3-Mile Anniversary Present?

[don]

Fooling with Disaster?

By SUE STURGIS
It was April Fool's Day, 1979 -- 30 years ago this week -- when Randall Thompson first set foot inside the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pa. Just four days earlier, in the early morning hours of March 28, a relatively minor problem in the plant's Unit 2 reactor sparked a series of mishaps that led to the meltdown of almost half the uranium fuel and uncontrolled releases of radiation into the air and surrounding Susquehanna River.

It was the single worst disaster ever to befall the U.S. nuclear power industry, and Thompson was hired as a health physics technician to go inside the plant and find out how dangerous the situation was. He spent 28 days monitoring radiation releases.

Today, his story about what he witnessed at Three Mile Island is being brought to the public in detail for the first time -- and his version of what happened during that time, supported by a growing body of other scientific evidence, contradicts the official U.S. government story that the Three Mile Island accident posed no threat to the public.

"What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson told Facing South. "Hundreds of times worse."

http://www.counterpunch.org/sturgis04032009.html

[petertribo]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

is.jpg

http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

I'm getting sick and tired of all the lies, deceptions, deceipts, corruption, ...

Thanks for posting this. Guess I'd better add a lead liner to my tin foil hat, to guard against radiation ;).

[Starving Steve]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

If there is a link between cancer and Three Mile Island, why doesn't your map show the highest rate of cancer near the plant and the lowest rate of cancer far away from the plant? Instead, your map shows no pattern of cancer occurrence other than randomness. In other words, there is no link between the rate of cancer occurrence and the location of Three Mile Island, and your map strongly argues for what I have been saying: The public has been deceived by propaganda from the eco-frauds about a danger or risk associated with nuclear power, fission, and radiation, and that danger has been greatly over-stated and mis-represented. Your map is proof.

And one more important question: Did your map delete cigarrette smokers from the lung cancer survey, or like the radon study done in the 1950s, did you include cigarrette smokers in the survey and therefore bias the results--- therefore co-relating lung cancer with Three Mile Island when lung cancer is clearly linked to cigarrette smoking, not atomic power?

[don]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

If there is a link between cancer and Three Mile Island, why doesn't your map show the highest rate of cancer near the plant and the lowest rate of cancer far away from the plant? Instead, your map shows no pattern of cancer occurrence other than randomness. In other words, there is no link between the rate of cancer occurrence and the location of Three Mile Island, and your map strongly argues for what I have been saying: The public has been deceived by propaganda from the eco-frauds about a danger or risk associated with nuclear power, fission, and radiation, and that danger has been greatly over-stated and mis-represented. Your map is proof.

Steve: Did you read the entire article? I 'd like to hear your take- you sound informed- on its contents.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

That map sure didn't look random to me, Steve.

I presume that the highest cancer rates were where the downwind plumes from the reactor concentrated most strongly at ground level. Sometimes being close to such an event, especially if just upwind, can be better than being a bit further downwind. It depends on air currents.

And yes, as another respondent suggested, read the article if you haven't and see if you remain convinced that Three Mile Island was as harmless as you think.

[Starving Steve]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

That map sure didn't look random to me, Steve.

I presume that the highest cancer rates were where the downwind plumes from the reactor concentrated most strongly at ground level. Sometimes being close to such an event, especially if just upwind, can be better than being a bit further downwind. It depends on air currents.

And yes, as another respondent suggested, read the article if you haven't and see if you remain convinced that Three Mile Island was as harmless as you think.

A total of 100 millirems of radiation was received by the residents surrounding Three Mile Island. Not only is that less than the amount of one dental X-ray, it is less than the background radiation everywhere.
(I was just looking at the report from the NPR, whoever they are.)

So you can try to link cancer to Three Mile Island all you want, but 100 millirems is nothing. If you are worried about 100 millirems of radiation, don't eat bananas.

Also fishy in your study is the who measured the radiation and who measured the cancers? Or did you infer the cancers from the radiation measurements which used to be a very common technique in environmental studies?... But now we know the human body and all living things repair cell damage done by radiation, and this was something we did not know before.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

So you can try to link cancer to Three Mile Island all you want, but 100 millirems is nothing.

My trust in that report of "just 100 millirems" is even less :rolleyes:.

Have you read the article referenced at the top of this thread yet, Steve?

[Mega]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

Mean while in Japan:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WZyx...eature=related
Mike

[Starving Steve]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

Judge Sylvia Rambo heard the case of some 2000 plaintiffs against Three Mile Island in U.S. District Court in 1996. She threw their case out of court and said that they had not met their burden of proof of damages.

This Wing Cancer Study from the Univ of North Carolina is quite suspect, to say the least. Even its author, Prof Wing, said the study does not prove the case of cancers because of the mere 100 millirems of radiation emitted.

I would suspect Prof. Wing is part of W.A.R.N. at the Univ. of NC--- a radical environmental group of frauds. Am I wrong?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

Mean while in Japan:

Russia (Chernobyl), Japan (Monju), United States (Three Mile Island), ...

I wonder if it is possible for any government, institution or corporation of substantial size to be honest against its own self-perceived interests?

[Starving Steve]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

One large reactor lights-up more than 700,000 homes. That looks very good to me now, especially with electric rates going to 13c per KWH in BC because our hippie govn't elected by the pot-heads around this province never built one power plant in all of the years they were in office.

You might enjoy freezing in the dark in the years ahead, but I want solutions to the energy crisis as soon as possible. And I want cheap, really cheap power, so that I can enjoy life.

Remember the old slogans from the 1950s? when people used their brains instead of pot? "Better living through atomic energy." And, "Light the night."

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

Judge Sylvia Rambo heard the case of some 2000 plaintiffs against Three Mile Island in U.S. District Court in 1996. She threw their case out of court and said that they had not met their burden of proof of damages.

You can read Judge Rambo's ruling at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...dings/tmi.html. In my quick reading of parts of it, it seems that both sides agreed that there were specific cases of cancer in the area, and both sides agreed that if only the small amount of radition was emitted that was claimed to be emitted, then that radiation would not have caused those cancers. Only one side, the defendents, claimed to know how much was emitted. The plaintiff's had no timely and persuasive evidence directly measuring the alledged higher levels of radiation. Moreover, the plaintiffs could not prove that said radiation was the direct cause of those cancers. The cancers occurred sometime after the event.

I might have ruled the same way, given that evidence. The burden of proof is higher in a court of law than in the court of public opinion, as it should be.

This Wing Cancer Study from the Univ of North Carolina is quite suspect, to say the least. Even its author, Prof Wing, said the study does not prove the case of cancers because of the mere 100 millirems of radiation emitted.

I would suspect Prof. Wing is part of W.A.R.N. at the Univ. of NC--- a radical environmental group of frauds. Am I wrong?

Ah - Steve suspects Wing is part of a radical group of frauds. Case closed. That constitutes conclusive evidence that we were told the truth about Three Mile Island.

Thank-you, Steve, for clearing that up. :rolleyes:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

One large reactor lights-up more than 700,000 homes.

I too would like to see more nuclear power plants. I too disagree strongly with those who would use whatever happened at Three Mile Island as justification to continue the moratorium on nuclear power in the United States since then.

I am not claiming we were lied to about that incident by way of justifying a continued no-nukes policy. I am claiming we were lied to by way of exposing yet one more lie. I don't trust big organizations with the truth when it doesn't serve their interest.

Though, living in Texas, I am more worried about frying to death in the summer than I am freezing to death in the winter.

[petertribo]

Re: 3-Mile Anniversary Present?

The claim was made that the above map is random. No proof of that claim is offered. Does it appear random to you?

Then this claim is made, after apparently abandoning the random claim:
"I would suspect Prof. Wing is part of W.A.R.N. at the Univ. of NC--- a radical environmental group of frauds. Am I wrong?"

So, there is a suspicion about Prof. Wing. Something is wrong about Prof. Wing. No proof offered about him being a member of WARN. If Prof. Wing is a member of WARN, that is somehow suspicious. No explanation offered.

Then WARN is called a "radical environmental group of frauds". No proof offered that they are radicals. No proof offered that they have ever committed fraud.

So no proof offered for these suspicions. Accusations and innuendo are offered but no supporting evidence.

Here is the website for WARN:

http://www.ncwarn.org/

WARN, unless evidence to the contrary is offered, appears to be a grassroots citizen group concerned with environmental issues. This is not fraud. It is citizens legally expressing their opinions on issues important to them.

Here are WARN's nine reasons for not building new nuclear plants:

http://www.ncwarn.org/Programs/NewNu...wNukes5-08.pdf

DISCLAIMER: I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of WARN. Nor have I ever met or had any association with Prof. Wing.