stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Well I guess there is an economic upside to the situation in the North but hell its a nasty way to get it.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Something Stinks (Radiation Cover Up?) First Responders Deployed
- Thread starter stonehart
- Start date
Well I guess there is an economic upside to the situation in the North but hell its a nasty way to get it.
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Dare I mention that I've dealt with this story in other threads (on nuclear power)? I think when the nuclear industry in the U.S. is derided in the most strident terms and conspiracies of coverups are alleged, and the most outlandish sources are used to "buttress" these remarks, it is only fair in the interests of scholarship and reasonable debate that people come back to the thread and acknowledge that, well, they were mistaken. I have done a lot of research on this "incident" and have in fact made phone calls, and search as I might, the mainstream media have left this "story" alone to a quite astounding degree. That's a euphemism for they haven't "covered" it because there's nothing to cover.
When bold statements are made, based on hyperbole and little to no fact, and even as the "story" grows with black helicopters, explosions, blackouts of information, etc. in the "alternative sources", and these statements quickly (quickly) become anachronistic, and passage of time daily increases the clarity to which they are anachronistic, it would seem that a little amelioration would be offered.
I think it's almost an issue of public safety sometimes. The very public safety some purport to advance with their stridency is undermined by talk of conspiracies where none exist.
What does northern hemisphere cheese have to do with a nothing "incident" in the U.S.? Why is the "nuclear industry's machinery of denial in action" regarding this very "incident" in Indiana/Michigan invoked with no evidence of it regarding this "incident" or elsewhere in the U.S.?
What is ironic is that no solutions are offered, that even the people who get into quite immature back and forth on global warming, will not even come in and post a simple, "Well, I disagree with nuclear power as a source of electricity and other power, but the U.S. gets over 20% of its power from nuclear plants, and nearly one fourth from natural gas plants, and that's a heck of a stride over coal powered plants which are a factor in global warming." France produces over 80% of its power from nuclear plants, Australia produces 80% of its from coal burning plants. But no, that would be, well, I think it's obvious why anything opposing these strident conspiracy theories is not expressed. Kim
P
pixelsmith
Guest
the sun is a factor in global warming. putting a tax on it should help tho.
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Dare I mention that I've dealt with this story in other threads (on nuclear power)? I think when the nuclear industry in the U.S. is derided in the most strident terms and conspiracies of coverups are alleged, and the most outlandish sources are used to "buttress" these remarks, it is only fair in the interests of scholarship and reasonable debate that people come back to the thread and acknowledge that, well, they were mistaken. I have done a lot of research on this "incident" and have in fact made phone calls, and search as I might, the mainstream media have left this "story" alone to a quite astounding degree. That's a euphemism for they haven't "covered" it because there's nothing to cover.
When bold statements are made, based on hyperbole and little to no fact, and even as the "story" grows with black helicopters, explosions, blackouts of information, etc. in the "alternative sources", and these statements quickly (quickly) become anachronistic, and passage of time daily increases the clarity to which they are anachronistic, it would seem that a little amelioration would be offered.
I think it's almost an issue of public safety sometimes. The very public safety some purport to advance with their stridency is undermined by talk of conspiracies where none exist.
What does northern hemisphere cheese have to do with a nothing "incident" in the U.S.? Why is the "nuclear industry's machinery of denial in action" regarding this very "incident" in Indiana/Michigan invoked with no evidence of it regarding this "incident" or elsewhere in the U.S.?
What is ironic is that no solutions are offered, that even the people who get into quite immature back and forth on global warming, will not even come in and post a simple, "Well, I disagree with nuclear power as a source of electricity and other power, but the U.S. gets over 20% of its power from nuclear plants, and nearly one fourth from natural gas plants, and that's a heck of a stride over coal powered plants which are a factor in global warming." France produces over 80% of its power from nuclear plants, Australia produces 80% of its from coal burning plants. But no, that would be, well, I think it's obvious why anything opposing these strident conspiracy theories is not expressed. Kim
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Hey, Stonehart. I thought my post was very appropriate and very well worded. I'm sorry you had such a reaction to it. Do you have any legitimate or reasonable questions or thoughts concerning what it expressed? It was very on topic and addressed the very topic on which you began this thread.
My post addressed some very legitimate points, and I even waited to post to your thread to see what time would tell about the original "incident." Turns out it became quite blown out of proportion, to put it mildly.
Let me know if there are any questions you have about the post, or the "event" itself. I, as I said, made phone calls to try to get to the bottom of this "event" that now has become absurd. Just pointing that out. Thanks for your insight. I thought I was contributing facts to the "incident." Kim
My post addressed some very legitimate points, and I even waited to post to your thread to see what time would tell about the original "incident." Turns out it became quite blown out of proportion, to put it mildly.
Let me know if there are any questions you have about the post, or the "event" itself. I, as I said, made phone calls to try to get to the bottom of this "event" that now has become absurd. Just pointing that out. Thanks for your insight. I thought I was contributing facts to the "incident." Kim
stonehart
Paranormal Adept
Kim I can not see a thing you post as I put you on ignore some time ago but as Mike and a number of others have pointed out all you do is fly in and poop all over a thread.
Please fly on out as you obviously have your mind made up already so you can therefore contribute nothing more to this discussion.
Thank you
Please fly on out as you obviously have your mind made up already so you can therefore contribute nothing more to this discussion.
Thank you
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Oh, so you posted that vile stuff without even reading what I'd written? If you go back to this thread from the beginning and read through it, it shows an allegation about the "incident." Then it quickly became a back and forth between you and Voyager over nothing to do with the actual "event" in Indiana/Michigan. And then keep reading. It seems I waited, made phone calls (four), researched quite a bit, searched in vain for mainstream coverage of this, watched it grow to more and more absurd lengths on the "alternative" "sources", watched as American nuclear plant personnel were accused of engaging in their "machinery of denial" regarding this "event" on this thread, watched northern hemisphere cheese brought in to buttress the nonsense about this "event", and then finally I came in with one post stating the facts.
I just wanted to recapitulate how this and other threads sometimes "evolve." Then it ended with your profound and enlightening words. Kim
I just wanted to recapitulate how this and other threads sometimes "evolve." Then it ended with your profound and enlightening words. Kim
Seriously the number of people who have you on ignore, should serve as a clue......
You are all noise.......no signal
All chaff....... No wheat
You make as much sense as this
But are in no way as entertaining.......
There is a reason why an unprecidented number of people have you on ignore .............
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Wow, Mike, you're pretty full of rage. All I did on this thread was bring the subject at hand to facts and reason. The "incident" in Indiana/Michigan was a nothing, a product of conspiracy sites and imagination run wild. And this thread accused nuclear plant personnel of not disclosing what had happened. Nothing had happened, an anomaly that was taken to full blown conspiracy, and that was apparent pretty quickly. I only pointed out the facts on this thread. I'm sorry that this has engendered what is clearly full blown rage. Honestly, I mean that, but I can't control your reaction. Kim
P
pixelsmith
Guest
I feel like taking a crap every time I see Kim has posted something. 
All right, this is taking things a little to far. Settle down.
P
pixelsmith
Guest
oops. i meant to say take a walk. 
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Here is something from MLive's Kalamazoo News:
NRC may send additional inspector to Palisades nuclear power plant to inspect leak
NRC may send additional inspector to Palisades nuclear power plant to inspect leak
COVERT, MI —
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission may send an additional inspector to Palisades nuclear power plant as Entergy employees work to fix a leak that forced a plant shutdown on Tuesday.
The inspector will observe how the plant responds to the leak and conduct an investigation to see if there are any deficiencies in the plant's or staff's performance, said NRC spokeswoman Viktoria Mitlyng.
The plant voluntarily shut down just before 7 p.m. Tuesday because of a leak in the plant's injection/refueling water tank. The tank contained 300,000 gallons of borated water, which is used to cool the reactor when the plant's nuclear fuel is replaced or to cool the core in the event of an emergency.
The NRC was made aware of the leak in April when the plant shut down for refueling. Both Entergy and NRC inspectors monitored the leak. The plant set a limit that if more than 31 gallons leaked in a day, the plant would shut down, Mitlyng said. The plant's license specifies that no more than 34.8 gallons leak a day.
The plant is currently under increased oversight because of problems at the plant in 2011. It has been downgraded by the NRC, which has classified it as one of the four worst performing nuclear plants in the United States.
Mitlyng said the public was never at risk because of the leak: there was enough water in the tank in the case on emergency. The calculations that are used as benchmarks to shut down are "very conservative," she said.
Entergy spokesman Mark Savage declined to say when the plant may reopen. Repair work will consist of draining the tank, locating the leak, repairing the leak, refilling the tank and returning the plant to service.
Mitlyng said it will take more than one or two days to perform all of the required work.
Nuclear plants are able to operate when some parts are leaking. "There is always some kind of leakage going on," Mitlyng said. "As long as it's very small and doesn't get bigger."
But if it was any leaking of radioactive water used to generate energy, the plant would shut down immediately, Mitlyng said.
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Hi, Rick. Yes, I've done research on Palisades, and Mike brought it up yesterday, and I have addressed it. It's a leak that's being fixed.
But I ask you what I asked Mike. What, exactly, is the step by step, one by one, sequence of events that leads from something like a simple leak that posed no threat, by the way, to this catastrophe in an American nuclear facility you and Mike seem to warn about so vehemently?
It has to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., and your scenario must contain the exact descriptor of what is specifically happening in each step, and show knowledge of the physics of the plant, and why the many, many backup measures at each step will fail (in your view). Go through such a scenario in detail, showing the failure you and Mike seem to maintain at each step, so that it gets to the catastrophe. Describe all the human and technological failure in detail.
Because, after all, your posts clearly postulate little but doom and gloom regarding American nuclear plants, so you must know all these details of exactly one by one how this catastrophe will occur. But detail is important.
Because you are taking an essentially maintenance issue, this leak, very small, and using it to spread your view that catastrophe is right around the corner.
This isn't meant to make you angry or cause you to get personal, and I would hope you wouldn't stoop to what is exhibited above. But if you bring up a specific plant and a specific problem AS THE BASIS on which to predict something catastrophic I have a right to ask for specifics. I am only addressing your posts and Mike's. Kim
But I ask you what I asked Mike. What, exactly, is the step by step, one by one, sequence of events that leads from something like a simple leak that posed no threat, by the way, to this catastrophe in an American nuclear facility you and Mike seem to warn about so vehemently?
It has to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc., and your scenario must contain the exact descriptor of what is specifically happening in each step, and show knowledge of the physics of the plant, and why the many, many backup measures at each step will fail (in your view). Go through such a scenario in detail, showing the failure you and Mike seem to maintain at each step, so that it gets to the catastrophe. Describe all the human and technological failure in detail.
Because, after all, your posts clearly postulate little but doom and gloom regarding American nuclear plants, so you must know all these details of exactly one by one how this catastrophe will occur. But detail is important.
Because you are taking an essentially maintenance issue, this leak, very small, and using it to spread your view that catastrophe is right around the corner.
This isn't meant to make you angry or cause you to get personal, and I would hope you wouldn't stoop to what is exhibited above. But if you bring up a specific plant and a specific problem AS THE BASIS on which to predict something catastrophic I have a right to ask for specifics. I am only addressing your posts and Mike's. Kim
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Kim, I posted a video yesterday in the Fukushima thread by Arnie Gundersen that details some of the basic problems in a step by step fashion. I also posted another video by Gunderson earlier in that thread detailing other design problems.
Kim, I believe you are laboring under some large misconceptions not only about the safety of nuclear energy but also about the amount of time and effort someone is going to put into satisfying your demands here in this forum. I asked you a very simple straightforward question in private and you couldn't be bothered to answer it, yet you demand that I spend an inordinate amount of time to satisfy you. You need to reevaluate your approach as much as anyone else here does. If you don't like what I am posting don't read it. Avert your eyes. Read something happy.
Kim, I believe you are laboring under some large misconceptions not only about the safety of nuclear energy but also about the amount of time and effort someone is going to put into satisfying your demands here in this forum. I asked you a very simple straightforward question in private and you couldn't be bothered to answer it, yet you demand that I spend an inordinate amount of time to satisfy you. You need to reevaluate your approach as much as anyone else here does. If you don't like what I am posting don't read it. Avert your eyes. Read something happy.
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Yes, I watched and replied to that video, Rick. I also expressed my view on Gundersen, who's been around (and around and around) a lot, and this isn't a case of my scientist is better than your scientist, Rick, but I told you that some serious research on your own might make him a lot less impressive than you think he is.
I noted specifically that that's all I would say about him, that you are capable (if you are interested) in doing some real research on your own about Gundersen.
I don't feel at all that he addressed properly the things I ask of you. They were just requests, and I am not the one making doom and gloom, catastrophe is just around the next bend statements. That is clear. If a leak is fixed, that is brought in to buttress this catastrophic scenario.
I've told you before that I am not laboring under any misconceptions. I don't feel you or anyone else is required to satisfy my demands. I merely state facts, based on very real sources, and I do not indulge in hyperbole, and I, yes, ask questions for clarification of these doom and gloom scenarios.
Because, Rick, nothing is ever really offered in detail to support the allegations regarding American nuclear plant safety. Hence the questions.
I looked in my mailbox, and didn't see any questions you have asked me about nuclear power plants. I'd be happy if you would resend it. Kim
I noted specifically that that's all I would say about him, that you are capable (if you are interested) in doing some real research on your own about Gundersen.
I don't feel at all that he addressed properly the things I ask of you. They were just requests, and I am not the one making doom and gloom, catastrophe is just around the next bend statements. That is clear. If a leak is fixed, that is brought in to buttress this catastrophic scenario.
I've told you before that I am not laboring under any misconceptions. I don't feel you or anyone else is required to satisfy my demands. I merely state facts, based on very real sources, and I do not indulge in hyperbole, and I, yes, ask questions for clarification of these doom and gloom scenarios.
Because, Rick, nothing is ever really offered in detail to support the allegations regarding American nuclear plant safety. Hence the questions.
I looked in my mailbox, and didn't see any questions you have asked me about nuclear power plants. I'd be happy if you would resend it. Kim
trainedobserver
Paranormally Disenchanted
Kim, I really don't care if you are satisfied or not. I do not care about your questions or concerns. And the question I was referring to wasn't about nuclear power plants but of course you know this. I think I will just "ignore" you and I encourage you to do the same to me. I have no interest in your opinions or point of view.
Kim323
Paranormal Maven
Rick, you assume too much. I am merely asking questions, because understanding the physics and safety features and regulations in an American nuclear plant is fundamental to this whole topic, and I just asked for specifics regarding how these catastrophes could occur. I am going on my own research, my interest in the subject, and my sons' (plural) deep involvement in these specific areas. Believe me, I have researched the very things you purport to have information about that will lead to such catastrophe. I am wondering if you have any information and details about plants that I have missed, and no, you are under no obligation.
And, no, I wasn't aware that the question you said you sent me wasn't about nuclear power. That's what we've been discussing, so how could I know it was the diagram you sent me that addressed your views on consciousness and the nature of reality we were discussing on another thread? I didn't know that was what you were referring to, so I went back and reviewed it again. I don't see how it relates to the subject of this thread or of nuclear power at all.
I see below it that I replied very politely and that I'd found it very informative, but I don't see how that diagram sent weeks ago has anything to do with this thread.
I'm sorry that you are going to ignore me. I don't know if that means a formal, click the button ignore, or you will just avert your eyes when you see my posts. That is your right, and I'm sorry if my questions and views about U.S. nuclear power plants have offended you, Rick. We have had some very good discussions elsewhere, so I am sorry to see you are unwilling to have more. But it is true that we have said all we can on this issue. I hope we can have other discussions, and no, Rick, I don't remotely believe that you are required to "satisfy" me. You keep bringing up that word, and I have only asked questions about specifics. Kim
And, no, I wasn't aware that the question you said you sent me wasn't about nuclear power. That's what we've been discussing, so how could I know it was the diagram you sent me that addressed your views on consciousness and the nature of reality we were discussing on another thread? I didn't know that was what you were referring to, so I went back and reviewed it again. I don't see how it relates to the subject of this thread or of nuclear power at all.
I see below it that I replied very politely and that I'd found it very informative, but I don't see how that diagram sent weeks ago has anything to do with this thread.
I'm sorry that you are going to ignore me. I don't know if that means a formal, click the button ignore, or you will just avert your eyes when you see my posts. That is your right, and I'm sorry if my questions and views about U.S. nuclear power plants have offended you, Rick. We have had some very good discussions elsewhere, so I am sorry to see you are unwilling to have more. But it is true that we have said all we can on this issue. I hope we can have other discussions, and no, Rick, I don't remotely believe that you are required to "satisfy" me. You keep bringing up that word, and I have only asked questions about specifics. Kim