Ana səhifə

Radioactivity Neutralization Methods

Yüklə 12.18 Mb.
ölçüsü12.18 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   26


Re: Alternative Science: Jim Humble is talking about burning NUCLEAR waste

Quote  Posted by Kimberley  (here)

You on this tread may find this of interest....

Check out the work of Dr. Paul M. Brown

Paul Brown invented a radioisotope electric power system which is a scientific breakthrough in nuclear power. The battery utilizes the energy given off by decaying radioactive material – converting it directly into a continuous AC electrical current. Unlike conventional nuclear generating devices, the power cell does not rely on a nuclear reaction or chemical process and does not produce radioactive waste products. It uses relatively inert radioactive waste (the same stuff used to irradiate produce) to create a power cell that lasts for the half-life of the material inside (75 years)... thus a 400-volt, 24-amp battery that lasts 75 years and is the size of a soda can. Paul died in a suspicious auto accident in 2001 – quite a convenient death if you ask me. I’d love a battery that lasts 75 years :-), but of course the top of the pyramid does not. Nevertheless, the snowball has already began, and cannot be stopped. I’d still be concerned with the whole issue of nuclear energy being used. It’s not clean energy. 
Professor Santilli reported above in “U.S. Government’s Vicious Suppression of Recycling Nuclear Waste”:

The content below of this webpage ( was written in July 2000 (and it has been left unchanged) following the failure to conduct the World Congress on Recycling Nuclear Waste in both the U.S.A. and Europe because of obstructions by responsible governmental offices in both countries so incredible that cannot be reported here for fear of losing credibility. We merely leave the reader with the evidence that such an important conference could not be conducted in both the U.S.A. and Europe despite the world caliber of the organizers and documented repeated attempts. The announcement has been left in the website of the Institute for Basic Research (IBR) as a memento for these incredible occurrences.

The evident reason for said obstructions was the primary objective of the meeting, that of gathering the best scientific minds in the world to initiate in depth mathematical, theoretical, experimental and industrial studies on the recycling of nuclear waste via its stimulated decay in the pools of nuclear power plants. The main argument is that, since the nuclei here referred to are very large and naturally unstable, it is quite plausible to expect the existence of various mechanisms that would stimulate their decay, from mean lives of thousands of years down to practically valuable mean life of the order of seconds, minutes or days, depending on the case. In fact, several mechanisms have been identified, and some of them even patented, by their authors have received life threats and had to abandon their studies. This web site is dedicated to the privately funded research in the field by the Italian-American scientist Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli (Curriculum).
The origin of life threats is that the stimulated decay of nuclear waste would avoid the transportation and storage of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain and other depositories. The evident problem is that such a solution would prevent the dispersal of billions of dollars in taxpayers money by the US and European governments, with evident loss by governmental officers and their affiliated corporations of notorious gains resulting from the dispersal of billions of dollars in public funds.
Due to threats received by researchers in nuclear waste recycling not aligned with governmental regimes in the U.S.A. and Europe, Prof. Santilli and all members of the IBR have abandoned all research in the field in the year 2000 with the commitment never to resume them again. To our knowledge, the action by institutionalized cartels so clearly against the interest of society has been so effective, that no serious research has been done in the field, except for orchestrated work intended to provide the perception of serisous research in the field, while studiously avoiding the addressing of the main issues.
(End of excerpt)
The below chapter titled “DOE in 1992 Witnessed 96% Reduction of Radioactivity of Cobalt-60 with Brown’s Gas” includes this report:
An experiment involved the treatment with Brown’s gas of a sample of the radioactive isotope cobalt-60. A Geiger counter’s reading dropped from 1000 counts per minute to 40 counts per minute – a reduction in radioactivity of 96% that was witnessed by some Department of Energy officials. Their clumsy explanation of their denial that the reduction of radioactivity was due to Brown’s gas was found to be ludicrous.
(End of excerpt)
Then there is the most interesting question of who really are the people behind invention suppression?
One clue is offered in this excerpt from Gary Vesperman’s compilation of “Energy Invention Suppression Cases”
Adam Trombly has had a total of 54 attempts on his life. One of the latest occurred early in 2006. Also, a suspicious incident occurred July 4, 2006 when Trombly was visited at his Aspen, Colorado home by a man of Middle East origin from Las Vegas who knocked on his door and earnestly tried to give him ten free cases of meat. Having been previously forewarned, Trombly refused, even after an additional offer of a free freezer, fearing the meat had been poisoned. This incident indicates that an energy invention suppression hit squad might be based in Las Vegas.
(End of excerpt)
Here’s another clue:
I had posted the 123-page fourth edition of my compilation of energy invention suppression cases on the Internet Sept 3, 2007 by simply emailing a copy to nearly everybody on my list of at that time of over 200 email addresses. For a copy see I also sent copies to numerous environmental organizations and others.
Since then I have been provided corrections and changes to a few of the stories. I would like to update it, but it is simply not practical to go back and track down every copy floating around out there. My basic message remains the same anyway.


Enough time has gone by that it seems safe to relate two incidents that fall of 2007. Note that one of the energy invention suppression stories is about my car being torched July 3, 2006 approximately three weeks after I had posted on the Internet an earlier much shorter version of my suppression book. See I have had people tell me that the torching was probably by local kids. I feel that the two incidents lend credence to something more than a kid opening an unlocked door and throwing a small flare/fireworks into my car late in the evening July 3, 2006.


At that time I was sharing with John D. Martens a three-bedroom two-bath rented house in the 3000 block of La Mesa Drive, Henderson, Nevada.


Like I wrote above, I had posted the suppression book on the Internet Sept 3, 2007. About three weeks later, John was sitting in the living room. There was a routine telephone call. Except that when the other party had hung up, John was still holding the phone to his ear. The dial tone hadn't come on yet. I happened to be in the kitchen running water out of the faucett. He could hear the water running on the phone!!! He quickly realized that something wasn't right about this. He left the phone off the hook and motioned me to walk over so I could hear the water running for myself.


We realized that the house may have been bugged. Leaving the telephone off the hook, I picked up a spoon and starting banging on walls, doors, etc. He would show a thumb up if he heard the banging on the telephone, or thumb down if not.


That was an impressive high-quality audio surveilance system that had been installed around our house. All corners of the backyard had been bugged. Every room in the house had been bugged. I don't remember the garage being bugged also. The front yard was not bugged anywhere. My guess is that the system was set up to trigger recording when sound was present, which would have been made useless by traffic on the street in front of the house.


John had a dog named Coyote – a sweet-tempered black female Australian shepherd. When we were out of the house, we left the the back patio door open a little so she could fertilize the back yard when she needed to. Anybody could walk around to the back and enter the house.

I did not move out of that house until I moved to Boulder City March 2009. During all that time when John and I had sensitive business to discuss, we would motion to each other and either drive to a nearby park to walk the dog or walk a couple blocks away.


It wasn't fun living with the proverbial Big Brother of George Orwell’s famous science fiction novel 1984. We tried to find the microphones more than once. Never could find any. And how they were connected to the telephone remains another mystery.


The other incident happened right after Thanksgiving that fall of 2007. I don't remember what it was, but I had received an email describing a really hot energy invention. A few days later I got a telephone call from a man who said he was a truck driver passing through. He claimed he owns a place out in the country in northeast Texas. He wanted to meet me and learn about how he could get off the power grid. He offered to pay for my lunch if I would meet him in the Iron Horse Cafe in Sunset Station Casino in Henderson. There was something about this that made John and me suspicous.


John and I drove over to Sunset Station to meet the man who was standing in front of the restaurant. After the usual greetings and handshakes we sat down in a booth.


He explained that he wanted to keep in touch with his wife with a pair of earpieces, a microphone in his hand, and a cell phone. Every so often during our conversation he would interrupt and listen to his "wife". At the end of our meal John wanted to leave right away and not wait for dessert.


Out in the parking garage John explained he had spotted a man in another booth also with a pair of earpieces and a microphone. When the truckdriver was listening, John saw the other man talking. When the truckdriver or us were talking, John saw the other man listening.


We drove back to the house. While we were gone, there had been a call on our telephone. John called back the number shown by the Caller ID. The person who answered said the company is Global Intelligence. I immediately googled “Global Intelligence”. Their office turned out to be located only a few blocks north of our house. They handle secret shopping for retailers. They also investigate people that the casinos are thinking about hiring.

Fair enough, except for one thing: Their President is Peter Maheu. Peter's father is the famous Robert Maheu who handled the affairs of Howard Hughes for so many years.


And what did Robert Maheu used to do for a living? He was a very top agent for Middle Eastern oil companies. Look him up. BTW, he passed away a few months later.


One more crazy thing that had happened: I had entered myself as a stud in the dating site. Later that fall of 2007 I met a woman through the dating site.


Note that I had contacted her, not the other way around. We had a couple of dates, and she even took me on a secret shoppers expedition to the Palazzo casino/hotel on the Las Vegas Strip where we passed myself off as a professor or something like that and bought some nice clothes for me (later returned to the store). Shortly after the aforementioned truckdriver episode, she and I had lunch in a restaurant.

Out of curiosity, I asked her about this company she was working for as a secret shopper – Global Intelligence!!! I immediately felt sick at the table.


I then told her about the truckdriver. She had only been working for Global Intelligence Network for about three months as a bookkeeper, etc. It's a small office on Russell Road. She said she never saw a hint of any funny James Bond business. She then drove me home and we split. We met again about a year later, and she told me that she left Global Intelligence Network only a short time after. She did meet Robert Maheu himself at a company Christmas party. “A very nice man”, she said of him.


The truckdriver called back a couple times during the next few weeks asking for more information about energy inventions. I would politely mumble somethng about sending some stuff just to get him off the telephone. I never gave him any more information.


Global Intelligence Network is the closest I have ever been to identifying the invention suppression perpetrators, MIBs, black helicopter people, etc. I am not impressed with their clumsy spying, etc. Apparently it didn’t dawn on them that telephones nowadays have Caller ID features. Their website is, The full name of the company is “Global Intelligence Network”.
I see they have since moved their office to the west side of Las Vegas. Their President Peter Maheu is listed with the Nevada Secretary of State at as an officer of half a dozen Nevada corporations and LLCs. They all seem to be legitimate businesses and probably do provide essential investigative services to the gambling companies and others.


Global Intelligence Network’s apparent involvement with viciously suppressing energy and radioactivity neutralizing inventions as a secret sideline business is obviously traceable to Robert Maheu’s connections with the very highest management levels of giant Middle Eastern oil companies. The Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia certainly wouldn’t allow obscure energy inventors to spoil their gravy train of stupendous oil revenues.

As reported in my compilation of energy invention suppression cases in, their tactics would even include murdering energy inventors if necessary to stop their energy inventions from entering the commercial marketplace. Note as reported above that Adam Trombly has escaped an apparent poisoning attempt by a man of Middle Eastern origin from Las Vegas.
Getting back to the question of how the house was bugged, it is obvious the microphones were very, very small and cleverly hidden. It may be that the signals from the microphones were transmitted to something connected to the house wiring; then retransmitted to wherever.
If anybody would like to suggest to me how the hosue was bugged, the landline telephone’s model designation is UNIDEN’s 5.8 Gigahertz CXAI5698 with one corded remote handset and one wireless remote handset. BTW, when I moved to Boulder City, Nevada in March 2009, I took the phone with me. Since then I haven’t noticed any indication of bugging around the new house. Thank goodness, no more living with Big Brother!!!


In response to how the house had been bugged, an energy researcher friend has emailed his explanation:

“Gary, it's very easy to bug the residence of an unsuspecting person. It's not difficult to tag small transceiver units to the electrical outlet circuit – older phone systems used this technique instead of stringing additional phone lines around the house. If your phone was connected in this way and a small bug was planted in other rooms, that would explain how you heard water running in the kitchen sink just by picking up the phone.”
Well, I hope Global Intelligence Network (Who else would have been bugging our house?) found it worthwhile spending hours and hours over many months listening to John and I talk around our house.
Invention suppression activities sometimes seem to be more reminiscent of the comedic antics of the fictional incompetent policemen Keystone Cops than the methodical sophisticated James Bond character.

Ex-CIA Agent Confesses to Suppressing Energy and Medical Inventions
Bruce Meland is Publisher and Editor in Chief of Electrifying Times, an electric vehicles newspaper published every four months. The website is

To: "Bruce McBurney"

Cc: ;

Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:11 AM

Subject: Confessions of an ex-CIA Agent
The following story comes from an individual, Bruce McBurney, who has been involved in networking with high-mileage carburetor inventors for the last 10 years. High-mileage carburetors are perhaps one of the most highly suppressed technologies in North America where we are blessed with the most talented tinkerers and inventors.
Bruce McBurney of Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada has for many years been printing and selling manuals on high-mileage carburetors and other technologies such as revolutionary hydrogen generating systems such as for example the late Stanley Meyer's hydrogen on-demand system which was thwarted by his untimely death 10 years ago. (For a story of Stanley Meyer see Gary Vesperman’s compilation of 95 cases of energy invention suppression in Here are a few of Bruce’s interesting experiences in the world of suppressed inventions and inventors:
With having my web site explaining the secrets behind the suppressed 100-mpg fuel saving systems I have received many phone calls from supporters arid curious folks and other inventors and tinkerers involved one way or another with this technology. One of the most interesting calls happened rather recently and out of the blue.
This guy called and asked me, "Are you the Bruce McBurney that has shared all this information on the internet and by printing and selling how-to-do-it manuals about 100 miles per gallon carburetors?" I said "Yes I am.", and he said "What you did saved your life." I am a bit of a joker especially when people say strange things and not sure who they are so I came back and said "So big deal." He came back with “I am not joking. I used to work for the CIA suppressing guys like you." I picked up on the “used to” and just replied "Used to?” I thought if he is not doing it now, it is OK.
He replied “I could not live with myself. You do not need to know my name, and I will never call you again, 1 just want to explain to you why you need to share the information like you did." So I sat back and listened. He indicated he worked for the CIA and posed as a patent examiner.
When someone would file a patent on a sensitive technology they did not want the public to know about, he and a partner would go pay the inventor a visit, explaining they were from the patent office and wanted to qualify the patent as far as prior art was concerned. There would be no point pursuing their patent if prior art would render it useless; so they were here to find out who the inventor told and when about his patent. They would sit down and list the people that knew about the invention and when the inventor told them. When this approach was used, and the scared inventor was sure he would lose the patent if he did not expose all he told about his invention, the CIA agents were sure they knew about all the people involved.
On numerous occasions they would place a gag order on the patent and state as a matter of national security the invention could not be marketed to the public. This ‘gag’ order (a copy can be found in Jeanne Manning's book The Coming Energy Revolution and Gary Vesperman’s compilation of 95 cases of energy invention suppression would bind them to secrecy, and the agents would state that the inventor and all associates involved would be placed under 24-hour surveillance. If they breathed a word about this to anyone, and if they in turn told anyone they would find themselves in jail, and it would be years before they saw the inside of a court room. There were many BS reasons they gave for gag orders like city real estate values would plummet if everyone got 100 mpg with their cars, they all would want to move to the suburbs.
The economy is based on oil, and less money spent on gasoline for their cars would cause economic devastation. (No one seems to care about the environmental devastation though, at least not until now when global warming and global climate change (extreme weather) are upon Planet Earth.)
He explained that after they warned the inventor and served the gag order, and the inventor was sufficiently afraid of the situation, they did not even bother to put them under surveillance because they knew the inventor was scared and would do nothing, especially if he thought his phone was tapped. The ex-CIA agent said only about 5% are actually under surveillance – the ones that did not scare easily. He said they could not listen to them all because they did not have the manpower. If sufficiently scared, it was not necessary.
Then he went on to say that the high-mileage carburetor people were not as bad as the free energy/antigravity people and their devices. He mentioned individuals with UFO sightings or related experiences were also warned to keep quiet. They were to become aware of hassle that has been given to any that do report UFO's. The rest just learn to shut up. This harassment keeps things quiet.
He said the medical inventions kept him the busiest. There were so many new medical technologies out there it was overwhelming.
At first he thought he was doing a good service to his country. But after many years of seeing the similar technology coming up again and again he knew it was real, and he was the bad guy. He said "You know what the CIA does when you get a conscience? They put you in a hospital and feed you enough drugs until the conscience goes away.” He said he was lucky an old friend was an orderly that would not destroy his friend’s mmd. So they faked the drugs. He played the part of the vegetable, was released from the hospital, and retired from CIA.
He just wanted to call me and encourage me to keep sharing my info and then they would not bother me to avoid bringing attention to me. If I died mysteriously people would look at what I was doing so they wanted to ignore me and hope I give up eventually as many did before me. He explained the Raymond Rife technology and that the resonant frequency is used in many different medical devices he stopped. He felt bad for what he had done, but he thought he was serving his country. Now he knows he was serving the corporations, not the people. He hoped I believed him, and he would not call again. But he felt he had to let me know this.
I wished I had recorded the conversation because it was unbelievable. But I do believe he was for real. So a word to the wise – if you want it to survive so we all can survive, share it or lose it anyways. Patents are for the big boys to control their inventions and steal from the little guys.
We talked about 30 to 45 minutes, and he said some things that left me dazed. He said Flight TWA 800 was taken out by a Navy missile that missed its target. They had to keep that quiet because the passengers’ families could have sued the Navy into bankruptcy – national security issue there.
Years ago an official from the Canadian research council told me in my dining room "Look it has been suppressed and will be suppressed. There is nothing you can do about it. Well, I have done a lot already and so have many others out there who are doing more. People with more time, talent and money that are getting 100 mpg including Toyota, and I know one day it will have to surface and come to all because of the reality of our environmental situation.
In the scientific academic world the saying is ‘publish or die’. We need to adopt that for the inventors’ world.
1 am still searching tor intelligent caring people with money, guts and integrity who actually care for the future children to help me get this done.
The technology for a heaven on earth is out there, it is just being suppressed.
If half the technology I have learned in the last 10 years were implemented we could work 24 hours a week with 10 weeks a year, holidays, no welfare, no unemployment and all would be well fed, healthy and happy world wide. Time to end suppression before it ends us all.
Bruce McBurney

HIMAC Research

6665 McLeod Road

Niagara Falls Ont. L2G 3G3

905 358-8541 fax aux 905 358-9439


We share the TRUTH, and YOU have the RIGHT to know about SUPER-EFfl This is the ‘Air Pollution Solution'. Our future depends on it. GET INVOLVED NOW!
(End of email)
Evidence continues to accumulate of massive corruption within the Departments of Energy and Defense to protect the status quo of the energy industry from disruptive inventions and to protect sources of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium from proven techniques of neutralizing radioactivity. The phrase ‘revolving door’ refers to highly paid executives of oil companies and military contractors entering government service where they can influence the U.S. Government to award multi-billion-dollar subsidies to nuclear power plants and oil companies. U.S. Government employees are also frequently rewarded with high-paying jobs in the energy industries if they had been kowtowing to the demands of energy companies. These same former executives incidentally ignore and even suppress well-intentioned but usually financially strapped inventors of new energy sources and methods of neutralizing radioactivity.

That the ‘ex-CIA agent’ also claims to have helped suppress new medical technologies and in particular proven alternative cancer treatments such as Raymond Rife’s resonant frequency technology should not be surprising. (Rife had measured the exact radio frequency that would shatter the crystalline structure of cancer cells which he had visually observed with an extremely high-powered microscope that he had also invented.) Cancer is one of the world’s largest and most profitable industries. The Food and Drug Administration has also been massively corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies, radiation equipment manufacturers, etc.

I, Gary Vesperman, have personally seen positive results with three alternative cancer treatments. I have heard also an anecdotal report from a friend’s friend in Minnesota whose brother had bladder cancer – a tumor the size of a lemon in his bladder. He took the bad-tasting maple syrup and aluminum-free baking soda doses for 1 month and then went for a check up. His blood work was very alkaline, the tumor was gone – just a little irritation up in the bladder where the tumor used to be.  This man was scheduled for a colostomy the following next week.  It was canceled. The theory is simple – cancer thrives in acidic tissue, but not alkaline tissue.
However, cancer has so many complicated variations that what may work for one type of cancer may actually aggravate another type. So cancer patients should still first consult with their licensed oncologists before trying alternatives to painful but profitable ‘cut, burn and poison’ cancer treatments.
An energy researcher has a friend who wants to honor a close friend who had died of cancer by writing a book on alternative cancer treatments. She was referred to me last fall. Since then I have sent her well over a hundred cancer articles, alternative treatments, etc.

The Nuclear Power Industry Doesn’t Make Mistakes, Right?

From: Gary Vesperman <>

To: <>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000
Subject: The nuclear power industry doesn't make mistakes, right?
Hello Downwinders!

In the past two weeks, I found the Downwinder group's emails interesting, informative, and sometimes sad reading. My heart goes out to all you victims. Back in the early 1970's, after reading several thousand pages and months of investigation, including consulting with engineering friends who were working at General Electric's Nuclear Energy Division in San Jose, California, I had concluded that nuclear power was a terrible mistake. In fact I understand that nuclear power plants are now being decommissioned, at great cost due to laboriously dismantling highly radioactive pipes, etc, faster than they are being built.

For example, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Clemente, California is reportedly slated to be closed down, I believe, in 2002. All of the spent fuel it ever used is stored on-site. One of their control rooms was built on the wrong side of the reactor vessel. The vessel was too heavy to turn around. So the control room was expensively torn down and rebuilt on the other side. The nuclear power industry is very careful not to make stupid mistakes, right? Wrong!

The Hiroshima bomb killed, and is still killing, about 300,000 people. Chernobyl released the radioactive equivalent of several hundred Hiroshima bombs and caused about $300,000,000,000 worth of damage in the old Soviet Union and Europe. I remember reading that Italy alone had to dispose of $750,000,000 worth of radioactivity-contaminated food. I still try not to buy food imported from Europe.

Some time ago, I figured out that the proposed Yucca Mountain dump would ultimately contain the radioactive equivalent of roughly 50,000,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs. And then there was the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant accident in 1979. The nuclear industry is very careful not to make mistakes, right? Wrong!

A typically sized 1000-megawatt-electric nuclear power plant operating at full power for two years before it is shut down for refueling accumulates the radioactive equivalent of 4,600 Hiroshima atomic bombs. (For comparison, the total nameplate capacity of Hoover Dam’s 17 generators is 2080 megawatts.) One third of the spent fuel is replaced, and about 3,000 Hiroshima bombs of radioactive fuel is left behind. Until recently I wasn't aware that ALL of the waste nuclear fuel that ever was produced by the San Onofre nukes are still stored on site. I remember one is 200 megawatts, one is 800 megawatts, and isn't there a third nuke? Let's try multiplying 30 years times 2,300 Hiroshima bombs per year to equal approximately 70,000 Hiroshima bombs of radioactive materials.

When the Dairyland nuke near La Crosse, Wisconsin was being built, a drinking water fountain was mistakenly connected to a pipe of radioactive water. The nuclear industry is very careful not to make stupid mistakes, right? Wrong!

Every time another nuke is shut down, and they are only operable for about 20 to 40 years, we can be a little more relieved. The biggest nuclear power plant complex in the world also happens to have the nuclear power plants closest to Las Vegas. Palo Verde is about 50 miles west of Phoenix and has three 1270-megawatt reactors. They are cooled with treated sewage water from Phoenix which is just wonderful for corroding pipes, circulating pumps, etc. They probably have accumulated between the three reactors and spent fuel storage pools I would guess in the neighborhood of around 100,000 Hiroshima bombs of radioactivity.

The winds in Phoenix often blow northeast or east. Palo Verde would be a dandy target for Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Quaeda or the Taliban to blow up with a smuggled suitcase fission bomb, right? The best targets though are facilities for reprocessing waste nuclear fuel rods from dozens and dozens of nukes. Not to worry though. The nuclear industry has fool proof plans in place to protect their facilities from attack, right?

Back in the 1970's, I wrote a short fictional piece (unpublished) about a terrorist attack on the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant east of Sacramento, California (since then closed for several years). It was a chilling story. My point was that nuclear power plant safety regulations, the 1970's Rasmussen study of accident probabilities, and security safeguards don't mean a thing in case of a bombing attack. Yet the over 300 nuclear power plants worldwide will ALWAYS AND FOREVER be able to prevent catastrophic terrorist or military attacks, right Mr. bin Laden?

For a while, the Big Rock Point nuke on Lake Michigan’s northeastern shore was a target for simulated B-52 bombing runs. That is, until a 390,000-pound B-52 fell in Lake Michigan – barely missing the reactor! See for a report on the misadventures of the radioactive reactor vessel’s trip to an unlined hole in Barnwell, South Carolina.

The old Atomic Energy Commission back in the 1960's had a $40,000 contract to build a truck for transporting radioactive materials strong enough to withstand an "insignificant armed attack or a significant unarmed attack, but not a significant armed attack". The nuclear power industry is very careful and confident about being able to stop terrorist attacks when transporting radioactive materials, right?

A nuclear reactor goes critical when enough uranium-235 atoms are present in a small volume to sustain a chain reaction of neutrons striking other U-235 atoms. Ultimately about 200 heat-producing isotopes result with half-lives ranging from seconds to minutes to hours to days up to millions of years.
A reactor is shut down by jamming neutron-absorbing control rods back into the rack of uranium fuel rods. Enough neutrons from fissioning uranium atoms are absorbed by the control rods rather than striking uranium nuclei that the reactor can no longer sustain a chain reaction. The heat from the fuel's passive radioactivity alone contributes about 7 per cent of the total thermal output of 3000 megawatts – a still massive 210 megawatts of heat. For a General Electric boiling water reactor, after it is shut down, the cooling system MUST operate AT ALL COSTS for at least 40 hours until short-term radioactive isotopes have had time to decay to less heat-producing isotopes with longer half-lives. (The Fukushima reactors are GE boiling water reactors.)
Operating nuclear power plants need reliable power to operate cooling pumps, etc. Each nuke is supposed to have two diesel fuel-operated generators to provide backup power in case of widespread power failure caused by, for example, the peak solar flare activity due to start March 2000. There have been cases recorded where neither diesel generator was able to start upon test because of sloppy negligence such as failure to add lubricating oil. There also has been a recorded instance where the same tornado took out four of the five power lines into a nuclear power plant, thought to be statistically impossible. However, the nuclear industry is highly regulated and is very careful not to make mistakes, right? Wrong!

There are two other paths to disaster besides the infamous loss-of-coolant accident. One is the power mismatch, of which I am unable to remember how it proceeds. The other is the power excursion

accident where the control rods can't be jammed back into the fuel to absorb neutrons and shut down the reaction. I do remember that the tons of water in the reactor vessel would flash into steam. The sudden overpressurization would blow up the reactor with an explosive force of several hundred tons of TNT. We shouldn't worry, however. The nuclear industry is very careful not to make mistakes, right?

I have or had a DOE document which projects the Yucca Mountain dump's life-cycle cost at $150,000,000,000. In spite of this cost to present and future generations, nuclear power is justified by some people as offering a cheap source of electricity, right? Wrong!

At least twice in Las Vegas I have presented testimony at Yucca Mountain hearings describing a variety of proposed methods of reducing radioactivity. (They were included in my recent email comparing my informal personal list of 27 methods with varying degrees of credibility with a private list from a Canadian clean energy association of 9 methods.) The DOE did contact me afterwards for more information in an
effort to honestly and thoroughly review all possible methods of neutralizing nuclear waste as part of a sincere effort to find a safer, cheaper alternative to geologic storage inside Yucca Mountain, right? Wrong!
Steve Hodapp and I were technical writers with Control Data Corporation in Silicon Valley back in the early 1970's. We both left Control Data about the same time. We kept in touch for a time. During the mid-1970's Mr. Hodapp worked for a while for Stern and Rogers in Denver. He worked on his company's contract with the old Atomic Energy Commission to evaluate various methods of disposing nuclear waste including geologic storage. After a few months, I called up Steve and asked him how were they doing? They did find and recommended at least one workable method without any defects, didn't they? Wrong!

Over the past few years, I have corresponded with several nuclear experts on the subject of neutralizing radioactive waste. One of my email correspondents, Roy MacMillan (deceased), owned a company Containment Systems, Inc., which in turn owns a patent on a new type of waste nuclear fuel container. As of 1998 casks were selling for north of $650,000 apiece. The company’s casks would sell for $450,000 apiece with a 75% profit margin. They were supposed to be much safer and stronger than the casks the DOE were using. Since the nuclear power industry should be studying the most advanced technologies for safely transporting waste nuclear fuel, they vigorously supported his company's research, right? Wrong!

MacMillan’s company also had worked out the engineering of safely handling the fuel rods. The plan was to build a portable fuel rod neutralizer which could be trucked around to various nuclear power plants, naval nuclear facilities, etc. But Mr. MacMillan didn't know of any methods of actually neutralizing
the waste fuel until he was introduced to me.
The Department of Energy spends billions of dollars on research and development of hot fusion. Does it reasonably expect a commercially practical hot fusion-based electrical generator by 2010? After all, just like it has been doing with nuclear power plants, the DOE doesn't make mistakes, right? Wrong!

I have written a compilation of "Advanced Technologies for Foreign Resort Project" which is in It includes over three dozen new energy-related technologies and a discussion of candidate technologies for an advanced self-powered electric vehicle. Is the Department of Energy spending millions of dollars on developing them since it ought to be proactively supporting commercialization of a variety of clean, cheaper new sources of energy as quickly as possible? Wrong!

The nuclear power industry and its overseers in the federal government have been fair and quick to compensate workers who have been injured and even died from exposure to radiation and toxic materials, right? Dead wrong!

Gary Vesperman
Boulder City, Nevada
Nuclear reactors generate steam at a lower temperature than fossil-fueled boilers. Their electricity generating efficiency is only 33% compared with the 40% efficiency of fossil-fueled boilers. Thus a typical 1000-megawatt-electric nuclear power plant produces 2000 megawatts of excess thermal power which must be drawn off with massive quantities of cooling water.
TEPCO is the Japanese utility that owns the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power reactors. The Fukushima site is alongside the Pacific Ocean – a convenient source of reactor cooling water. When they were considering Fukushima for nuclear power reactors TEPCO admits they were advised that a tsunami could inundate the plant, and they went shopping for another opinion!!! (See “Is Our Understanding of Fukushima Backwards?” below.)

Energy Subsidy Lessons from the Nuclear Industry
I want to expand on a point made by Lydia Ball of the Clean Energy Project Nevada at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas―and in our newsletter―two weeks ago: “The renewable people I know would rather get rid of all subsidies [for all energy industries].”
Easier said than done. But those who doubt that renewables can compete in the electricity market must learn a history lesson about subsidies in the nuclear industry.
Nuclear power, which provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity, owns an excellent record of reliability and plant safety. But when nuclear advocates quote an electricity price under $0.05 per kWh, that price is far from the full price borne by taxpayers:

• The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 limits company liability in the event of an accident―taxpayers cover the balance. “Unwilling to risk huge financial liability,“ wrote Congress’s General Accounting Office, “private companies viewed even the remote specter of a serious accident as a roadblock to their participating in the development and use of nuclear power.”

Price-Anderson was intended as a temporary safety net until the insurance market could accurately price the risk. That never happened, so the act has been extended continuously, most recently until 2017. And the liability cap has grown to $375 million per plant. But if a Fukushima-scale catastrophe―estimated to cost anywhere from $77 billion to $257 billion―occurred at one of the 103 U.S. nuclear power plants due to accident or terrorism, the U.S. taxpayer would be on the hook for nearly all of it.
To be fair, Price-Anderson has paid out only $65 million since inception; however, the taxpayer-subsidized value of the act’s insurance coverage has been estimated at anywhere from $60 million to $237 million per year, 55 years and counting.

• To stimulate mining, the federal government directly and massively subsidized uranium prices and road building in the Southwest from 1955 to 1970. Results: abundant uranium supply for warheads and power plants, greatly expanded tourism to national parks in the Four Corners—and a tragic legacy of radioactive tailings and cancer clusters. The economic costs were high, the human costs incalculable—and all were borne by the victims and taxpayers (as was the fallout from nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site and downwind).

• Radioactive waste storage and disposal costs: Cost estimates for Yucca Mountain ran at $96 billion and climbing. Since 1983, nuclear operators have paid about $24 billion total toward these disposal costs, but sued to stop that after the Obama administration ruled out Yucca Mountain. As of now, the taxpayer is on the hook for the balance of the ultimate storage/disposal costs―and with radioactivity lasting over a million years, the only certainty is that the risks far outlast the industry.
• Nuclear power plant construction is legendary for cost over-runs averaging 250 percent, according to Time―costs passed on to ratepayers and sometimes taxpayers through tax incentives and loan guarantees with an average 50 percent default rate.
We would not have a nuclear industry―either now or at its inception―without Price-Anderson, and nuclear would be far more expensive if these other costs were included. The actual bill for new generation runs anywhere over $0.15 per kWh, according to Time ― or much more when including these “externalities.”
Solar, wind and geothermal plants all have their downside risks, but nothing remotely close to nuclear. Geothermal can run under $0.04 per kWh and wind as low as $0.06 per intermittent kWh where available. Solar costs vary widely by site, type and system size, but average $0.16 per kWh in sunny states like Nevada, including subsidies. But, unlike nuclear, costs for solar are dropping quickly.
I‘m not using hindsight to judge the past wisdom of subsidizing the nuclear industry; but, when it comes to incentives for future generation, renewables― even with their intermittency―appear a much smarter long-term investment than nuclear, especially for western states like Nevada and California.
JIM ROSSI is currently a graduate student studying history and renewable energy at UNLV, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, Bike and many other publications.
Source: March 3, 2012 “Newsflash” from the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization.

Is Our Understanding of Fukushima Backwards?

Is Our Understanding of Fukushima Backwards?

Posted by Herschel Specter
RBR Consultants, Inc.  January 29, 2014 at 11:43 AM Filed Under: Critical Policy Issues, Discussions
The meltdowns at three nuclear plants at Fukushima, Japan almost three years ago were an economic disaster, but were these plants inherently unsafe? Did the Fukushima designs provide adequate safety during extreme circumstances?
The magnitude 9 earthquake that hit Japan in 2011 was its largest ever. However it was the enormous tsunamis that led to meltdowns. At Fukushima the spent fuel pools never leaked water in spite of the earthquake, its aftershocks, and tsunamis. Even Fukushima’s emergency power systems initially survived the earthquake, only to be soon destroyed by the tsunamis.
The nuclear plants at Fukushima were in an extreme situation. The electric grid and the emergency power systems were knocked out, leaving operators in a blackout condition. Tsunamis flooded various areas and buildings. Hydrogen generated by the meltdowns was not harmlessly vented. The containment venting systems could not be quickly opened because they lacked electric power. Reactor buildings were destroyed when the hydrogen that collected there exploded, sending debris flying and further impeding plant access. Post-accident plant improvements will prevent a recurrence of this venting issue.
The earliest environmental release of radioactive material started at 13 hours and was a small percentage of the total radioactive inventory. Small and delayed releases are consistent with previous blackout studies by the Sandia Laboratory on a similar plant, where no near term radiological health effects were calculated. This was confirmed by the World Health Organization which concluded that there were no early radiological health effects and long term health effects would be too small to be detectable statistically.
Beyond the economic losses, the major losses from Fukushima were fear, not fact, driven. More than 1,100 needless excess deaths came from over-evacuating and long term sheltering. Japan, Germany, and California, all with reductions in nuclear electricity, are burning more fossil fuels. Meanwhile, China, Russia, and South Korea strengthen their economic futures selling and servicing new nuclear plants worldwide. Misunderstanding the full story of Fukushima is a profound mistake.
Did the Fukushima designs provide adequate safety during extreme circumstances? How should our understanding, or misunderstanding, of Fukushima impact our approach to nuclear power? 

10 Responses to “Is Our Understanding of Fukushima Backwards?”

Scott Sklar President, The Stella Group, LTD

 January 31, 2014 at 11:56 AM 


That’s a nice re-invention of the situation, but sadly not true.

 Aside from billions of dollars worth of property losses and loss of future economic activity, the health issue is far from over. According to the October 2013 statement from Physicians for Social Responsibility,

“As physicians concerned with the effects of radioactive fallout on human health and the ecosystem, we have reviewed the upcoming United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report to the UN General Assembly. We appreciate the effort made by UNSCEAR committee members to evaluate the extensive and complex data concerning the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. While parts of the UNSCEAR report will be useful in the future to assess the consequences of the nuclear meltdowns on public health and the environment, we believe the 2013 UNSCEAR report systematically underestimates the true extent of the catastrophe. Many of the assumptions are based on the two WHO/IAEA reports published in May 2012 and February 2013, which did not accurately portray the true extent of radiation exposure, followed faulty assumptions, ignored the ongoing radioactive emissions over the past 2½ years and excluded non-cancer effects of radiation”. The impacts of continued radioactive leakage into the Pacific Ocean are still being understood. According to one report, “Every single day, 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima enters the Pacific Ocean,” writes Snyder about this one major sign. “That means that the total amount of radioactive material released from Fukushima is constantly increasing, and it is steadily building up in our food chain.”
According to a 2014 NBC report, they state, “Another obvious sign is the recent mass migration of radioactive debris the size of California across the Pacific Ocean”. BBC News in the U.K. reported last year that literally millions of tons of radioactive debris had begun traveling across the Pacific Ocean, and that some of it had already impacted Hawaii and even the West Coast. There has also been a series of strange animal deaths recently, including masses of sea lions, sockeye salmon and other sea creatures washing up on the shore. Many of the polar bears, seals and walruses observed along the Alaska coastline have also been found to have major fur loss and open sores, both of which are indicative of radiation poisoning.” So anyone saying these economic losses and potential ocean impacts in the food chain have no meaning are seriously mistaken. It will be decades before we know the impacts, and the units are still leaking radioactive water into the ocean. The WHO report cited only stated “there were no early signs” but did not conclude there was no health impact. Most radiation impacts occur over longer cycles and it is disingenuous to make people believe what happened is comparable to a wind turbine falling over. Just not so.

Robert Brecha Professor, Physics Dept., Renewable and Clean Energy Program, University of Dayton

January 31, 2014 at 1:23 PM 

The direct questions posed here are whether the designs of the reactors at Fukushima were adequate, and how our approach to nuclear power is impacted by a correct or incorrect understanding of the technical issues.  However, the implicit question is whether irrational fear drove policy choices in other countries in the aftermath of Fukushima.  I would only like to make two points, one a correction and one of a more philosophical nature.

First, the German decision to eliminate nuclear power by 2022 was a long-standing wish of the majority of the country that had been briefly overturned by the governing coalition at the time.  Fukushima in some ways finally resolved one of the key divisions in German politics and re-asserted a decade-old decision.  Along the way, Germany increased its share of renewable energy in the electricity mix to the point where nuclear power is essentially superfluous.  Having said that, the reason that coal-fired generation has increased is completely unrelated to Fukushima, having to do more with the carbon prices that are too low in the European Trading System, which in turn comes from reduced economic activity since the beginning of the recession and an over-indulgence in granting initial permit allocations.  In the longer-term, the large-scale move to renewables will likely prove to be the key opening to a sustainable future energy system.
The more philosophical point concerns the fear factor.  Put simply, is there another energy source about which we would be even remotely justified in having so much fear?  Even if the relatively harmless numbers stated by the author were exactly true in this case, there is no guarantee that would be the case for the next accident, or the one after that.  With proper political will, we would be able to deal with the large number of excess deaths due to coal-fired power plants, as we know precisely where these come from on a continuing basis.  In the case of nuclear power there is always a small probability of large catastrophic events.  Over time, the recognition of the need for increased efforts to guard against these unlikely events has led to the situation in which nuclear power becomes increasingly expensive (Grubler, Energy Policy v. 38 2010).
In the end, it appears to me that an energy source capable of generating such a large amount of “irrational” fear might not be worth pursuing for that reason alone, putting aside high and externalized costs of electricity and unresolved problems with waste storage.

Jack Shortt Engineering Consultant, JHS Consulting

February 2, 2014 at 2:08 AM 


Good comments.
Just one question.  Germany’s plan to build more coal plants.  I agree the closure of nuclear probably did not justify the return of coal.  I have been led to believe that much of the need is to back up unreliable wind and solar.  Can you clarify for me?
Thank You.

Jack Shortt  

Robert Brecha Professor, Physics Dept., Renewable and Clean Energy Program, University of Dayton

February 2, 2014 at 11:49 AM 



My take on the German situation is that there is now a struggle  to determine the exact future path of the electricity system.  The large utilities see themselves losing market share, first because of the nuclear plant shutdowns and then the increasing share of wind and solar.  There are plans to build coal plants, but at the same time, this past year utilities were threatening to take capacity from conventional thermal plants off-line (which they are not allowed to do unilaterally)  because the spot market price for electricity have dropped so significantly that it often  does not allow them to make money.   The price has dropped mainly because of large shares of renewables – a savings that has in general not been passed on to consumers.

Although I spend time in Germany each year working on some climate mitigation research, I would not claim to be an expert in their electrical markets.  However, I do see that there is a great deal of work on storage options, some demand-side management, smart grids, electrification of transportation (minor as of now), etc.   In general, however, I would say that as soon as some of the market distortions currently seen in the ETS carbon market are removed, bringing prices back up to rough expected targets of 20-30 Euros per tonne, coal will no longer be a viable option.  That does not mean that Germany does not have challenges that arise from high penetration of variable renewables, but thus far they have actually been exporting more electricity each year than before Fukushima and their partial shutdown of nuclear plants.

W. Scott Smith Developer, Alternative Propulsion & Energy Research

January 31, 2014


When nuclear power plants are evaluated for safety they are only evaluated from a mechanical risk and site risk standpoint. We have been assured that this process should allow accidents to occur thousands of years apart.

To simplify the discussion, let’s assume this is really true. Since we clearly have more accidents than these assumptions allow for, we must attribute these accidents to human error and/or malfeasance.
So the real question is this. What is the likelihood that one or more people somewhere in the process of siting, designing, building and running these plants, will commit errors or willful disregards of safety that lead to catastrophic results?
Fukushima Daiichi can only teach us if we are willing to learn. If people had just done everything they should have done according the standards and regulations, none of this would have happened. As long as saving money trumps good engineering judgment, then the problem is intractable.
In reality, there are any number of good solutions for nuclear waste. But again, it is not profitable enough to be responsible.
Fukushima is just getting started – with three corium in the ground that will contaminate ground water for thousands of years.
So the radioactivity of the Pacific Ocean is low—So what? The molar ration of cesium-137 to potassium is very worrisome, especially when we start projecting the ongoing contamination from the rogue cores. That is the critical number for living organisms. For example the concentration of K+ in the nucleus of cells can be more than a hundred times greater than the average for the entire organism.
The most telling thing of all of this is the stone high-water monuments on the hillsides behind some of these villages that washed away. They read:
The new seawall standards will only save them from the next tsunami as long as it is nowhere near as high as these monuments.
Besides, TEPCO admits they were advised that a tsunami could inundate the plant and they went shopping for another opinion!!!
Fuel Pond Numbers 3 & 4 could fall at any minute. This could lead to evacuation of central Japan. Have we moved spent fuel storage from high in the buildings of all the GE Mark IV reactors in this country? Have we shut down any power plants that are downstream of any derated earthen dams? We nearly had a Fukushima replay during Hurricane Sandy.
Sadly, even recent history only teaches that we do not learn from history. The moral of the story is that people should not make things that are too dangerous to fail. (Maybe that goes for Banks too!)
To fail is human, but it takes a Nuclear Reactor to really screw things up!!!

Roger Arnold Systems Architect, Silverthorn Engineering

February 3, 2014
One could make a case that the Fukushima meltdowns would never have occurred were it not for the fear and safety paranoia that were allowed to develop around the subject of nuclear power.
The Fukushima reactor and plant designs were instances of a licensed and certified design that had taken many years and billions of dollars to get to.  Getting approval to change that design in any way would likely have taken more years and hundreds of millions of dollars in new studies, and studies of the studies, before an official with little to gain and a lot to lose by going out on a limb would authorize the changes.
When some engineer happened to observe that it was probably not a good idea to have all the backup generators together in a place that would be flooded if a really, really big tsunami happened to top the protective berms — well, what would you expect the reaction to be?  Of course nobody acted on it.  There had never been a tsunami that large in the hundreds of years that such things had been recorded in Japan.  The approval process for any deviation from a design that was already certified made the idea of requesting a change, based on such an unlikely contingency, unthinkable.
A high degree of concern for safety is laudable, but there’s a point at which it becomes counterproductive and even self-defeating.  No book of rules and procedures can substitute for applied common sense.



Jack Shortt Engineering Consultant, JHS Consulting

February 2, 2014


Mr. Smith,

A few comments in response to your discussion re Fukushima, and nuclear plant safety evaluation in general.
First of all, I would like to know who told you that accidents would be thousands of years apart, and if anyone believed it.  I am unaware of any such assurances by responsible nuclear managers, and I have been active in the industry since the late 1960’s.
As one who has dedicated much of my professional career to nuclear power plant engineering and safety review, I offer the following comments for consideration:
The Fukushima plants are American (GE) designed boiling water reactors.  We have many of them operating safely and successfully in the USA and elsewhere in the world.

We should be aware that nuclear plant safety evaluations go well beyond mechanical and site risks, although I am not sure what you mean by “risk”.  The safety evaluations we did back in the 1970-80’s were considered adequate, and thus far have proven to be adequate; although you may consider that the human operator error(s) at TMI were an unevaluated safety issue, as was the particular sequence of events that occurred.  In any event US nuclear operations have proven quite safe in comparison with the Fukushima accidents, TMI being far less serious.

Let’s see how a safety analysis is done:

First the design basis accident has to be established.  This is a definition of the specific worst conditions; hurricane, earthquake, flood, tsunami, Airplane crash, etc. and the resulting loads and forces that could impact the plant site.  The postulated events are based on worst case historical records.

In addition to natural events, the worst credible system or equipment failure must be postulated; including multiple failures from a single incident, and consequential failures resulting from initial failures.  In short, a rigorous failure effects analysis is undertaken.  This analysis addresses site risks as well as mechanical, electrical, structures, systems and equipment.     

The Japanese to their credit have had an excellent program.  They have adopted many (probably most) US best practices as well as US designs.
We all know that Fukushima’s design basis did not anticipate the magnitude of the earthquake or the tsunami that occurred.  That is why the accident happened; it is the root cause of the disaster.  Every other failure was caused (directly or indirectly) by, or magnified by, the intensity of the tsunami / flood. 
It seems to me that nothing at all, no structures in the Fukushima area were designed for the earthquake or tsunami they experienced. 
The nuclear disaster, after all is said and done, may not have been the worst thing that happened, depending on what you believe about the long term effects of the radiation release.  There was plenty of devastation to go around.  Yes, if the Fukushima plants were fuelled with coal there may have been less damage.  If gas or oil fuel, it could have been worse.
This introduces questions about risk assessment in general, and the probabilities that may justify spending our limited resources.
To name a few favorites:

Rising sea levels and storm floods.  CO2 limits are not likely to fix this problem, if it is a continuing problem.

Tsunami, many possible catastrophes.  The worst may be the collapse of a Canary Island mountainside into the Atlantic ocean which could hit the east coast with a 100-foot high tidal wave.  This, scientists tell us, will happen.  We just don’t know when.
Super Volcanoes:  Yellowstone, Krakatoa, others?  Science tells us they will erupt, just can’t tell when.  Incidentally, Krakatoa (Indonesia) last blew about 200 years ago.  It caused a decade of extremely cold worldwide weather.  Ordinary volcano eruptions may be more likely to “fix” global warming than the US “War on Coal.”

If we are to be overwhelmed with worry about nuclear risks, we should try to keep it in perspective.  The probability of occurrence as well as the probability must be considered.

In my opinion, the risk presented by poverty in the world is the most serious issue we face.  I have seen it, and I know its effects.   
PS: I missed the news about hurricane Sandy and the near miss at a nuclear plant.  Do you have a reference?
Jack Shortt


Roger Arnold Systems Architect, Silverthorn Engineering

February 2, 2014 at 9:16 PM 


I can’t claim to be an authority on nuclear reactor safety or the health effects of various levels of radiation exposure.  I do follow those issues as they surface in science magazines and popular web sites.  I’m also still enough of a physicist to be able to dive into the professional literature on occasion and sort what does and doesn’t make sense.

On that basis, I’m inclined to credit the studies that disprove the “linear, no threshold” model for radiation effects.  The model never did make any sense to me in the context of the evolutionary environment. 
Background radiation has been present since before life on earth got started.  Given that, it’s to be expected that terrestrial lifeforms have at least evolved various means to cope with it, and likely even depend on it.  It makes no sense at all that variations in exposure levels that are small in comparison to natural variations from one locale to another would have major adverse effects.  Yet that’s the scale we’re looking at for exposure levels beyond the near vicinity of the melted Fukushima reactors themselves.
The bottom line is that I’m inclined to agree with Herschel; the lesson we should be taking from Fukushima is that “Wow, the worst case meltdown scenario actually happened, and not only has the world not ended, but nobody has died of radiation effects.”
Unfortunately, the truly cataclysmic effects of the super-tsunami itself get conflated with the cataclysmic effects we’ve been led to fear from a nuclear meltdown.  The association leaves most people with the take-away that “nuclear power is unsafe”.
W. Scott Smith Developer, Alternative Propulsion & Energy Research

 February 3, 2014 at 11:04 PM 


Please refer to the chart in

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   26

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət