/, Featured, Main/Two Dozen Fukushima’s At the Same Time? Keep Your Fingers Crossed and Pray
Two Dozen Fukushima’s At the Same Time? Keep Your Fingers Crossed and Pray

 

Hurricane Florence could unleash two dozen Fukushima’s. Nobody in the MSM or in government are talking about the dangers. What do the experts say?

Lessons Learned from Fukushima

Fukushima is often spoken of by many, as a possible extinction level event because of the radiation threat. Fukushima was an extinction level event for the Pacific Ocean and it continues to wreak havoc upon the world and in the United States as we are being bathed in deadly radiation from this event.

Because of Fukushima, fish are becoming inedible and the ocean currents as well as the prevailing ocean winds are carrying deadly radiation. Undoubtedly, by this time, the radioactivity has made its way into the transpiration cycle which means that crops are being dowsed with deadly radiation. The radiation has undoubtedly made its way into the water table in many areas and impacts every aspect of the food supply. The health costs to human beings is incalculable. However, this article is not about the devastation at Fukushima, instead, this article focuses on the fact that North America could have a total of 124 Fukushima events if the necessary conditions were present.

A Festering Problem

Long before Fukushima, American regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days involving the power grid connected to a nuclear plant, regardless of the cause, including a disabling hurricane, would most likely lead to a dangerous radioactive leak in at least several nuclear power plants. A complete loss of electrical power poses a major problem for nuclear power plants because the reactor core must be kept cool as well as the back-up cooling systems, all of which require massive amounts of power to work. Heretofore, all the NERC drills which test the readiness of a nuclear power plant are predicated on the notion that a blackout will only last 24 hours or less. Amazingly, this is the sum total of a NERC litmus test.

Critical Analyses

According to Judy Haar, a recognized expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, when a nuclear power plant loses access to off-grid electricity, the event is referred to as a “station blackout”. Haar states that all 104 US nuclear power plants are built to withstand electrical outages without experiencing any core damage, through the activation of an automatic start up of emergency generators powered by diesel. However, the ability to withstand such an event (eg Hurricane Florence), is not limitless.  Are the authorities doing what they need to do to protect the power integrity of the two dozen power plants (ie nuclear) that stand in the way?

Further, when emergency power kicks in, an automatic shutdown of the nuclear power plant commences. The dangerous control rods are dropped into the core, while water is pumped by the diesel power generators into the reactor to reduce the heat and thus, prevent a meltdown. Here is the catch in this process, the spent fuel rods are encased in both a primary and secondary containment structure which is designed to withstand a core meltdown. However, should the pumps stop because either the generators fail or diesel fuel is not available, the fuel rods are subsequently uncovered and a Fukushima type of core meltdown commences immediately. At this point, I took Judy Haar’s comments to a source of mine at the Palo Verde Nuclear power plant. My source informed me that as per NERC policy, nuclear power plants are required to have enough diesel fuel to run for a period of seven days. Some plants have thirty days of diesel. This is the good news, but it is all downhill after the 7/30 day scenarios. Let us collectively pray that is enough for what is coming.

The Unresolved Power Blackout Problem

A more detailed analysis reveals that the spent fuel pools carry depleted fuel for the reactor. Normally, this spent fuel has had time to considerably decay and therefore, reducing radioactivity and heat. However, the newer discharged fuel still produces heat and needs cooling. Housed in high density storage racks, contained in buildings that vent directly into the atmosphere, radiation containment is not accounted for with regard to the spent fuel racks. In other words, there is no capture mechanism. In this scenario, accompanied by a lengthy electrical outage, and with the emergency power waning due to either generator failure or a lack of diesel needed to power the generators, the plant could lose the ability to provide cooling. The water will subsequently heat up, boil away and uncover the spent fuel rods which required being covered in at least 25 feet of water to remain benign from any deleterious effects. Ultimately, this would lead to fires as well and the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. This would be the beginning of another Fukushima event right here on American soil. Both my source and Haar shared exactly the same scenario about how a meltdown would occur. Subsequently, I spoke with Roger Landry who worked for Raytheon in various Department of Defense projects for 28 years, many of them in this arena and Roger also confirmed this information and that the above information is well known in the industry.

Placing Odds On a Failure Is a Fools Errand

An analysis of individual plant risks released in 2003 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows that for 39 of the 104 nuclear reactors, the risk of core damage from a blackout was greater than 1 in 100,000. At 45 other plants the risk is greater than 1 in 1 million, the threshold NRC is using to determine which severe accidents should be evaluated in its latest analysis. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, in Pennsylvania has the greatest risk of experiencing a core meltdown, 6.5 in 100,000, according to the analysis. These odds don’t sound like much until you consider that we have 124 nuclear power generating plants in the US and Canada and when we consider each individual facility, the odds of failure climb. Howmany meltdowns would it take in this country before our citizens would be condemned to the hellish nightmare, or worse, being experienced by the Japanese on a permanent basis?

The worst damage is from an EMP attack. But a natural disaster, such as the worst hurricane in American history will test these plants as well.

The Question That’s Not Being Asked

None of the NERC, or the Nuclear Regulatory tests of handling a prolonged blackout at a nuclear power plant has answered two critical questions, “What happens when these nuclear power plants run out of diesel fuel needed to run the generators”, and “What happens when some of these generators fail”? In the event of an EMP attack, can tanker trucks with diesel fuel get to all of the nuclear power plants in the US in time to re-fuel them before they stop running? Will tanker trucks even be running themselves in the aftermath of an EMP attack? And in the event of an EMP attack, it is not likely that any plant which runs low on fuel, or has a generator malfunctions, will ever get any help to mitigate the crisis prior to a plethora of meltdowns occurring. Thus, every nuclear power plant in the country has the potential to cause a Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident if our country is hit by an EMP attack.

 

…And There Is More…

The ramifications raised in the previous paragraphs are significant. What if the blackout lasts longer than 24 hours? What if the reason for the blackout is an EMP burst caused by a high altitude nuclear blast and transportation comes to a standstill? In this instance, the cavalry is not coming. Adding fuel to the fire lies in the fact that the power transformers presently take at least one year to replace. Today, there is a three year backlog on ordering because so many have been ordered by China. This makes one wonder what the Chinese are preparing for with these multiple orders for both transformers and generators. In short, our unpreparedness is a prescription for disaster. As a byproduct of my investigation, I have discovered that most, if not all, of the nuclear power plants are on known earthquake fault lines. All of California’s nuclear power plants are located on an earthquake fault line. Can anyone tell me why would anyone in their right mind build a nuclear power plant on a fault line? To see the depth of this threat you can visit an interactive, overlay map at this site.

Conclusion

Keep your fingers crossed and pray! Two dozen nuclear power plants lying in the path of this hurricane should be keeping many awake at night, yet there is nothing on the corporate controlled media about this danger.

By | 2018-09-13T02:44:44+00:00 September 13th, 2018|Activism, Featured, Main|8 Comments

About the Author:

8 Comments

  1. DB September 13, 2018 at 5:08 am

    Dave,
    Your article reminds me just how idiotic mankind can be…especially the building on fault lines.

  2. raymond jones September 13, 2018 at 5:26 am

    well if this happens which i hope it does not us older americans can and should volenteer to clean it up i know i would to give my son a better chance at survival im on disability and in grinding pain and have been for years….what better way to go than serving the next generation and i am sure there are 100,s maybe 1000,s of other americans in the same place i am who would step up to the task of secureing a safer america for our children to raise their families….like i said i hope it dont happen but if it does the above may be the only way to keep this from turning japanese in scope and maybe it would encourage japans population to do the same thing and stop the damage to the planet for all our childrens sakes…….

  3. gene September 13, 2018 at 10:10 am

    PRAY we will all be ok.

  4. Steve O'Neal September 13, 2018 at 10:17 am

    Actually, Dave the situation is considerably more complex, and in general not nearly so dangerous overall due to several major factors that distinguish the US facilities from Fukushima in matters of design and location-risk factors. That said, there are some unresolved questions that may indeed suggest some unacceptable risks in existence that need to be addressed on the basis of a more catastrophic scenario than the technical specifications of the plants are designed for, and for that matter, our society in general, including whether or not we should even be operating our light water reactors. First order questions exist about the fuel reserve for the diesel generators, assuming difficulty in bringing more fuel under regional emergency conditions. Of course, under extreme conditions, military aircraft can airlift fuel if necessary. A second question is the vulnerability and redundancy of the diesels, as we note in the Fukushima case was, in my view, unacceptable, given the common mode failure path associated with the tsunami risk. An extra set of diesels could have been located both on top of and also inside the containment buildings (never mind for the moment that the plant should have never been located where it is, and on top of that, was built without a reactor containment building capable of absorbing either an environmental hit or holding the products of a reactor loss of coolant event). I have wondered why propane facilities have not been considered, as the fuel does not degrade like gas/diesel/kerosene/fuel oil, and a large amount could be kept an appropriate location relative to the plant without considerations of having to refresh the fuel supply. Another factor seldom considered is that reactor decay heat falls to about five percent of recent average reactor power once the safeties are scrammed, and dies off in an envelope of exponential curves with time. Within a week the decay heat is much less than initial, and requires much less flow. Although tech specs will assume conservative bounding conditions for RCP flow, truth be known, the pumps can be throttled back quite a bit, extending fuel. At a certain point only convective flow and heat transfer is necessary, and also, under extreme situations, the reactor can be offloaded as in an outage, completely obviating decay heat issues. One further area of consideration is the effect of EMP on reactor controls. First of all, the safeties are held up with solenoids and failure failsafes the scram. The real concern is whether the RCP’s and the diesel generator circuits and controls can withstand the EMP. It is possible that they can, due to the fact that they are offline generally (not connected to the grid antenna effect) and use robust analogue controls or can be manually controlled that way. This would require investigation by someone still in the industry.

    It is very reasonable to expect that we could economically provide for such failsafe provisions, and station procedures to handle more extreme situations. I would imagine that to some extent this is already done, but not necessarily to the full extent needed for acceptable public safety in extreme circumstances. Reactor outages routinely shut down from full power and within a matter of some days we would be standing over the reactor moving the fuel to the spent fuel pool. Fuel shuffle can be designed to maximise separation of core fuel assemblies to allow for any consideration of loss of cooling of the spent fuel pool, which, as I recall, is designed in general to dissipate heat under natural convection conditions (without pumps). Reactor enginering departments are certainly smart enough to quickly conclude that a reactor offload would be called for if there were a looming prospect for loss of reactor vessel flow, and to some extent certain protocols could be waived to speed up the process. What is less certain is whether the industry has devoted any priorities to proceduralising the process as a practised emergency. In such a case, barring a few additional considerations for EMP hardening, and several facilities that are vulnerable to the New Madrid fault or an epic tsunami, I would not expect to see a single meltdown situation in the US.

    Philosophically, there are some deeper questions about the stewardship of mankind and of the planet that, when applied to industries such as nuclear power, are not at all reassuring. Globally, we have witnessed Bhopal, the BP spill, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and see how expendable the general population really is. This is where the fundamental problem lies. On a final note, the control rods are not in the least dangerous, unless one falls on you while inspecting it, or is brought out of the refueling canal after being in the reactor. The concept of the rods being dangerous comes from the Chernobyl control rod design that Dr. Legasov made issue of, in which graphite tips were desinged into the rods to improve core reactivity under normal operating conditions, but which increased reactivity as they first entered the core when inserted. It was a poor design feature that may have beenthe final nail in the coffin that produced the accident. The Russians quietly removed the graphite tips from the other reactors. The problem was that the reactor was extremely supercritical at the time the scram was pressed because of a power transient, and the graphite tips aggravated the transient to the point of causing an ejected rod incident, and reactor explosion. The Russian departments kept previous concerns arising from control rod transients secret from the operators. The Fukushima case was not similar to this at all, but its location, plus the use of a concrete reactor containment vessel (not building) aggravated the explosive velocity amplification when the core head blew off, and, also like Chernobyl, had only a corrugated metal building to blow through. Our reactors are patently different in these respects, but do suffer from the same government agency duplicities that keep the public in the dark, and may foster priorities that are not, in the greater picture, in the public interest. I am still amazed that General Electric could have conscientiously sanctioned the Fukushima plant design, and I have heard that several engineers quit due to it. The powerful peer sanctions in every major industry and certainly in DOD is so pervasive that one has to wonder what consequences mankind will soon suffer due to its systemic arrogance. We only have to turn to the orgy of social complicity in the Third Reich to understand the process. Far more dangerous than any of the nuclear industry issues are these very concerns in the area of geoengineering, whose explosive ramifications are now imminent. .

  5. Magoo September 13, 2018 at 2:53 pm

    Are any of them near Charlotte?

  6. Anthony September 13, 2018 at 8:45 pm

    Hi Dave, just a general comment to let you know I’m experiencing some high strangeness interacting with your website. Here at home I have no problem loading your site and posting comments, but at work it is a totally different story: your home page opens on your article from 9/8/18. Nothing more recent ever pops up unless I click on that article and hit the “next” button, which will load a few newer articles but inevitably I will get a “504” error. And no matter whether I re-load the page; close my browser and hit the link to your site again; shut off my computer and try again; type your website into my browser; try to link from DuckDuckGo etc. the same thing happens. And when I try to post comments from work I get a “403” error or am asked to try Captcha again, and neither works. So at work I basically can’t read your articles or post anything.

    I work for a California county government agency. I wonder if that is the problem…

  7. Paul Veenendall September 14, 2018 at 6:15 am

    My faith is in God not in luck keeping fingers crossed is pure unbelief in God relying on fate or what ever, its in Gods hands. However the plants were built on fault lines so when a earthquake occurred it would cause loss of human life from radiation. This is a easy kill switch for the globalists a no brainer. I know send me your tin foil hats in care of nut case PO Box Brain Dead. Thank You

  8. Jamesonn September 16, 2018 at 8:34 am

    I’m having the same strangeness with your site. It’s not populating new stories on my phone or my laptop.

Comments are closed.