Originally posted by Fordman50:
I dont like bushjr or any other drug taking, lier, but I like nuclear because it is cheap and clean. I just dont want it near me http://discussanything.com/Ubb/biggrin.gif



Nuclear energy isn't clean, there's tons and tons of radioactive dust with a billion or so year half life left over from the process and currently we have no place to store it.

Coming soon to a back yard near you,
Patrick


------------------
"The difference between an individual terrorist and a government in some cases may be simply that the former has a bomb but doesn't have an air force."
-William Blum

Originally posted by PatTheAnarChrist:
Nuclear energy isn't clean, there's tons and tons of radioactive dust with a billion or so year half life left over from the process and currently we have no place to store it.



So how about we all invest alot more money in nuclear fusion. This way, we get nuclear power that is not damaging to the environment. Unfortunately this takes time and money that does not produce immediate returns. However, I am willing to spend my tax dollars on it.

Nate, don't you recall government research SHOULDN'T happen. It is too expensive/inefficient.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Yea the nuclear industry spends alot of money putting out pr that nuclear energy is safe and clean. That couldn't be further from the truth. And they don't like to talk about how it helps nuclear proliferation with the thousands of tons of bomb making material it generates. All it really is anyways is a expensive, dangerous way to boil water..

------------------
Red 86 GT

That Sinking Feeling
Poll: Challenges for Bush on Both Policy and Politics

Analysis
By Gary Langer

June 5 — George W. Bush faces sharp challenges on political and policy fronts alike, marked by a steep jump in public disapproval of his energy policies and a broad call for him to reverse course in his approach to Congress.



Fifty-eight percent of Americans now disapprove of the way Bush is handling the energy situation, up 15 points since the release of his energy plan. Disapproval of his work on the environment is also up, and his overall job approval rating is down by eight points to 55 percent, lower than seven of the previous nine presidents at the four-month mark.
Politically, this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll finds a broad call for moderation. The public says by a 30-point margin that Bush has tried harder in the last four months to "push his own agenda" in Congress than to compromise with the Democrats — and by 40 points, 68-29 percent, that in the future he should focus on compromise instead.

Much is at stake, because control of the center is so crucial in politics. As things stand now, Americans by 25 points, 57-32 percent, say the Democratic Party is more open than the Republicans to the ideas of political moderates. And by 41-20 percent they say it's a "good thing" control of the Senate has changed hands via the Jeffords defection.


Push / Compromise
Push his agenda Compromise with Dems.
Bush HAS done 63% 32
Bush SHOULD do 29 68


More open to the ideas of political moderates:
Republican Party Democratic Party
32% 57


Change in Senate control:
Good for the country Bad No difference
41% 20 38


Split Decision

In another telling result, Americans now divide about evenly on whose leadership they prefer, Bush's (40 percent) or the Democrats' (42 percent). In April, it was Bush by a 10-point margin.


Preferred direction:
Bush's Democrats'
6/3/01 40% 42 Dems +2
4/22/01 46 36 Bush +10



Moderates — who account for nearly half of all Americans — prefer the Democrats' direction by a 12-point margin. And moderates by 2-1 think the Democrats are more open to their ideas.

Moreover, Americans by sizable margins express preference for the Democrats' approach over Bush's on four issues tested in this poll — the environment, energy, patients' rights and Social Security. Bush's approach is preferred, by narrower margins, on two issues, taxes and international affairs. They're even on education and the economy.


Trust more to handle:
Bush Democrats
Environment 35% 54 Dems +19
Energy 36 52 Dems +16
Patients' rights 37 52 Dems +15
Social Security 38 52 Dems +14
Economy 44 46 Dems +2
Education 43 43 =
International affairs 47 40 Bush +7
Tax cuts 49 42 Bush +7



These preferences are best seen in terms of thematic affinity rather than views on specific legislation, which the public tends to follow less avidly than the professionals do.

Taxing Issue

In addition to his troubles on energy and the environment, Bush gets no bounce from the $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut that's been hailed as the signal achievement of his first four months.

That marks public ambivalence on the issue. On one hand tax cuts in and of themselves are not unpopular, and Bush holds a 58 percent approval rating for handling the issue. But there's still a broad suspicion (54 percent in this poll, the most to date) that the tax cut disproportionately benefits the wealthy. And Americans by 2-1 say they'd have preferred to see the tax cut money spent on social programs instead.

Bush's difficulties holding the center seem a lesser version of Bill Clinton's eight years ago. When Clinton was seen as tacking left after winning election as a centrist, his job approval rating fell sharply, to 46 percent at the four-month point.

Bush is doing better than Clinton at four months in overall job approval, 55 percent. But Bush is down from his level in late April (63 percent), and lower than usual for a postwar first-term president at what still should be the honeymoon stage. Other than Clinton, only Gerald Ford was lower.

Views of Bush's performance are not strictly ideological; a third of Americans call him "too conservative," which is about where it's been. At the same time, his job approval rating is 73 percent among self-described conservatives, compared to 50 percent among moderates (and 42 percent among liberals).

Views of Bush "as a person," at 61 percent favorable, are now a bit more positive than his job rating. The two were about equal in April.

Material Issues

Bush wins majority approval for his work specifically on international affairs (58 percent), taxes (also 58 percent), education (57 percent) and the economy (53 percent). His ratings fall below majority approval on energy, the environment, patients' rights and Social Security.
Approve / Disapprove
Approve Disapprove
International affairs 58% 33
Tax cuts 58 37
Education 57 35
Economy 53 41
Social Security 46 40
Environment 41 50
Patients' rights 40 39
Energy 37 58

As noted, on one of these, energy, a majority — 58 percent — disapproves of Bush's performance. And it's a potent issue, since six in 10 think the country is heading into an energy crisis. (That number has not grown since April, however, and fewer — four in 10 — think the country's in an energy crisis now.)

Belief that an energy crisis is coming is fairly stable across regions, although Westerners are somewhat more apt (at 46 percent) to think a crisis is here now. Bush's disapproval rating on energy is highest in the West, at 68 percent, but it reaches majority disapproval in all regions.

Bush's overall job approval rating also dips in the West, to 44 percent, though it's not much lower (49 percent) in the East. It's a good bit higher in the Midwest and South.


Bush's handling of energy policy:
West Midwest East South
Approve 28% 35 41 41
Disapprove 68 59 55 52


Overal job approval:
West Midwest East South
Approve 44% 56 49 63
Disapprove 49 39 46 31



On one specific energy policy, 56 percent (and again, majorities across regions) support federal caps on the price of electricity, something Bush opposes.

On other policy choices the public continues to show a broad preference for conservation over new power production; Bush's plan has been widely portrayed as focusing more on production. Eight in 10, for example, say they "strongly" support more energy conservation and higher fuel-efficiency in cars and trucks.

In terms of production, eight in 10 also strongly support the development of more solar and wind power. But strong support falls off sharply for some of the proposals Bush has made — more oil and gas drilling (49 percent), more coal mining (33 percent) and more nuclear power (29 percent).


Support "strongly"
More fuel-efficient vehicles 81%
More solar/wind power 80
More conservation by businesses 79
More conservation by consumers 78
More oil/gas drilling 49
More coal mining 33
More nuclear plants 29



Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone May 31-June 3, 2001, among a random national sample of 1,004 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Field work by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.



------------------
Manu Narayan

The tail end there brings up an interesting point.

The majority of Americand do NOT want more drilling and more nuclear plants, they want solar/wind/better cars.

So is it appropriate for Bush to push the drilling and the nuclear power? Isn't THAT then Government 'deciding' what is best for us, and not letting the people decide?

------------------
Manu Narayan

I dont like bushjr or any other drug taking, lier, but I like nuclear because it is cheap and clean. I just dont want it near me http://discussanything.com/Ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Winner of the "peoples Choice award" as supreme advocate for the people!

Damn liberal news media, it's all lies.

------------------
-Curt

"There ought to be limits to Freedom."

http://home.earthlink.net/~fiveofanatic/exmo.jpg

Oh brother... well, I shouldn't be surprised.

Support "strongly"
More fuel-efficient vehicles 81%
More solar/wind power 80
More conservation by businesses 79
More conservation by consumers 78
More oil/gas drilling 49
More coal mining 33
More nuclear plants 29

1. More fuel-efficient vehicles 81%

Hypocrisy at it's highest form. If people want more fuel efficient vehicles, then WHY ARE THEY CONTINUING TO BUY BIGGER AND BIGGER SUV'S? We ALREADY HAVE electric cars, hybrids, and efficient gas powered cars like the Metro. But do people buy these cars? Noooo....

What really irks me are the people who claim they are concerned about the environment, then go out and buy a V-8 powered sports car or SUV. I wonder if some of these people realize that they are part of the problem.

2. More solar/wind power 80

That is all good and well, except that they are not really viable energy sources. The cost is too high, the return in power is too low, and they are very much limited to fluctuations in the weather. Solar won't work at night or during a cloudy day for example. Wind... well, obviously there has to be wind for it to work. Keep in mind too that wind generators are expensive to maintain.

3. More conservation by businesses 79

That's actually a pretty amuzing concept.

Most businesses are profit oriented... goes to figure that if they can keep their overhead down, they make more profit, right? So what business in their right mind is going to go out and purposely waste energy?

4. More conservation by consumers 78

Again, that is all good and well. Remember, these are the same people who go out and buy the gas guzzling SUVs. So how exactly are we going to enforce conservation by consumers? Fly over houses with helicopters equipped with energy usage meters? Go on to some form of permanent rationing?

5. More oil/gas drilling 49

Sounds great, except that we are looking at several years before we can really start to exploit any new findings that we run across.

6. More coal mining 33

We certainly have enough... problem is when Clintler/Bore start declaring every spot of otherwise useless land as a State Park and national treasure. Utah badlands is a prime example. Here is a deposit of some of the cleanest burning coal on this planet. However, thanks to Clinton, the land can't be touched.

7. More nuclear plants 29

Well, for all the badmouthing that everybody gives them, what is the alternative? There are only so many rivers to dam, trees to chop down, and so much petrolium to mine/pump out of the ground. The biggest problem in the past has been that nobody was/is willing to dispose of the waste in a responsible manner.

France gets something along the lines of 80% of their power from nuclear energy, and they certainly haven't had any problems.

The problem I see is that Americans are looking for a literal magic solution to the energy crunch. Furthermore, they want an energy source that doesn't create pollution, and is free. Maybe in Fantasyland, but ain't gonna happen in reality.

So what are we going to do? Go through another 70's era of stagflation? Sit back and do nothing in the hopes that it goes away or that maybe the oil cartels will ease up their grip? Try and find new sources of energy and make our current infrastructure more efficient like Bush is suggesting? Whine, snivel, and point fingers?



------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Just because a nuclear accident in France hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't. And they sure will be sorry if one does. Do you think the people of Chernobyl think it was worth it to build their nuke plant? They didn't even have a meltdown. If the nuclear plant between L.A. and San Diego were to meltdown something like 150,000 people would die the day of. And millions more later on. I think i'd rather take my chance with candles http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif

And about that magic solution, we already have it, the government has technology to make free power that doesn't pollute in their hands. They will never let us have it however because that would instantly bankrupt the energy industry that pads their pockets.

I think doing that would more than offset the small percentage of car enthusiasts out there.

------------------
Red 86 GT

We're all saved!


(2001-06-06)
ATLANTIS COULD SOLVE ENERGY CRISIS
EL CAJON, Calif. (Wireless Flash) -- Movie theaters aren't the only places where "Atlantis" will be rising -- a California-based group believes the real Atlantis will rise from the ocean later this year.
"Atlantis: The Lost Empire" will open June 15 but a group in El Cajon, California, called the Unarius Academy of Science, thinks Atlantis may rise out of the middle of the Bermuda Triangle in Fall.

Even better, the rising could provide a solution to the current energy crisis.

According to Unarius spokeswoman Tracey Kennedy, Atlanteans knew how to harness electro-magnetic fields from the 4th dimension and use it as a clean, inexhaustible energy source.

Kennedy claims after Atlantis rises the technology will be rediscovered among the ruins just in time to save California from its crisis.
http://downtoearth.ncbuy.com/newscenter/weirdnews.html

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

Originally posted by PatTheAnarChrist:
Nuclear energy isn't clean, there's tons and tons of radioactive dust with a billion or so year half life left over from the process and currently we have no place to store it.


These "tons" of dust are contained in the process of makeing energy. These issue arises with the long term storage of the wastes. The tonage of contained nuclear waste pails in comparison to the millions to tons of waste that is released directly into our atmosphere from coal fired plants.

In the 70s I lived near 3 mile island PA when we had the meld down. In the 80s I was a member of the No Nukes movement and donated lots of money. Today I am more informed about the technology and feel that nuclear power is one of the better choices that we have available. Of couses, I like Geothermal, Solor, and all the other alternatives too.


------------------
Winner of the "peoples Choice award" as supreme advocate for the people!

Turbostang-

There are TONS of alternatives that cna be harnessed JUST as quickly as building new plants/mining drilling. The fact is people are unaware, and of COURSE the gas/oil cartels won't research these avenues.

Solar Power - Peolpe throw out that it is inefficient, and that it is costly, and yes it is costly, but the new technology is being developed and has been TESTED. CURRENTLY using solar cubes we cna privde energy that is three times more costly than the standard rate. Well LOTS of CAs are paying that much! Giving mass production and a year or two of more R&D and this will be CHEAPER. Plus...it is GREEN.

Underwater 'wind' mills - A canadian company has devloped and patented a low environmental impact underwater windmill system. Basically, the waves move the mechanism, and that creates power. CA is going to try to set up a test plant for this, to see how ti works. It is projected that 40-60% of the WORLD's power needs can be met by this method alone.

There are options, it is a matter of awareness/funding/R&D. We do not need to go down the same tired path.

------------------
Manu Narayan

Hehe, let NASA earn some of its money and load those rods onto rockets and shoot them into the sun. They won't do any harm there.

Problem is no one allows any radioactive material to be launched since the chance of a malfunction suring launch could harm many people. The launch of the last radioactivity powered space probe, Casini, was a huge public relations nightmare for NASA. Personally I am in favor of launching our dangerous stuff into the sun, though there are risks involved and I certainly wouldnt want to be around when they launch it, just in case...

All i have to say is Hydrogen. The technologies be viable for years. Infact LA Department of Water and power has a fat hydrogen fuel cell in the basement of their building downtown to power the place. Only reason other technologies are expensive is cause no one has bothered to develope or mass produce them. Diesel Engines used to be hella expensive too when they were new.

------------------
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." -Nietzsche

Just because a nuclear accident in France hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't.

True... but you need to look at the whole picture. Look at all the nations that use nuclear power. Quite a few. Outside of Cherynoble (and there is a reason why I am excluding them), how many serious accidents have there been (serious in the sense that people have died as a result of radiation poisioning)? Zero.

I am aware of the history of Three Mile Island. The radiation that did leak was far less than what the normal person would recieve during one x-ray.

Do you think the people of Chernobyl think it was worth it to build their nuke plant? They didn't even have a meltdown.

How familiar are you with the history of Chernobyl? Not just the accident itself, but the factors leading up to it?

Are you aware that ALL industrialized nations EXCEPT Russia belong to an international organization called the International Atomic Energy Agency that oversees nuclear plant operation? Are you aware that the personnel running the plant were not adequately trained to do so? How about the known design flaws that were swept under the rug at the time the plant was biult?

Come on! If someone were to buy a car with bad brakes, and the person didn't know how to drive or have a license, and first time out goes 120 MPH on the freeway and kills themselves, does that mean ALL cars are dangerous? Certainly not. This is a prime example of the hysteria that the media has created over the matter, and this is an example of why we need to stop and think realistically about our options.

And about that magic solution, we already have it, the government has technology to make free power that doesn't pollute in their hands.

Please tell me you aren't referring to that quantum vacuum B.S.? http://discussanything.com/Ubb/rolleyes.gif Jeff, you know I like you, and you know that I respect about 99.9% of your opinions and thoughts. However, even just a very basic understanding of physics/thermodynamics will set you straight on that one. Simply put, you can't get something for nothing. Perpetual motion machines are a myth. Second, there is no such thing as 100% efficiency. Meaning, no matter what you use for energy, there is going to be some form of undesireable byproduct. Could be heat, could be noise, could be matter.

There are TONS of alternatives that cna be harnessed JUST as quickly as building new plants/mining drilling. The fact is people are unaware, and of COURSE the gas/oil cartels won't research these avenues.

I agree... there are tons of alternatives, including alchohol, geothermal, and others. The thing I'm pointing out is that according to the article, people seem to be stuck on the idea of either solar or wind. Neither is really a viable option at this time.


------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Originally posted by Turbostang:
I am aware of the history of Three Mile Island. The radiation that did leak was far less than what the normal person would recieve during one x-ray.

Actually...that's just what they told people. They've done considerable research on this, and found that there was a good deal more radiation than that. There are elevated cancer rates among people living near TMI at the time of the meltdown (and a good deal of my relatives were. I myself was born a bit late, but have lived in the Harrisburg area most of my life). I don't remember all the specifics, but I've seen serveral studies supporting the findings that indicate TMI was covered up and downplayed far beyond what I would say is acceptable. Personally, that scares me.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

[This message has been edited by Aphasia (edited 06-07-2001).]

Ok, I will admit I don't know a thing about Physics, I wish I did. I just hate math so I never took it in school. If it didn't have all the math i'd take it in a heartbeat next semester though. One thing i'm real interested in is theoretical physics. From what I understand most technologies we have today would be seen as absolutely impossible 200 years ago. Just imagine where we will be 200 years from now?? The way I see is if there is an alien race out there somewhere that is a hundred thousand years ahead of us they will have already solved all these problems and discovered things we can't even imagine yet. That's why I believe they visit us, I don't think they need to even worry about going faster than the speed of light to accomplish interstellar travel. They should be able to just warp from place to place. Kinda how they used to beam people up in Star Trek http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif


I found this online, I don't know if it is even what i'm talking about cause I don't understand all the weird physicist speak http://discussanything.com/Ubb/smile.gif
But tell me if this makes sense.

Quantum Vacuum Forces Project
sponsored by NASA GLENN - Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program
Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is probably the best verified theory in physics. It makes some startling predictions about the importance of quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in empty space. It predicts a near infinite vacuum energy density. Quantum fluctuations have been linked to particle mass, to spontaneous emission, to the speed of light, and to the topology of the universe. The presence of surfaces changes the energy density in the vacuum fluctuations. The ability to alter these parameters could be of significant benefit to the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) objectives. We will perform a theoretical investigation of the use of surfaces and cavity structures in order to alter vacuum energy. A Micro Electro Mechanical System (MEMS) interferometer structure is planned to measure the index of refraction in a cavity, which will serve as a test of QED predictions.

The variations in vacuum energy produced by surfaces can also result in vacuum forces, such as the recently verified Casimir force between two parallel conducting plates. Very few other geometrical structures have been investigated, and our understanding of the role of surfaces in altering vacuum energy and generating vacuum forces rudimentary. For rectangular cavities, forces are predicted on the walls that may be inward, outward or zero depending on the ratios of the sides. Such forces may be of use in operating MEMS devices, including resonant cavities. We propose to model and build a MEMS cavity structure, to verify the QED prediction of repulsive forces, and to study the properties of these cavities and the energy balance in a static and in a vibrating mode. When we have gained a greater understanding of cavities and vibrating structures, a second generation MEMS structure will be designed, modeled, fabricated and tested.

We will investigate the possibility of fluctuation driven engines that operate between two regions of different energy density, in a similar manner to which heat engines operate at different temperature. Two types of engines will be considered: one in which one set of surfaces moves relative to another, akin to an electric motor, and a second type in which a working fluid, perhaps consisting of atoms or electrons, passes between the two regions of different vacuum energy. We will develop several candidate structures for fluctuation engines and fabricate the most promising. In all theoretical and experimental work, care will be taken to understand energy balance requirements and conservation laws, and to determine what is possible and what is not. QED computations will be used as the guide.

This effort will answer many of the basic questions about the role of vacuum fluctuations, and lay a solid foundation of knowledge about vacuum energy, vacuum stress and how to control them using surfaces and what their limitations are. Researchers will be able to build upon this knowledge to build more complex ideas and structures involving vacuum fluctuations.

The program represents a unique collaborative effort involving strong QED theorists, experts in propulsion, gravitation, and other relevant technologies, coupled with highly qualified and experienced developers of MEMS devices. The Principle Investigator, an experienced researcher who is trained in QED and Casimir phenomena, and who has worked for over 15 years in microfabrication technology and experimental measurements, is uniquely qualified to lead this effort. The effort will answer questions about the energy in the vacuum and if and how we might be able to utilize it in the BPP mission.

Isn't this the same thing we can harness to make electricity?


------------------
Red 86 GT

Carter went to 3 mile island in the heart of the disaster (if thats what you want to call it). I dont think they wouldve let him in there if there had been extensive radiation release.
I have seen no evidence and reports of sickness and cancer. Fill us in on the articles and reports please.

Thanks for the dose of reality and common sense Turbostang.

I read that nuclear power today is pretty much foolproof as far as accidents go.
Apparently they are now able to remove the rods before things get out of control.

France is obviously having great success with thier program. Does anyone know what their solutions are to waste and other factors?

------------------
Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
Ayn Rand

They are having trouble finding places to store it, I know that. Besides, humans are not perfect, neither is nature, the safest nuclear power plant can still have an accident. And what about terrorists? Imagine if some group took a nuke plant over. Not to mention that missile defense thing you support wouldn't be needed if all the nuclear plants around the world weren't churning out the bomb making material. It's just insane, there are sooooo many other ways to generate power the idea that we are even discussing this amazes me. We have plenty of other technologies that aren't being used, nuclear power is a dinosaur that needs to be put to rest. The future generations will be very grateful.

------------------
Red 86 GT

Originally posted by Powerboss:
Carter went to 3 mile island in the heart of the disaster (if thats what you want to call it). I dont think they wouldve let him in there if there had been extensive radiation release.
I have seen no evidence and reports of sickness and cancer. Fill us in on the articles and reports please.


At the time, the extent of the radiation that actually got out wasn't known. They did more studies later on and found that the radiation levels were actually much higher than they'd initially calculated. I'll look into it and see if I can find any articles about this. I do remember watching a video on it a few years back, but I really don't remember what it was called, nor do I know where one could find it. Like I said, though, I'll see what I can find.

------------------
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren

I'm going to start a separate thread on nuclear power, it deserves it's own. Once you get past the nuclear industry propaganda and see how we are playing with fire, you might think otherwise about it.

------------------
Red 86 GT

Here is the Nuclear Regulatory Comittee's report on the Three Mile accident:

Three Mile Island 2 Accident


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Technical Issues Index | News and Information | NRC Home Page | E-mail

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. But it brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety.

The sequence of certain events - - equipment malfunctions, design related problems and worker errors - - led to significant damage to the TMI-2 reactor core but only very small off-site releases of radioactivity.


Summary of Events

The accident began about 4:00 a.m. on March 28, 1979, when the plant experienced a failure in the secondary, non-nuclear section of the plant. The main feedwater pumps stopped running, caused by either a mechanical or electrical failure, which prevented the steam generators from removing heat. First the turbine, then the reactor automatically shut down. Immediately, the pressure in the primary system (the nuclear portion of the plant) began to increase. In order to prevent that pressure from becoming excessive, the pressurizer relief valve (a valve located at the top of the pressurizer) opened. The valve should have closed when the pressure decreased by a certain amount, but it did not. Signals available to the operator failed to show that the valve was still open. As a result, the stuck-open valve caused the pressure to continue to decrease in the system.

Meanwhile, another problem appeared elsewhere in the plant. The emergency feedwater system (backup to main feedwater) was tested 42 hours prior to the accident. As part of the test, a valve is closed and then reopened at the end of the test. But this time, through either an administrative or human error, the valve was not reopened - - preventing the emergency feedwater system from functioning. The valve was discovered closed about eight minutes into the accident. Once it was reopened, the emergency feedwater system began to work correctly, allowing cooling water to flow into the steam generators.

As the system pressure in the primary system continued to decrease, voids (areas where no water is present) began to form in portions of the system other than the pressurizer. Because of these voids, the water in the system was redistributed and the pressurizer became full of water. The level indicator, which tells the operator the amount of coolant capable of heat removal, incorrectly indicated the system was full of water. Thus, the operator stopped adding water. He was unaware that, because of the stuck valve, the indicator can, and in this instance did, provide false readings.

Because adequate cooling was not available, the nuclear fuel overheated to the point where some of the zirconium cladding (the long metal tubes or jackets which hold the nuclear fuel pellets) reacted with the water and generated hydrogen. This hydrogen was released into the reactor containment building. By March 30, two days after the start of the chain of events, some hydrogen remained within the primary coolant system in the vessel surrounding the reactor, forming a "hydrogen bubble" above the reactor core.

The concern was that if reactor pressure decreased, the hydrogen bubble would expand and thus interfere with the flow of cooling water through the core. Over the next few days, the bubble was reduced by "degassing" the pressurizer -- adjusting air and water pressure.

Without water to cool it, and with the top of the reactor core uncovered, the primary damage to the reactor occurred two to three hours into the accident. Although no "meltdown" occurred in the classic sense of the word, in that fuel did not "melt" through the floor beneath the containment or through the steel reactor vessel, a significant amount of fuel did in fact melt. Radioactivity in the reactor coolant increased dramatically, and there were small leaks in the reactor coolant system which caused high radiation levels in other parts of the plant and small releases into the environment. Shortly after the accident began, some of the water, carrying fuel debris and fission products, escaped from the reactor coolant system and flowed into the reactor building basement. By the time the accident had ended, the water in the basement had been heated by residual heat from the reactor vessel, evaporated, condensed on the walls, and drained down onto the floors and back into the basement. The radionuclides then permeated into the porous surfaces of concrete and layers of iron which later became corroded (this area of the plant became a major focus of the subsequent clean-up and decontamination).

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/tmi2.gif

Response to the accident was swift. The NRC's regional office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, was notified at 7:45 a.m. on March 28. By 8:00, the NRC headquarters in Washington, D.C. was alerted and the NRC Operations Center in Bethesda, Maryland, was activated. The regional office promptly dispatched the first team of inspectors to the site and other agencies, such as the Department of Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency, also mobilized their response teams. Helicopters hired by TMI's owner, General Public Utilities Nuclear, and the Department of Energy were sampling radioactivity in the atmosphere above the plant by midday. A team from the Brookhaven National Laboratory was also sent to assist in radiation monitoring. At 9:15 a.m., the White House was notified and at 11:00 a.m., all non-essential personnel were ordered off the plant's premises.

From the early stages of the accident, low levels of radioactive gas, mostly in the form of xenon, continued to be released to the environment. At the time, efforts to halt the releases were unsuccessful and there was some fear of an explosion from the buildup of hydrogen - -fortunately, this did not occur. However, on Friday, March 30, Governor Thornburgh of Pennsylvania ordered a precautionary evacuation of preschool children and pregnant women from within the 5-mile zone nearest the plant, and suggested that people living within 10 miles of the plant stay inside and keep their windows closed. Most evacuees had returned to their homes by April 4 -- by that time, the situation at the reactor had been brought under control.

The American Nuclear Insurers, an organization made up of nuclear insurance firms, had already begun distributing checks to evacuees to cover hotel and meal expenses, and was beginning to handle claims for property and liability losses.


Health Effects

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services) , the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was about only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment.

Impact of the Accident

Today, the TMI-2 reactor is permanently shut down and defueled, with the reactor coolant system decontaminated, the radioactive liquids treated, most components shipped to a licensed low-level waste disposal site, with the remainder of the site being monitored. The owner, General Public Utilities Nuclear Corporation, says it will keep the facility in long-term storage until the operating license for the TMI-1 plant expires in 2014, at which time both plants will be decommissioned.

The causes of the accident continue to be debated to this day. However, based on a series of investigations, the main factors appear to have been a combination of personnel error, design deficiencies, and component failures. There is no doubt that the accident at Three Mile Island permanently changed both the nuclear industry and the NRC. Public fear and distrust increased, NRC's regulations and oversight became broader and more robust, and management of the plants was scrutinized more carefully. The problems identified from careful analysis of the events during those days have led to permanent and sweeping changes in how NRC regulates its licensees - - which, in turn, has strengthened public health and safety.

Here are some of the major changes which have occurred since the accident:

Expansion of NRC's resident inspector program - first authorized in 1977 - whereby at least two inspectors live nearby and work exclusively at each plant in the U.S to provide daily surveillance of licensee adherence to NRC regulations;
Establishment of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program to integrate NRC observations, findings, and conclusions about licensee performance and management effectiveness into a periodic, public report;
Regular analysis of plant performance by senior NRC managers who identify those plants needing additional regulatory attention;
Expansion of performance-oriented as well as safety-oriented inspections, and the use of risk assessment to identify vulnerabilities of any plant to severe accidents;
Strengthening and reorganization of enforcement as a separate office within the NRC;
Upgrading and strengthening of plant design and equipment requirements. This includes fire protection, piping systems, auxiliary feedwater systems, containment building isolation, reliability of individual components (pressure relief valves and electrical circuit breakers), and the ability of plants to shut down automatically;
Identifying human performance as a critical part of plant safety, revamping operator training and staffing requirements, followed by improved instrumentation and controls for operating the plant, and establishment of fitness for duty programs for plant workers to guard against alcohol or drug abuse;
Enhancement of emergency preparedness to include immediate NRC notification requirements for plant events and an NRC operations center which is now staffed 24 hours a day. Drills and response plans are now tested by licensees several times a year, and state and local agencies participate in drills with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and NRC;
The installing of additional equipment by licensees to mitigate accident conditions, and monitor radiation levels and plant status;
The establishment of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the industry's own "policing" group, and formation of what is now the Nuclear Energy Institute to provide a unified industry approach to generic nuclear regulatory issues, and interaction with NRC and other government agencies;
Employment of major initiatives by licensees in early identification of important safety-related problems, and in collecting and assessing relevant data so lessons of experience can be shared and quickly acted upon;
Expansion of NRC's international activities to share enhanced knowledge of nuclear safety with other countries in a number of important technical areas.


Further information on the TMI-2 accident can be obtained from sources listed in Attachment 1. The following documents can be ordered through the Government Printing Office, at 202-512-1800 or the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037; telephone 202-634-3273, or 1-800-397-4209; e-mail pdr@nrc.gov

A glossary is also provided as Attachment 2.

Attachment 1


ADDITIONAL SOURCES FOR INFORMATION ON THREE MILE ISLAND

NRC Annual Report - 1979, NUREG-0690;

"Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station," NUREG-0558;

"Environmental Assessment of Radiological Effluents from Data Gathering and Maintenance Operation on Three Mile Island Unit 2," NUREG-0681;

"Report of The President's Commission on The Accident at Three Mile Island," October, 1979;

"Investigation into the March 28, 1979 Three Mile Island Accident by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement," NUREG-0600;

"Three Mile Island; A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public," by Mitchell Rogovin and George T. Frampton, Vols. I-II, 1980;

"Lessons learned From the Three Mile Island - Unit 2 Advisory Panel," NUREG-6252;

"The Status of Recommendations of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," (A ten-year review), NUREG-1355;

"NRC Views and Analysis of the Recommendations of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island," NUREG-0632;

"Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979 accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,

Unit 2," NUREG-0683

"Answers to Questions About Updated Estimates of Occupational Radiation Doses at Three Mile Island, Unit 2," NUREG-1060;

"Answers to Frequently Asked Questions About Cleanup Activities at Three Mile Island, Unit 2," NUREG-0732;

"Status of Safety Issues at Licensed Power Plants" (TMI Action Plan Requirements), NUREG-1435.


Other organizations to contact

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Center Plaza
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472
(202)646-4600;

Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
Rachel Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8469, Harrisburg, PA, 17105-8469
telephone 717-787-2480.

Harrisburg City Government Center
ATTN: Mayor's office
10 North 2nd Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)255-3040

Londonderry Township Supervisors
387 S. Geyers Church Road
Middletown, PA 17057
(717)944-1066


Attachment 2 - GLOSSARY

Auxiliary feedwater (see emergency feedwater)

Background radiation The radiation in the natural environment, including cosmic rays and radiation from the naturally radioactive elements, both outside and inside the bodies of humans and animals. The usually quoted average individual exposure from background radiation is 360 millirem per year.

Cladding The thin-walled metal tube that forms the outer jacket of a nuclear fuel rod. It prevents the corrosion of the fuel by the coolant and the release of fission products int the coolants. Aluminum, stainless steel and zirconium alloys are common cladding materials.

Emergency feedwater system Backup feedwater supply used during nuclear plant startup and shutdown; also known as auxiliary feedwater.

Fuel rod A long, slender rube that holds fuel (fissionable material) for nuclear reactor use. Fuel rods are assembled into bundles called fuel elements or fuel assemblies, which are loaded individually into the reactor core.

Containment The gas-tight shell or other enclosure around a reactor to confine fission products that otherwise might be released to the atmosphere in the event of an accident.

Coolant A substance circulated through a nuclear reactor to remove or transfer heat. The most commonly used coolant in the U.S. is water. Other coolants include air, carbon dioxide, and helium.

Core The central portion of a nuclear reactor containing the fuel elements, and control rods.

Decay heat The heat produced by the decay of radioactive fission products after the reactor has been shut down.

Decontamination The reduction or removal of contaminating radioactive material from a structure, area, object, or person. Decontamination may be accomplished by (1) treating the surface to remove or decrease the contamination; (2) letting the material stand so that the radioactivity is decreased by natural decay; and (3) covering the contamination to shield the radiation emitted.

Feedwater Water supplied to the steam generator that removes heat from the fuel rods by boiling and becoming steam. The steam then becomes the driving force for the turbine generator.

Nuclear Reactor A device in which nuclear fission may be sustained and controlled in a self-supporting nuclear reaction. There are several varieties, but all incorporate certain features, such as fissionable material or fuel, a moderating material (to control the reaction), a reflector to conserve escaping neutrons, provisions for removal of heat, measuring and controlling instruments, and protective devices

Pressure Vessel A strong-walled container housing the core of most types of power reactors.

Pressurizer A tank or vessel that controls the pressure in a certain type of nuclear reactor.

Primary System The cooling system used to remove energy from the reactor core and transfer that energy either directly or indirectly to the steam turbine.

Radiation Particles (alpha, beta, neutrons) or photons (gamma) emitted from the nucleus of an unstable atom as a result of radioactive decay.

Reactor Coolant System (see primary system)

Secondary System The steam generator tubes, steam turbine, condenser and associated pipes, pumps, and heaters used to convert the heat energy of the reactor coolant system into mechanical energy for electrical generation.

Steam Generator The heat exchanger used in some reactor designs to transfer heat from the primary (reactor coolant) system to the secondary (steam) system. This design permits heat exchange with little or no contamination of the secondary system equipment.

Turbine A rotary engine made with a series of curved vanes on a rotating shaft. Usually turned by water or steam. Turbines are considered to be the most economical means to turn large electrical generators.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
1. The catastrophic Chernobyl accident in the former Soviet Union, in 1986, was by far the most severe nuclear reactor accident to occur in any country; it is widely believed an accident of that type could not occur in U.S. - designed plants. Chernobyl is discussed in more detail on the internet, at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/tip9809.htm




------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Jeff, very simple question for you. What is a vacuum?

------------------
Artist formerly known as Reindeer

Corporate Avenger,

That article on vacuum fluctuations is related to energy production, though the project that it describes is mostly concerned with more reasonable applications of the theory. Large scale energy production from the vacuum fluctuations is a long way off, if it is even possible. However, there is a small amoun of research going into this phenomenon. It has been shown experimentally at UC Riverside, and there are two theoretical groups that I know of working on it. I hope, as I am sure you do, that they are soon able to come up with some iteresting applications. If you want to know more, I guess we should start a new thread.