford a space program as
is

But if we have a nuke disaster the taxpayers will be footing the bill,
and that cost can be so high space programs will be ignored, instead
whaty money there is will be paying for stuff like reloacting people
added healthcare costs etc...

But you believe everything our government agencies like NASA or DoD
has to say, so obviously you are a total hypocrite and/or a FUD
master.

The consumers and taxpayers have always been paying for everything
anyway (especially paying for corporate screw ups, including
government screw ups), so what exactly is your point?

Why not do energy the right way to begin with, and maintain it that
way?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theres NO WAY to be 100% safe with nuclear, and 99.8% safe isnt safe
at all.

imagine NY city area suddenly uninhabitible, bin ladens WTC would be
forgotten.....

Nuke plants are idea terrorism targets

So theres a dead zone for 70 miles around your city, where you moving
too? hpw will you pay for all your losses?

The economic effects alone of such a disastewr would likely put us
into a complete depression

Like I said, go live in a dark non-electrified cave and never get
yourself out of bed, and you'll do just fine. *You can even utilize
all the extra dead bodies that hydrocarbon generated energy will soon
provide for your heat and food, though not free of charge because that
dirty, toxic and even radioactive energy will soon cost everyone $1/
kwhr. *I hope you're pleased with that outcome.

Under your plan of no nuclear energy of any kind, in a couple hundred
years there would become no affordable hydrocarbons to burn, and by
2112 only $10/kwhr energy, but once again you really don't care about
that. Of course you also don't care about the mass Earth is losing, so
there's nothing there to discuss.

You must be related to the Rothschilds.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

theres space solar, which is on topic for here

The UN says a nuke plant disater can be expected every so many years.

How would the US recoover if california or new yourk were suddenly
uninhabitible?

They could all be relocated to Alaska, where they'd get lost within
all that open space. There's also Texas that's 100% natural gas
powered, and it's not cheap by most standards.

Space based solar plus transferred energy via microwaves or IR laser
beams is technically doable. After all, we need more solar energy
imported to our planet that still has ice to get rid of, and
especially if it'll cost us $1/kwhr or more.

Modern reactors are not risky, as well as especially failsafe and
cheap energy if fueled with thorium.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 12, 10:29*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 12, 1:24*pm, bob haller wrote:





On May 12, 2:39*pm, Brad Guth wrote:

On May 12, 7:35*am, bob haller wrote:

On May 12, 9:12*am, Brad Guth wrote:

On May 11, 12:47*pm, bob haller wrote:

On May 11, 8:14*am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 4baac3e8-6b62-4d0d-9c88-ba0775752914
@j28g2000vbp.googlegroups.com, says...

japanese government is bailing out the power company TEPCO to cover
damages from nuke plant disaster.

would the US government if confronted by *a simiar situation in say
new york area have the ability to pay off the millions of people hurt?

Now that would be a real federal budget buster.

Millions of homes uninhabitible, downtown NY lost, such a event would
make katrna look like a drip in the ocean. and nearly no one has
insurance that covers nuke accident or acts of war...

Off to the killfile for you. *I'm sick and tired of your gloom and doom
predictions and quite obviously off-topic what-if crap.

Jeff

Thats fine but do consider the US can barely afford a space program as
is

But if we have a nuke disaster the taxpayers will be footing the bill,
and that cost can be so high space programs will be ignored, instead
whaty money there is will be paying for stuff like reloacting people
added healthcare costs etc...

But you believe everything our government agencies like NASA or DoD
has to say, so obviously you are a total hypocrite and/or a FUD
master.

The consumers and taxpayers have always been paying for everything
anyway (especially paying for corporate screw ups, including
government screw ups), so what exactly is your point?

Why not do energy the right way to begin with, and maintain it that
way?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Theres NO WAY to be 100% safe with nuclear, and 99.8% safe isnt safe
at all.

imagine NY city area suddenly uninhabitible, bin ladens WTC would be
forgotten.....

Nuke plants are idea terrorism targets

So theres a dead zone for 70 miles around your city, where you moving
too? hpw will you pay for all your losses?

The economic effects alone of such a disastewr would likely put us
into a complete depression

Like I said, go live in a dark non-electrified cave and never get
yourself out of bed, and you'll do just fine. *You can even utilize
all the extra dead bodies that hydrocarbon generated energy will soon
provide for your heat and food, though not free of charge because that
dirty, toxic and even radioactive energy will soon cost everyone $1/
kwhr. *I hope you're pleased with that outcome.

Under your plan of no nuclear energy of any kind, in a couple hundred
years there would become no affordable hydrocarbons to burn, and by
2112 only $10/kwhr energy, but once again you really don't care about
that. Of course you also don't care about the mass Earth is losing, so
there's nothing there to discuss.

You must be related to the Rothschilds.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

theres space solar, which is on topic for here

The UN says a nuke plant disater can be expected every so many years.

How would the US recoover if california or new yourk were suddenly
uninhabitible?

They could all be relocated to Alaska, where they'd get lost within
all that open space. *There's also Texas that's 100% natural gas
powered, and it's not cheap by most standards.

Space based solar plus transferred energy via microwaves or IR laser
beams is technically doable. *After all, we need more solar energy
imported to our planet that still has ice to get rid of, and
especially if it'll cost us $1/kwhr or more.

Modern reactors are not risky, as well as especially failsafe and
cheap energy if fueled with thorium.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/13_03.html

#1 reactor in japan has melted down........

Please list how to deal with nuke waste........

sadly there is no solution and breeder reactors create MOX pluntnium
is one of the mst hazardous substances on earth

On May 12, 6:53*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/05/2011 11:43 AM, bob haller wrote:









Nuke power on its way out.....

Chubu Electric starts work to shut down Hamaoka nuke plant
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 13, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. began work early Friday to temporarily shut
down its Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture at the
government's request, by inserting control rods into one of its two
operating reactors, its officials said.

After halting the No. 4 reactor as early as the afternoon, the utility
is slated to shut down the No. 5 reactor Saturday, bringing fully to a
stop the plant, located on a major active fault zone.

The plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors are already set to be
decommissioned, while its No. 3 reactor has been suspended for
checkups

"Kan has explained the plant should stay shut while a higher sea wall is
built and other measures are taken to guard it against a major quake and
tsunami. Local media said the suspension would last about two years."

So, no, it's not on its way out. They're just going to make it safer.

Sylvia.

Exactly, once everything is capped and otherwise cleaned up, they
could put as many a 6 AP-1000 class reactors on top of that site. Two
trillion dollars later and a decade from now they'll have their $1/
kwhr energy that's relatively safe.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On May 12, 11:05*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On May 12, 6:53*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:





On 13/05/2011 11:43 AM, bob haller wrote:

Nuke power on its way out.....

Chubu Electric starts work to shut down Hamaoka nuke plant
SHIZUOKA, Japan, May 13, Kyodo

Chubu Electric Power Co. began work early Friday to temporarily shut
down its Hamaoka nuclear plant in Shizuoka Prefecture at the
government's request, by inserting control rods into one of its two
operating reactors, its officials said.

After halting the No. 4 reactor as early as the afternoon, the utility
is slated to shut down the No. 5 reactor Saturday, bringing fully to a
stop the plant, located on a major active fault zone.

The plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors are already set to be
decommissioned, while its No. 3 reactor has been suspended for
checkups

"Kan has explained the plant should stay shut while a higher sea wall is
built and other measures are taken to guard it against a major quake and
tsunami. Local media said the suspension would last about two years."

So, no, it's not on its way out. They're just going to make it safer.

Sylvia.

Exactly, once everything is capped and otherwise cleaned up, they
could put as many a 6 AP-1000 class reactors on top of that site. *Two
trillion dollars later and a decade from now they'll have their $1/
kwhr energy that's relatively safe.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

35 Japanese reactors are soon to be off line

Japan is shutting down so many nuclear reactors because of the
earthquake and other reasons that only about a third of its 54
reactors will be operating by late May.

The earthquake and tsunami on March 11th has led to the suspension of
operations at 14 reactors, including those at the crippled Fukushima
Daiichi plant. 19 other reactors are currently offline. They are
currently undergoing regular inspections or plan to be inspected soon.

Later this week Chubu Electric Power Company will shut down 2 of its
reactors at the Hamaoka plant. The move follows a government request
to do so, due to concerns about the plant's earthquake readiness.

All told, 35, or about two-thirds, of Japan's commercial reactors will
have been shut down by the end of May.

During the next few months, 5 more reactors will have to be shut down
ahead of regular inspections.

If the utilities decide to keep these 40 reactors offline for the time
being, Japan will have about 75 percent of its reactors shutdown this
summer.

Thursday, May 12, 2011 18:28 +0900 (JST)