Apocalypse Now?

Since the disastrous tsunami and earthquake his Japan, we’ve
been subjected to non-stop, 24/7 coverage of the nuclear power plant that is
about to rain down nuclear contaminants worldwide.  Our so-called mainstream media has been inundating us with
apocalyptic scenarios that contemplate a nuclear meltdown.  Even FOX News’ Shepard Smith, who is on
site in Japan, can be seen wringing his hands (much like he did in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) and wondering what will become of mankind.

So
much for fair and balanced.

 

Here is what you don’t know: UPDATE AS OF 11:20 A.M. EDT,
FRIDAY, MARCH 18:

 

“Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power
plant are in stable condition, with workers continuing to provide seawater
cooling into the reactors. Containment integrity is believed to be intact on
reactors 1, 2 and 3, and containment building pressures are elevated but are
within design limits.

 

Site radiation doses have been decreasing since March 16.
Radiation dose rates are fluctuating based on some of the relief operations,
such as adding cooling water to the used fuel pools. Recent readings at the
plant boundary are about 2 millirem per hour. Radiation dose rates at reactor 3
range between 2,500 and 5,000 millirem per hour.

 

The Japanese Self-Defense Force restarted cooling water
spray into the Unit 3 reactor building and spent fuel pool at around 1 a.m. EDT
on March 18. Plans are to spray 50 tons of water on the reactor 3 reactor
building/spent fuel pool using seven fire-fighting trucks.

 

A diesel generator is supplying power to reactors 5 and 6.
TEPCO is installing high voltage cables from a nearby transmission line to
reactors 1 and 2. Once electricity supply is re-established, priority will be
given to restoring power to reactor heat removal systems and cooling water
pumps. Workers are seeking to install electrical cables to reactors 3 and 4
components in about two days.

 

All four reactors at Fukushima Daini remain shut down with
normal cooling being maintained using residual heat removal systems.

 

Daiichi Accident Rated 5 on International Event Scale

 

New International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale
(INES) ratings have been issued for the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi and
Daini nuclear power plants, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

 

Reactor core damage at the Daiichi reactors 2 and 3 caused
by a loss of cooling function has resulted in a rating of 5 on the seven-point
scale.

 

The loss of cooling and water supply functions in the spent
fuel pool of reactor 4 was rated a 3, or “serious” incident. The loss
of cooling functions in the reactors 1, 2 and 4 of the Fukushima Daini nuclear
power plant has led to a rating of 3.

 

The rating for the Chernobyl accident was 7, or a
“major accident” on the INES scale. The Three Mile Island accident
was 5, or an “accident with wider consequences.” For more information
on INES, see the IAEA’s website and this IAEA leaflet.”

 

This report can be found at: http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

 

I know that sensationalism sells, but isn’t it about time
our media, exercise a little judgement. 
All it is doing is putting another nail in our coffin by never letting a
crisis go to waste.  The real crisis though, is the ability of the United States to supply enough electricity to sustain itself.  And make no mistake, we’re in a battle for our very existence. 

 

The environmentalist movement’s push to move us back to the Stone Age
continues unabated.  We’ve been
inundated with gruesome details of a nuclear catastrophe unless we stop building
nuclear power plants.  They say we must move away from oil because it pollutes; no nuclear because it’s too dangerous.  Only wind and solar power will be acceptable in the New World Order.  But let’s
look at the realities. 

What is more
dangerous:  Nuclear or Wind power?  The following is an article by Ed
Hiserodt writing in The New American that might open your eyes:

 

“Nuclear power is portrayed by the major media and
by environmental activists as dangerous and perhaps even sinister.  Wind power, on the other hand, is
considered benign. But the track records of nuclear power and wind power
present a different picture.

 

Nuclear power has been been used to produce electricity for
more than four decades, beginning with the Shippingport nuclear power plant in
1957. Today there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States generating
some 60 billion kilowatt hours per year of electricity. There have been no
deaths from radiation in more than 40 years of American nuclear plant
operations. Even considering the “catastrophe” at Three Mile
Island,  there has not been a
single case of injury to any member of the public. (There were fatalities at
the Russian Chernobyl plant, but that plant was radically different from an
American nuclear power plant. It did not even have a containment structured
around the nuclear reactor.)

 

How about wind power? How does it fare compared to the
perfect record of the American nuclear power industry?  Believe it or not, there is an
organization, the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, that keeps data on
wind-power-related accidents and/or design problems. Caithness is based in
Great Britain, where homeowners have already grown tired of the noise and other
wind-turbine-generated problems. Their “Summary of Wind Turbine Accident
Data to 31 December 2008” 
reports 41 worker fatalities. 
Most, not unexpectedly, were from falling  as they are typically working on turbines some thirty
stories above the ground. In addition, Caithness attributed the deaths of 16
members of the public to wind-turbine accidents.

 

A summary of accidents includes:

 

• 139 incidents of blade failure. Failed blades have been
known to travel over a quarter mile, and that is from turbines much smaller
than those being manufactured today. This type of accident has caused some
European countries to require a minimum distance of about one mile (2 km)
between occupied housing and wind turbines.

 

•110 incidents of fire. When a wind turbine fire occurs, the
local fire departments (without 30-story ladder trucks) can do little but
watch. This isn’t a problem unless the wind is blowing sufficiently to scatter
the debris into dry fields or woodlands — or maybe onto your roof.

 

• 60 incidents of structural failure. This includes turbine
failure and tower collapse failures. While not now a problem for the public —
except having to gaze upon at a bent-over wind turbine — it may well become one
as governments, under pressure from environmental activists, encourage
marginal- and hastily-sited wind projects in urban areas where such an accident
could kill and maim.

 

• 24 incidents of “ice throw” with human injury.
These data may be a small fraction of actual incidences, with 880 icing events
reported in a 13-year period for Germany alone.

 

Why these fatalities for wind compared to none for the
American nuclear power industry? Nuclear energy comes from a reactor core about
the size of a living room where it can be monitored and contained in-depth. It
would take 2,000 30-story tall wind turbines to produce the power of a typical
nuclear plant, assuming 90 percent and 30 percent capacity factors. How many
accidents would you expect when building 2,000 30-story turbine generators as
compared to pouring concrete for a single containment building of a few
thousand square feet?”

 

If you think you’ll see any “reporter” on the alphabet networks
cite these facts, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.   

 

So next time you see perky Katie Couric or some other talking head looking forlorn when
opining about the dangers of a nuclear disaster, try thinking. 

It’s makes their job so much harder.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.