[Peace-discuss] GE-designed reactors in trouble in Japan have 23 'sisters' in US - including Clinton IL

[C. G. Estabrook]

Published on Monday, March 14, 2011 by CommonDreams.org
Nuclear Power Madness
by Norman Solomon

Like every other president since the 1940s, Barack Obama has promoted nuclear 
power. Now, with reactors melting down in Japan, the official stance is more 
disconnected from reality than ever.

Political elites are still clinging to the oxymoron of “safe nuclear power.” 
It’s up to us -- people around the world -- to peacefully and insistently shut 
those plants down.

There is no more techno-advanced country in the world than Japan. Nuclear power 
is not safe there, and it is not safe anywhere.

As the New York Times reported on Monday, “most of the nuclear plants in the 
United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at 
Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake 
faults, aging plants and backup electrical systems that rely on diesel 
generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances.”

Nuclear power -- from uranium mining to fuel fabrication to reactor operations 
to nuclear waste that will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years -- 
is, in fact, a moral crime against future generations.

But syrupy rhetoric has always marinated the nuclear age. From the outset -- 
even as radioactive ashes were still hot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- top 
officials in Washington touted atomic energy as redemptive. The split atom, we 
were to believe, could be an elevating marvel.

President Dwight Eisenhower pledged “to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma” 
by showing that “the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to 
his death, but consecrated to his life.”

Even after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 
1986 -- and now this catastrophe in Japan -- the corporate theologians of 
nuclear faith have continued to bless their own divine projects.

Thirty years ago, when I coordinated the National Citizens Hearings for 
Radiation Victims on the edge of Capitol Hill, we heard grim testimony from 
nuclear scientists, workers, downwinders and many others whose lives had been 
forever ravaged by the split atom. Routine in the process was tag-team deception 
from government agencies and nuclear-invested companies.

By 1980, generations had already suffered a vast array of terrible consequences 
-- including cancer, leukemia and genetic injuries -- from a nuclear fuel cycle 
shared by the “peaceful” and military atom. Today, we know a lot more about the 
abrupt and slow-moving horrors of the nuclear industry.

And we keep learning, by the minute, as nuclear catastrophe goes exponential in 
Japan. But government leaders don’t seem to be learning much of anything.

On Sunday, even while nuclear-power reactors were melting down, the White House 
issued this statement: “The president believes that meeting our energy needs 
means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like 
wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still 
coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but *the administration is 
committed to* learning from them and *ensuring that nuclear energy is produced 
*safely and responsibly *here in the U.S.”
*
Yet another reflexive nuclear salute.

When this year’s State of the Union address proclaimed a goal of “clean energy 
sources” for 80 percent of U.S. electricity by 2035, Obama added: “Some folks 
want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet 
this goal, we will need them all -- and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work 
together to make it happen.”

Bipartisan for nuclear power? You betcha. On Sunday morning TV shows, Republican 
Sen. Mitch McConnell voiced support for nuclear power, while Democratic Sen. 
Chuck Schumer offered this convoluted ode to atomic flackery: “We are going to 
have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the 
bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in 
the other half of the globe. Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is 
being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at 
nuclear. As I’ve always said it has to be done safely and carefully.”

Such behavior might just seem absurd or pathetic -- if the consequences weren’t 
so grave.

Nuclear power madness is so entrenched that mainline pundits and top elected 
officials rarely murmur dissent. Acquiescence is equated with prudent sagacity.
/
In early 2010, President Obama announced federal loan guarantees -- totaling 
more than $8 billion -- to revive the construction of nuclear power plants in 
this country, where 110 nuclear-power reactors are already in operation.

“Investing in nuclear energy remains a necessary step,” he said. “What I hope is 
that, with this announcement, we’re underscoring both our seriousness in meeting 
the energy challenge and our willingness to look at this challenge, not as a 
partisan issue, but as a matter that’s far more important than politics because 
the choices we make will affect not just the next generation but many 
generations to come.”
*
Promising to push for bigger loan guarantees to build more nuclear power plants, 
the president said: “This is only the beginning.”*
/

[Norman Solomon is president of the Institute for Public Accuracy and a senior 
fellow at RootsAction. His books include “War Made Easy: How Presidents and 
Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”]

On 3/14/11 7:56 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> Hysterical crap! You are not only willfully ignorant on these issues, but 
> disingenuous, to use a polite word.  Viz:
>
>>> *Compared to the disaster of the earthquake and the tsunami—the lives lost 
>>> and destruction*—the nuclear problems are relatively minor, *although not so 
>>> economically for Japan or for the nuclear industry*. We'll have to wait to 
>>> see how final evaluations emerge.
>
>
> On Mar 14, 2011, at 7:00 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>> "...the nuclear problems are relatively minor"!
>>
>> If there had been no reactors at Fukushima, the Japanese government would now 
>> be burying the dead, searching for bodies, and cleaning up the debris. 
>>  Instead they are evacuating people in an ever-widening radius around the 
>> reactors and hoping - hoping! - that the situation will be "more like Three 
>> Mile Island than Chernobyl" (or worse).
>>
>> The only good thing to come out of this horror is a world-wide revulsion 
>> against nuclear energy, which is already having a political effect in Europe. 
>>  People are not fools, and even the much more heavily propagandized Americans 
>> will question Obama's attempt to build nuclear plants, to the benefit of his 
>> wealthy patrons.
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/11 5:37 PM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>> My comment was not in reference to the the article you cite, but to the 
>>>  "mid-thirtyish Australian". Yes, he is an reactor expert well informed 
>>> about the ANL fast neutron reactor project which was shut down.
>>>
>>> So far, the media have had little reference to people familiar with 
>>> radiation and nuclear reactors. Radiation, with which we all contend all the 
>>> time, has become a bogeyman. It's become facile and fashionable to knock the 
>>> experts.
>>>
>>> As to the Brooks article, aside from his curious remarks about the short 
>>> lifetime of Cs137, it was more informative than anything else I saw in a 
>>> hysterical media. Compared to the disaster of the earthquake and the 
>>> tsunami—the lives lost and destruction—the nuclear problems are relatively 
>>> minor, although not so economically for Japan or for the nuclear industry. 
>>> We'll have to wait to see how final evaluations emerge.
>>>
>>> The explanation of Brooks about dispersal of the Cs137 can only make sense 
>>> if one considers its concentration, the amount deposited per unit area as it 
>>> precipitates and its location. It's all a question of dosage. Finally, the 
>>> effects of Cs137 uptake from the environment can be alleviated by treatment 
>>> with potassium iodide. [See 
>>> http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html and 
>>> http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/cesium.html]
>>>
>>> --mkb
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2011, at 12:55 PM, Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:09:36AM -0500, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>> Maybe he knows what he's talking about, whereas on this topic you know 
>>>>> very little. The Argonne project referred to was shut down for political, 
>>>>> not scientific reasons. It was a research project that should have 
>>>>> continued. Dommage. --mkb
>>>> Mort,
>>>>
>>>> This guy undercuts his own credibility.  Take a look at the comments
>>>>
>>>> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970
>>>>
>>>> armchairpilot, on 13 March 2011 at 10:42 PM said:
>>>>  [quoting Barry Brook]
>>>>    The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost
>>>>    gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago.
>>>>
>>>>  armchairpilot continues:
>>>>    Isn’t the half life of the radioactive Cesium something like 30 years?
>>>>    How can it be gone just a few days after the reactor shutdown?
>>>>
>>>> [This question is right on.  137Cs's lifetime is indeed that long.  -SL
>>>> Now look at Brook's response:]
>>>>
>>>> Barry Brook, on 13 March 2011 at 10:47 PM said:
>>>>  The cesium was in trace amounts and dispersed via the
>>>>  prevailing winds over the ocean.  It then reacts immediately with
>>>>  water to produce cesium hydroxide (CsOH) and is dissipated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *dissipated*?  This sounds like BP's response to the vast release of
>>>> underwater oil.  If you can't see it, it isn't there.  Likewise for his
>>>> dismissal of the fission products as all having few-day half lives.
>>>> That may be an important consideration for estimating heat production,
>>>> where short-lived isotopes might well contribute most, but it's clearly
>>>> misleadingly wrong given that this article is also supposedly trying to
>>>> calm worries about environmental exposure.
>>>>
>>>> This guy does not come across as some kind of dispassionate technical
>>>> information source - he is grinding his axe while we watch.
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 14, 2011, at 5:47 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The author of this site is a mid-thirtyish Australian who has been is a 
>>>>>> strong advocate for nuclear power, especially the "Advanced Liquid-Metal 
>>>>>> Reactor." The U.S. Department of Energy built a prototype, but canceled 
>>>>>> the project in 1994, three years before completion. He is the author of 
>>>>>> "Why vs Why: Nuclear Power [sic]" (2010).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/14/11 12:18 AM, Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>>>>>>> For those who want a more informed and detailed report on the Japanese 
>>>>>>> nuclear power reactor situation, see
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/#more-3970
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and the commentary following.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --mkb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 13, 2011, at 6:59 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The General Electric-designed nuclear reactors involved in the 
>>>>>>>> Japanese emergency are very similar to 23 reactors in use in the United 
>>>>>>>> States [including the Clinton reactor, in] Clinton, Illinois..." It's a 
>>>>>>>> damn stupid way to boil water. It just happens to be very profitable 
>>>>>>>> for some people. They have to be stopped. --CGE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>>>> General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.
>>>>>>>> By Bill Dedman
>>>>>>>> Investigative Reporter, msnbc.com <http://msnbc.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The General Electric-designed nuclear reactors involved in the Japanese 
>>>>>>>> emergency are very similar to 23 reactors in use in the United States, 
>>>>>>>> according to Nuclear Regulatory Commission records.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NRC database of nuclear power plants shows that 23 of the 104 
>>>>>>>> nuclear plants in the U.S. are GE boiling-water reactors with GE's Mark 
>>>>>>>> I systems for containing radioactivity, the same containment system 
>>>>>>>> used by the reactors in trouble at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. The 
>>>>>>>> U.S. reactors are in Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, 
>>>>>>>> Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, 
>>>>>>>> Pennsylvania and Vermont.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, 12 reactors in the U.S. have the later Mark II or Mark III 
>>>>>>>> containment system from GE. These 12 are in Illinois, Louisiana, 
>>>>>>>> Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington state. See the 
>>>>>>>> full list below.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (General Electric is a parent company of msnbc.com <http://msnbc.com> 
>>>>>>>> through GE's 49 percent stake in NBCUniversal. NBCUniversal and 
>>>>>>>> Microsoft are equal partners in msnbc.com.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Msnbc.com <http://Msnbc.com> sent questions Saturday to GE Energy, 
>>>>>>>> asking whether the Japanese reactors differed from those of the same 
>>>>>>>> general design used in the U.S.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A GE spokesman, Michael Tetuan, referred all questions to the Nuclear 
>>>>>>>> Energy Institute, an industry trade and lobbying group. Tetuan said GE 
>>>>>>>> nuclear staff members in Wilmington, N.C., are focused on assisting GE 
>>>>>>>> employees in Japan and standing by to help the Japanese authorities if 
>>>>>>>> asked to help. The NEI on Sunday confirmed that the figure of 23 is 
>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, which had the 
>>>>>>>> explosion on Saturday, are all GE-designed boiling-water reactors, 
>>>>>>>> according to the anti-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear Information and 
>>>>>>>> Resource Service. The group says that five have containment systems of 
>>>>>>>> GE's Mark I design, and the sixth is of the Mark II type. They were 
>>>>>>>> placed in operation between 1971 and 1979.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A fact sheet from the group contends that the Mark I design has design 
>>>>>>>> problems, and that in 1972 an Atomic Energy Commission member, Dr. 
>>>>>>>> Stephen Hanuaer, recommended that this type of system be discontinued.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Some modifications have been made to U.S. Mark I reactors since 1986, 
>>>>>>>> although the fundamental design deficiencies remain," NIRS said. The 
>>>>>>>> group has a commentary online describing what it says are hazards of 
>>>>>>>> boiling-water reactors: human invervention needed to vent radioactive 
>>>>>>>> steam in the case of a core meltdown, and problems with aging.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since the earthquake struck Japan on Friday, the early statements by 
>>>>>>>> the industry's Nuclear Industry Institute have emphasized that only six 
>>>>>>>> plants in the U.S. have precisely the same generation of reactor design 
>>>>>>>> (GE boiling-water reactor model 3) as the first reactor to have trouble 
>>>>>>>> in Fukushima Daiichi. Problems then developed at different reactors of 
>>>>>>>> GE model 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But aside from the generation of reactor design, the following 23 U.S. 
>>>>>>>> plants have GE boiling-water reactors (GE models 2, 3 or 4) with the 
>>>>>>>> same Mark I containment design used at Fukushima, according to the 
>>>>>>>> NRC's online database:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Alabama, operating license since 1973, 
>>>>>>>> reactor type GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Alabama, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Alabama, 1976, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Brunswick 1, Southport, North Carolina, 1976, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Brunswick 2, Southport, North Carolina, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Cooper, Brownville, Nebraska, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Dresden 2, Morris, Illinois, 1970, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Dresden 3, Morris, Illinois, 1971, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Fermi 2, Monroe, Michigan, 1985, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • FitzPatrick, Scriba, New York, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Hatch 1, Baxley, Georgia, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Hatch 2, Baxley, Georgia, 1978, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Hope Creek, Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey, 1986, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Monticello, Monticello, Minnesota, 1970, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, New York, 1969, GE 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Oyster Creek, Forked River, New Jersey, 1969, GE 2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pennsylvania, 1973, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pennsylvania, 1974, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Pilgrim, Plymouth, Massachusetts, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Illinois, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Quad Cities 2, Moline, Illinois, 1972, GE 3.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vermont, 1972, GE 4.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And these 12 newer GE boiling-water reactors have a Mark II or Mark III 
>>>>>>>> design:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Clinton, Clinton, Illinois, 1987, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington, 1984, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Grand Gulf, Port Gibson, Mississippi, 1984, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • LaSalle 1, Marseilles, Illinois, 1982, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • LaSalle 2, Marseilles, Illinois, 1983, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Limerick 1, Limerick, Pennsylvania, 1985, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Limerick 2, Limerick, Pennsylvania, 1989, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, New York, 1987, GE 5, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Perry, Perry, Ohio, 1986, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • River Bend, St. Francisville, Louisiana, 1985, GE 6, Mark III.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Susquehanna 1, Salem Township, Pennsylvania, 1982, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> • Susquehanna 2, Salem Township, Pennsylvania, 1984, GE 4, Mark II.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Other resources:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Details on each U.S. reactor are in the NRC list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The NRC has an explainer on boiling-water reactors and the various GE 
>>>>>>>> containment designs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's an earthquake hazard map of the lower 48 United States from the 
>>>>>>>> U.S. Geological Survey showing the areas with the greatest risks. More 
>>>>>>>> detailed state-by-state maps from the USGS are here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Scientific American looks at the technical situation facing the 
>>>>>>>> engineers in Japan. And The Wall Street Journal describes how this 
>>>>>>>> emergency calls into question the redundancies that nuclear plant 
>>>>>>>> designers rely on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Wall Street Journal reported that Tokyo Electric tested the 
>>>>>>>> Fukushima plant to withstand an earthquake less severe than the one 
>>>>>>>> that struck last week:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Separately, company documents show that Tokyo Electric tested the 
>>>>>>>> Fukushima plant to withstand a maximum seismic jolt lower than Friday's 
>>>>>>>> 8.9 earthquake. Tepco's last safety test of nuclear power plant Number 
>>>>>>>> 1—one that is currently in danger of meltdown—was done at a seismic 
>>>>>>>> magnitude the company considered the highest possible, but in fact 
>>>>>>>> turned out to be lower than Friday's quake. The information comes from 
>>>>>>>> the company's "Fukushima No. 1 and No. 2 Updated Safety Measures" 
>>>>>>>> documents written in Japanese in 2010 and 2009. The documents were 
>>>>>>>> reviewed by Dow Jones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The company said in the documents that 7.9 was the highest magnitude 
>>>>>>>> for which they tested the safety for their No. 1 and No. 2 nuclear 
>>>>>>>> power plants in Fukushima.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simultaneous seismic activity along the three tectonic plates in the 
>>>>>>>> sea east of the plants—the epicenter of Friday's quake—wouldn't surpass 
>>>>>>>> 7.9, according to the company's presentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The company based its models partly on previous seismic activity in the 
>>>>>>>> area, including a 7.0 earthquake in May 1938 and two simultaneous 
>>>>>>>> earthquakes of 7.3 and 7.5 on November 5 of the same year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/13/6256121-general-electric-designed-reactors-in-fukushima-have-23-sisters-in-us
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110314/264ea624/attachment-0001.html>