Authored by: cgrotke on Saturday, April 11 2009 @ 07:17 PM GMT+4

I'm wondering what type of event would trigger an evacuation.

If there was a catastrophic failure of some sort, we're all toast, right?

If there is a minor leak, well, we sit here and find out about it a few
days later.

Is there such a thing as a major leak that people could evacuate from, or
would it be too late?

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Saturday, April 11 2009 @ 08:45 PM GMT+4

VY is clean, safe, and reliable. Why on earth would we ever need a mass evacuation?

---
We Rock!

Authored by: spinoza on Saturday, April 11 2009 @ 09:20 PM GMT+4

Your test is logically inoperable. You could never simulate a circumstance where all bets are off, and the rules no longer apply.

Authored by: annikee on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 08:23 PM GMT+4

That's what's key; the populace can't know it's just a drill. Only the bigshots.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: spinoza on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 09:52 PM GMT+4

Your test is logistically insuperable. You can never stimulate a happenstance where all beds are offed, and the rubes no longer comply.

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 10:32 AM GMT+4

That's what's fey; the popinjay can't know it's a frill. Only the big wigs.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: spinoza on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 11:04 AM GMT+4

Your mess is logarithmically insufferable. You should never stipulate a circus tent where all bags are heft, and the ruins no longer decried.

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 11:30 AM GMT+4

That's what's wry! The poppin fresh can't know it's on the grill! Lonely the Big Dig!

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: spinoza on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 11:58 AM GMT+4

Your guess is in loco parentis. You can not situate a circumvent where all breaks are soft, and
the rads no worse than an x-ray.

Authored by: SpudHill on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM GMT+4

All beautiful poetry aside please please don't do it because I'll have a freakin' nervous breakdown if those sirens go off and I think it's for real!

Authored by: spinoza on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 12:21 PM GMT+4

Your stress is laudably understandable. You could not instigate a bottleneck where all cars are frothed, and the ruse no longer denied.

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 12:29 PM GMT+4

Your dress is laudably understated. You could not investigate a turtleneck where all ears are hothead, and the rose no longer defined.


---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 09:37 PM GMT+4

riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 12:21 PM GMT+4

That's hot rye! The poopin fish can't know it's in the Will. Money the Big Dog!



---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: spinoza on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 02:03 PM GMT+4

Your fetish is laconically insubordinate. You can not insinuate a dire dance where all bereft are tossed, and the roost forever awry.

Authored by: annikee on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 07:25 PM GMT+4

What's shot by!? The peepin fascist can't show its one still. Baloney the rig cog!



---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: tomaidh on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 09:25 PM GMT+4

James Joyce lives!

Authored by: paulgardner on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 11:12 AM GMT+4

Say they run the evacuation and everything goes perfectly - not a life would have been lost in an emergency - then what?

Entergy will use that to claim VY is safe because no one gets toasted, but that's a lie. If VY pulls a Chernobyl, but by some miracle we all get out unscathed - it's still a catastrophe of historic proportions. All of us in the VY evac zone - including NH & MA will have lost our homes and our livelihoods. Those few of us with large investment holdings may be able to recreate some sort of life, but all the rest of us will essentially become refugees in our own country - homes, jobs and social structures lost, our kids futures ruined - and that's just the short term toll.
Will the whole area around the CT R. have to be evacuated down to the sea? For how long? What about Long Island Sound? Will the waters be safe for fishing & etc? How many centuries before the area around blasted plant is habitable again? Probably not till after the next ice age, I'm guessing.

This is not hyperbole. Of less than a thousand nuclear power plants world wide in the relatively short history of nuclear power we've already had one "Chernobyl". If I said to you that you had a one in one thousand chance of winning powerball in the next decade you'd buy a ticket everyday. That's what we're looking at - a one in one thousand chance of having another Chernobyl in the next 40/50 years. Sure the plants made later in the nuke plant building phase were "safer" but by what factor? ten times as safe? That seems unlikely, but even so I'd say "no" to that chance even if cutting back on electric usage were our only option, but it isn't and continuing with nukes is nuts.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 11:58 AM GMT+4

Why not use Three Mile Island as the reference case for a VY accident? It was quite serious in that half of the core melted in that accident. Fortunately, the design of western reactors and containments is quite different than the RBMK type (Chernobyl) and the melted fuel was contained within the reactor pressure vessel and very little radiation was released.

Nuclear power plants use the term "core damage frequency" or CDF to put a number to that risk you all seem so worried about and current plants like VY have a CDF of ~1E-5 per plant per year and new designs have a CDF of ~1E-8 or 1000 times less.

The notion that we are "toast" is quite absurd even using Chernobyl as the reference case.

Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 12:34 PM GMT+4

Have you read any of the data on Three Mile Island or Chernobyl?
And if you have and still think that is acceptable for your community I must say I'm somewhat aghast.
The reality is that even "tests" will and can never prepare this community for a real incident and once people knew it was real I do not believe that every parent with a kid at school would not immediately go to the school to get their kids. Nobody's going to wait for their children to be loaded on buses and driven (if the roads are passable by then) to Bellows Falls or wherever this "safe" place is going to be. Once the roads to the schools are clogged with parents frantically trying to get their kids your entire scenario falls apart.

No amount of "preparation" will equip or predict how the average person will react once they realize that it's a real situation and not a test.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 04:14 PM GMT+4

"Have you read any of the data on Three Mile Island or Chernobyl?"

I'd wager that I've read more than all the antis that frequent this site together.

"And if you have and still think that is acceptable for your community I must say I'm somewhat aghast."

I'm aghast at your ignorance and irrational fear, does that make us even?

Authored by: SpudHill on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 06:34 PM GMT+4

My fear is not irrational, the rosy scenario you paint for 3 Mile Island isn't squaring with what I've seen, there were many that lost their homes and livelihoods. As for Chernobyl there are still parts of Europe where growing certain crops is restricted due to the fallout....Europe not the UK.

As with any topic you can find plenty of data pro or con but to my mind the better road is the more cautious road.....err on the side of caution and you won't have to have the discussion. The scenario of a calm and organized evacuation is a joke......it's just not human nature and it's not realistic....I've already been in a situation where a huge emergency occurred that no one predicted and although news reports were glowing and yes, people were pretty good to each other, from first hand accounts of people who were directly in danger there was a lot more confusion, panic and disorder than has ever been reported. Orderly evacuations are the stuff of TV and movies....not reality.

Authored by: mr.mike on Sunday, April 12 2009 @ 07:46 PM GMT+4

I could be wrong in my assumption,but wouldn't there be stages to problems that would eventually lead to an evacuation? In other words I think it's unlikely that there would be some sort of sudden catastrophic event that would warrant a mass evacuation. Also, I think that many in the area would leave early anyway. Some would leave as soon as they heard there was a problem. Others may wait it out and see what happens. Either way there would be ample time to evacuate the area.

Now on the other hand if there was a railcar that overturned and spilled some sort of deadly gas.Like say chlorine than I think an evacuation would be much more difficult. First, your evac would be reduced to minutes. Also, the logistics would change because the plant doesn't move, railcars do,so some of the evac route may be closed.

I'm sure if a railcar accident happened in Vernon the folks in Bratt would say. "oh well they don't mind contamination they've got that awful nuke plant." But what if a railcar tipped over near malfunction junction?

Either way I don't hear anyone wanting to shut down the railroad.

---
"Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counter productive." Ben Franklin

Authored by: paulgardner on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 07:12 AM GMT+4

Dear PutneyReject,
The fact that you know more than me about this does not reassure me. The fact that you are willing to risk playing with this stuff on the banks of a major river when we have zero risk power alternatives throws your objectivity into question. My objectivity is zero. I have property here and I don't want to lose it. I don't trust Entergy, because franklythey haven't earned it. I don't trust the technology - too many of its practioners have been cavalier in their attitude toward safety. I'm not going to be swayed by you chucking numbers around, when you've clearly missed my "core" point.

You talk about a containment design on the TMI plant - my understanding is that VY does not have that - it would be a big concrete dome over the whole plant - isn't that correct?

Authored by: PutneyReject on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 11:49 AM GMT+4

No form of power production is "zero risk" and that fact that you think there is makes me sad.

I never understood how people can feel so strongly about a subject that they refuse to learn even the most basic facts and concepts about.

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf

Authored by: paulgardner on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM GMT+4

By "zero risk" I mean no risk beyond the immediate risk inherent in any industrial job.

The main risk from wind is that someone's view will be blocked. But if a better technology comes along, decommisioning a wind turbine or solar array is pretty quick and straight forward. The land around the former power production site will be useable as before immediately.

What's the timetable on a decommisioned VY and other nuclear sites assuming all goes fine till the end of the plant's active life? Decades? Centuries? Do we know - do you?
Why is nuclear power regulated by an NRC that is more a promotion agency and exists on fees paid by Entergy and GE and the other plant operators - it is not answerable to the tax payers? If nuclear is safe why isn't there a taxpayer paid, rigoroous investigative agency similar to the EPA or OSHA? Would the industry survive that?
Speaking of which if nuclear power is as safe as you feel it is why won't private insurers touch it? Why are tax payers insuring the safety of a plant that generates private profits?
I'm willing to be out front and say that I have a vested interest in seeing the plant close in 2012. I don't see that from Entergy. Why is the company unwilling to have a spokesperson talk to Steve West on Live and Local (he's been asking for the entire life of his show - 3 years and counting, I believe). I would relish the opportunity to ask a pointed question or two myself.

Authored by: SpudHill on Monday, April 13 2009 @ 03:37 PM GMT+4

I'm with ya on this one Paul....and of course Entergy won't go on Live and Local because they can't control the agenda and god knows who would call in they'd probably have to talk to some rabble rouser or someone like that who doesn't understand how nice they are buying Christmas Lights and all.

Authored by: PutneyReject on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 05:38 AM GMT+4

"What's the timetable on a decommisioned VY and other nuclear sites assuming all goes fine till the end of the plant's active life?"

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html

"Why is nuclear power regulated by an NRC that is more a promotion agency and exists on fees paid by Entergy and GE and the other plant operators - it is not answerable to the tax payers?"

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer775/aer775c.pdf

"Why are tax payers insuring the safety of a plant that generates private profits?"

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that the public has not a paid a dime under the Price-Anderson act. Save your outrage for the gov't flood insurance program.

"I'm willing to be out front and say that I have a vested interest in seeing the plant close in 2012."

That's all you really needed to say. Don't humilate yourself further by posting more ignorant rants or strawman arguments.

Authored by: SpudHill on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 07:16 AM GMT+4

Who cares about nuclear meltdowns, collapsing coolers or even cancer-causing leaks as long as I get my sepia toned calendar and the Christmas lights go up I'm happy.....

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Tuesday, April 14 2009 @ 11:44 AM GMT+4

Everyone should have a vested interest in seeing the plant closed in 2012 - nuclear power advocates more than anyone else.

Vermont Yankee has suffered a long series of accidents, mishaps, failures, collapses, leaks, spills, mistakes, and just plain incompetence since before it even came on line. Several times a year for the past 35 years, we've heard about one screw-up or another. Vermont Yankee is not much of an advertisement for safe, clean, or reliable nuclear power.

In 1974, the odds of a serious nuclear accident were said to be one in a million (Time, Sept 2, 1974, it's available online) or one in 250,000 for a less serious, but still deadly, nuclear accident. Vermont Yankee, and now Entergy in particular, appear to have done everything they could to make sure Vermont Yankee is the "one."

Yankee supporters don't - can't apparently - offer any credible assurance that the plant is safe or reliable, or that Entergy is capable of making it so. The only arguments offered in suport of keeping Yankee open past 2012 are that the region will lose jobs, and that electricity will cost more.

Given Yankee's long history of failure, does it seem reasonable to keep gambling on our safety? I don't think so.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 03:25 PM GMT+4

And here's why the NRC has no credibility:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20090414/NEWS02/904130267/1003/NEWS02
NRC declares Yankee 'green'
By Susan Smallheer

"This year, the Vernon reactor received all "green" marks from the NRC, meaning the plant was operated safely and will not require any special inspections or increased inspections in the coming year.

"The "green" grade came despite several high-profile problems in 2008 at the Vernon plant, including continuing leaks at the plant's cooling towers and faulty repairs, problems handling spent fuel as the company prepared to move the fuel into a new storage facility when a crane failed to stop and other unrelated leaks in the plant. The "green" grade is the same grade the plant received in 2007, when one of the plant's cooling towers partially collapsed."

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 04:12 PM GMT+4

Entergy hasn't lost credibility with just us plebes, either:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30216892/
Yankee Vows To Sue If Decommissioning Bill Passes
Executive Says Clean-up Fund Adequate

"A top official with Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee told state lawmakers Tuesday that if a decommissioning bill under consideration becomes law, the company will file suit to block it."
_____________________

"Committee members peppered (Entergy Vice President Jay) Thayer with a variety of concerns, clearly skeptical rosy assurances might be long forgotten when the bills to decontaminate and restore the Vernon site roll in decades from now.

"The distrust is complicated by Entergy's efforts to "spin-off" Yankee and five other reactors into in a new, leveraged company called Enexus. Cummings asked Thayer if the multi-billion dollar Entergy would write a letter of guarantee to Vermont that Entergy would cover clean-up costs were Enexus to fail. Thayer said he would answer the question in a follow-up communication."

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Lise on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 12:33 PM GMT+4

We rec'd a report this morning of an abusive comment on this story. Naturally, we rushed over to see what it was about and discovered that yes, name-calling had broken out. Of course outright namecalling and taunting are against site policy so comments beginning with "_____, you should stick to the snide one-liners." through "Oh how your ego makes me laugh, that made my day :)" were all deleted.

Just in case anyone was wondering where that batch of comments had gone. If you're still confused about why things were deleted, please reread the site policies which you'll find in the green navigation bar at the top of the page.

Thanks!

Authored by: spinoza on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 02:33 PM GMT+4

I was really looking forward to a NANANABOOBOO

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 04:23 PM GMT+4

the post was lame to begin with. There could probably never be an orderly enough evacuation to suit the author or the antis. What if the author didn't own a car, a limo would be sent? :D

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 04:51 PM GMT+4

And Tiny's comment here is not "abusive" because..........?????????
Knock it off Tiny...that is so not helpful and this is so a serious problem whether we agree or not about what should be done.

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 05:24 PM GMT+4

Spud, I am being satrical. But seriously, If the Entergy airlifted you out
of Bratt with champagne and caviar, you'd still be stamping your feet,
you'd probably be demanding peanuts or tofu. The whole premise was a
non starter. Don't get your knickers in a nknot. And no, I don't work for
the nuke people.

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 06:02 PM GMT+4

How do you have any idea what I'd be stamping my feet for?
Champagne and caviar would do very nicely thank you.
You think it would be tofu and peanuts because??????
Oh yeah, because liberals would never go near champagne and caviar right....
Well believe me while I'm not one to turn my nose up at tofu and peanuts count me in on the champagne and caviar....
we won't need any toast for the caviar because
WE WILL ALL BE TOAST....

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 08:03 PM GMT+4

Peanuts, tofu, texican whoppers, fudgicals, twinkies, whatever floats your
boat. A stomach knows no political persuasion.

And never eat caviar with toast, you eat it with blinis. Or is that a
liberal thing?

Authored by: SpudHill on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 09:45 PM GMT+4

wrong
AGAIN

Authored by: tiny on Wednesday, April 15 2009 @ 09:48 PM GMT+4

you get upset over the strangest things. lighten up or you'll pop a vein .

did you go teabagging today?

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 04:08 AM GMT+4

Who's upset....
however I don't consider nuclear plants a "little" thing
but I do consider the fact that the right led by Fox News having adopted the expression "teabagging" pretty entertaining.

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 07:21 AM GMT+4

Hmmm. I wonder why FOX NEWS is so popular. Could be they tell it like it is and that's what the folks want?

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 07:44 AM GMT+4

Sure, why report the news, when you can make your own? But you're right, Fox News is entertainment on the same level as American Idol, anything with Paris Hilton, and game shows.
Reality sucks, give the people what they want! Fox News.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 08:35 AM GMT+4

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 12:04 AM GMT+4

Fox isn't news. It's a rightwing propaganda and current events chat network. If you want a preview of the day's "news" and talking points on Fox, all you have to do is visit the propaganda feed over at RNC.org. So what's Fox's competition? Rush?

What I noticed about the tea wasters was how few of the complaints were about taxes. It seemed like it was mostly the typical rightwing whine about Obama, socialism, Obama, God, Obama, government, Obama... oh, and apparently when Republicans don't get their way, it's "tyranny" and "taxation without representation."

Frankly, it seemed like a giant wank-fest from a dying party with not message other than anger.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: tiny on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 08:04 AM GMT+4

When I watch too much Fox and the propaganda gets too much, I go to
Olbermann and Maddow and get balanced out. Seriously, I am
embarassed to think what someone overseas thinks of the USA when
their window to us is these two networks. I never get that creepy feeling
watching BBC.

Authored by: Maus Anon E on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 01:03 PM GMT+4

The socialist state-supported BBC sets a high standard, I agree.

The comparison between Fox "News" and Olberman and Maddow is valid. All three are partisan or ideologically-based "opinion entertainment." None of them are "fair and balanced,' although one of them claims to be. Maybe it's tongue-in-cheek, or maybe they thing their audience will believe it.

---
We Rock!

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 08:58 AM GMT+4

No actually it's partly because Ruppert has provided Fox to many many outlets at little or no cost and blanketed the country with the station as well as providing it at little cost to say hotel outlets. He doesn't need to make a profit because he's so wealthy so he has been able to claim a high readership while playing the game a little differently. It's sort of the same way Limbaugh can claim a high readership while supplying his show free or at very little cost to many many sources because it's basically used to sell advertising. Limbaugh's show is carried by the same company that Glen Beck is with now and it's quite likely they are using the same methodology.

At any rate when I've traveled out West quite often Fox News is all that is available so I would counter don't confuse lack of choice with popularity.

Authored by: tiny on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 08:39 AM GMT+4

I watch a couple of the cable shows last night to see the news. Not once at Fox did they use the word "teabagging." Now at MSNBC, Olberman and Maddow used it constantly and Maddow in particular snickers and laughs about the expression like a little kid. I am surprised because she is very smart, but I thought that was pretty sophmoric. Whatever, it's all entertainment.

Authored by: annikee on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 07:52 AM GMT+4

"We are being pushed into a new future. I think it's very likely we will pull apart in conflict, rather than pull together in cooperation. That is the key choice that I see...We are profoundly divided as a human family. And I am doing everything I can to say there is a higher, more promising future; let's pull together for that." D Elgin

I've decided to stop posting on iBratt. Thanks for all the fun. I'll stop by now and then with a comment and will keep on reading. Ciao.

---
Down with Goldstein!

Authored by: SpudHill on Thursday, April 16 2009 @ 09:00 AM GMT+4

But where will we turn for the poetric exchanges....

Authored by: NorahCook on Friday, April 17 2009 @ 10:53 PM GMT+4

No, Annikee, don't go! without me, I mean. It was a provocative
question, that's all. True, it looked like Edward Lear and Jabborwocky
had hijacked the discussion for a while, then the sciencey guys got uppity
about their superior knowledge, completely forgetting that electricity is
made so that people can live with some ease, instead of the other way
around, and then the discussion devolved into some quibbling about the
relevance of Fox News (where did that come from?)--but it was great
fun.