Greenpeace protests VY relicensing

Greenpeace protests VY relicensing

There are 59 comments on the Brattleboro Reformer story from Nov 15, 2010, titled Greenpeace protests VY relicensing. In it, Brattleboro Reformer reports that:

The international environmental organization Greenpeace flew a hot airship over the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant Sunday, to publicize the group's opposition to the plant's pending relicensing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Brattleboro Reformer.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Cosmic Howdy

AOL

#41 Nov 16, 2010
Oh Licensed for 40 years wasn't really true.They can be reviewed for license for 80 years !Phew ... wow! Is that suppose to raise my comfort level?.

Soooo how many Towers can fall down before they think they shouldn't be Relicensed. And "No Significiant Adverse Health Effects From Radiological Exposures"...well that doesn't really ring my comfort level bell either .. sorry.

"The Devil Is always in the Scientific Gobblygook Details"....and before I get an insult flung at me.. for being a uneducated scientific pathetic anti nuclear person.....

... A Tower falling over is a Tower Falling over in anyone's vernacular.I just seem to have a proclivity towards safety.The Devil may be in their Details...but The truth I believe is in their track record.
I Know More Than You

Wiscasset, ME

#42 Nov 16, 2010
Cosmic Howdy wrote:
A grammatical nightmare
Is actually possible for you to express a coherent thought or is this just all part of your act?
LawyerCalhoun

Belmont, VT

#43 Nov 16, 2010
Gee, is VY so vulnerable that it is necessary to shoot down a balloon aircraft that gets anywhere near it? That containment structure must be as brittle as an eggshell.

Just what Entergy needs to further improve its community image. Shooting down a Greenpeace lighter than air craft near its plant.

Maybe for security, people should be machine gunned who get within 3 miles of the plant. Because, after all, if it were breached, hundreds of square miles would be highly contaminated.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#44 Nov 16, 2010
Since when has VY said anything about shooting down the blimp? They haven't and to imply they have is just playing lying.
Cloe

Putney, VT

#45 Nov 17, 2010
hhmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
Since when has VY said anything about shooting down the blimp? They haven't and to imply they have is just playing lying.
Obviously you have not been following the other posts. I can see now where the blimp gets its gas! Why don't you read what comments others are referring to before you spout your ignorance?
Stanley

Brattleboro, VT

#46 Nov 17, 2010
Cosmic Howdy wrote:
Oh Licensed for 40 years wasn't really true.They can be reviewed for license for 80 years !Phew ... wow! Is that suppose to raise my comfort level?.
Soooo how many Towers can fall down before they think they shouldn't be Relicensed. And "No Significiant Adverse Health Effects From Radiological Exposures"...well that doesn't really ring my comfort level bell either .. sorry.
"The Devil Is always in the Scientific Gobblygook Details"....and before I get an insult flung at me.. for being a uneducated scientific pathetic anti nuclear person.....
... A Tower falling over is a Tower Falling over in anyone's vernacular.I just seem to have a proclivity towards safety.The Devil may be in their Details...but The truth I believe is in their track record.
The main problem is in the image of a "tower". These structures would be more appropriately called wooden cooling baffles which directed the air flow across the water in the pipes. Like any cooling baffles they are light and full of large holes to promote the air flow.

They weakness in the baffles should have been diagnosed but in reality they were wooden and the weakness might have not been that apparent.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#47 Nov 17, 2010
Cloe wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you have not been following the other posts. I can see now where the blimp gets its gas! Why don't you read what comments others are referring to before you spout your ignorance?
From what I read the first poster said something about shooting it down. That poster is from Concord NH area. Why would you make the assumption that they are speaking for VY or for that matter even a VY employee. So to use your own line before you spout you ignorance (and start insulting others) why don't you read and understand the comment you are responding to.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#48 Nov 17, 2010
I will add that I was responding to Lawyercalhoun who turned the topic to Entergy wanting the blimp shot down. I didn't interject when peaople where responding to the first posters comments. Only interjected when someone actually tried to imply that it was Entergy or their employees feeling that they should have shot the balloon down.
Cosmic Howdy

AOL

#49 Nov 17, 2010
In regards to the Towers semi collasping... The sentence " The weakness in the baffles should have been diagnoised but in reality they were wooden and the weakness might not have been apparent."

The part about "may not be apparent" has me worried.Another poster said they were not involved in safety .Partial collaspe. That also is disturbing . This is a Nuclear Plant . Not Dominos Pizza Parlor. Call me navive but where is the cross the T's and gold bar standard ?

Hey . I have just been criticised by one of your own about my cavalier use of the Queens English . Well He Knows More Than Me.

I am playing fast and loose with my grammar. Yes. I know it. If I was writing my dissertation that would not happen.Same analogy. This is a Nuclear Plant . What's appropriate. If the wood is dicey well come up with another material...Dominos Pizza heck use the wood.Well maybe not.

In regards to my post disturbing the grammatical police. Well I want to say I have been so busy looking for those wandering trust fund hippies, Professional liars,Ballons . You get the picture I'm busy . I am following up all the leads. Not an excuse ... You know more than me.
Silly Rabbits

Manchester, NH

#50 Nov 17, 2010
Scott wrote:
"No worries, the Vermont Department of Health reports no adverse effect."
-yeah, the same state agency also says that taking vaccinations and fluoride in your drinking water are both safe and good for you. Therefore your contention that they can be trusted to tell us the truth about what's safe for us or not is hereby debunked.
Is the water fluoridated up there in Essex Junction? I joined other activists 10 years ago in helping educate Brattleboro voters to the truth prior to a town vote and becuase we did the town voted against that poison being added to the water.
We've recently seen some loon here even trying to say that radiation is good for you! So naturally some of us are more than skeptical about some of the so-called facts flying around here. Go peddle your "Govt. is Infallible and There to Look Out for Our Health" crapola somewhere else.
This kind of argument is exactly why Vermont is being laughed at by the other 49.
Silly Rabbits

Manchester, NH

#51 Nov 17, 2010
Cosmic Howdy wrote:
Oh Licensed for 40 years wasn't really true.They can be reviewed for license for 80 years !Phew ... wow! Is that suppose to raise my comfort level?.
Soooo how many Towers can fall down before they think they shouldn't be Relicensed. And "No Significiant Adverse Health Effects From Radiological Exposures"...well that doesn't really ring my comfort level bell either .. sorry.
"The Devil Is always in the Scientific Gobblygook Details"....and before I get an insult flung at me.. for being a uneducated scientific pathetic anti nuclear person.....
... A Tower falling over is a Tower Falling over in anyone's vernacular.I just seem to have a proclivity towards safety.The Devil may be in their Details...but The truth I believe is in their track record.
The Putney General Store has burned down two times in as many years. Shall we stop building stores?
LawyerCalhoun

Belmont, VT

#52 Nov 17, 2010
hhmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
I will add that I was responding to Lawyercalhoun who turned the topic to Entergy wanting the blimp shot down. I didn't interject when peaople where responding to the first posters comments. Only interjected when someone actually tried to imply that it was Entergy or their employees feeling that they should have shot the balloon down.
If you read my post carefully, you will see that nowhere do I state that Entergy or its employees advocated shooting the balloon down. The guy who opened this thread stated it would be good public policy for the Government to shoot it down.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#53 Nov 17, 2010
LawyerCalhoun wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read my post carefully, you will see that nowhere do I state that Entergy or its employees advocated shooting the balloon down. The guy who opened this thread stated it would be good public policy for the Government to shoot it down.
"Just what Entergy needs to further improve its community image. Shooting down a Greenpeace lighter than air craft near its plant."

The above statement came across to me that you were saying Entergy/employees wanted to shoot the blimp down. If that is not what you were implying then I apologize for reading more into that statement then you intended.

Since: Nov 10

Saint Joseph, MI

#54 Nov 22, 2010
Researchers McBride, Moore, Witherspoon and Blanco made the point in their article "Radiological Impact of Airborne Effluents of Coal and Nuclear Plants" in the December 8, 1978, issue of Science magazine. They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants.

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.

Yet, the global consumption of coal is increasing, mainly for combustion by utilities that lack fly ash emission controls in places such as China. To illustrate the extent of the increase, an article that is both recent (yesterday) and factual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/...

With Greenpeace' stated mission "Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants," we see that they are encouraging an increased use of coal-based power generation here and abroad.

This may not be their intent, but it is certainly the consequence.
Scott

Newton Center, MA

#55 Nov 22, 2010
Silly Rabbits wrote:
<quoted text>This kind of argument is exactly why Vermont is being laughed at by the other 49.
those 49ers won't be laughing when we seceed from the union and become a sovereign country which they'll have to have a passport to enter into. www.vtcommons.org At least those phony scums Leahy, B.S. and Welch will be out of a job and we'll have real freedom again.
REAL Vermonters have Never given a rats patootie what some G** damn flatlanders/outsiders think anyhoo ya siwwy wabbit!
Your show is canceled

Nashua, NH

#56 Nov 23, 2010
By Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan
Sunday, April 1, 2007

BURLINGTON, Vt.

The winds of secession are blowing in the Green Mountain State.

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.

A decade before the War of Independence, Vermont became New England's first frontier, settled by pioneers escaping colonial bondage who hewed settlements across a lush region whose spine is the Green Mountains. These independent folk brought with them what Henry David Thoreau called the "true American Congress" -- the New England town meeting, which is still the legislature for nearly all of Vermont's 237 towns. Here every citizen is a legislator who helps fashion the rules that govern the locality.

Today, however, Vermont no longer controls even its own National Guard, a domestic emergency force that is now employed in an imperial war 6,000 miles away. The 9/11 commission report says that "the American homeland is the planet." To defend this "homeland," the United States spends six times as much on its military as China, the next highest-spending nation, funding more than 730 military bases in more than 130 countries, abetted by more than 100 military space satellites and more than 100,000 seaborne battle-ready forces. This is the greatest military colossus ever forged.

Few heed George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against the danger of a permanent large standing army that "can be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." Or that of a later general-become-president: "We must never let the weight of [the military-industrial complex] endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Dwight D. Eisenhower pointedly included the word "congressional" after "military-industrial " but allowed his advisers to excise it. That word completes a true description of the hidden threat to democracy in the United States.

The two of us are typical of the diversity of Vermont's secessionist movement: one descended from old Vermonter stock, the other a more recent arrival -- a "flatlander" from down country. Our Vermont homeland remains economically conservative and socially liberal. And the love of freedom runs deep in its psyche.

Vermont seceded from the British Empire in 1777 and stood free for 14 years, until 1791. Its constitution -- which preceded the U.S. Constitution by more than a decade -- was the first to prohibit slavery in the New World and to guarantee universal manhood suffrage. Vermont issued its own currency, ran its own postal service, developed its own foreign relations, grew its own food, made its own roads and paid for its own militia. No other state, not even Texas, governed itself more thoroughly or longer before giving up its nationhood and joining the Union.

But the seeds of disunion have been growing since the beginning. Vermont more or less sat out the War of 1812, and its governor ordered troops fighting the British to disengage and come home. Vermont fought the Civil War primarily to end slavery; Abraham Lincoln did so primarily to save the Union. Vermont's record on the slavery issue was so strong that Georgia's legislature resolved that a ditch be dug around the "pestiferous" state and it be floated out to sea.

CONTINUED 1 2 Next >

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

Oh they are laughing my friend.
Justaperson

Claremont, NH

#57 Nov 23, 2010
research wrote:
http://www.nukebusters.org/ind ex.php/learn-more-reader/items /act-today-to-change-tomorrow. html
This link may help some of you confused as to how we will replace VT Yankee.
First off, we have known VTY will close in 2012. IT WAS DESIGNED TO SHUT DOWN IN 2012! why would we want to push something that could cause such a huge disaster. It has been showing signs of disrepair and weaknesses for years. It is time. Let it get shut down gracefully before we are all sorry and no one in a 100 mile radius can drink or eat dairy, hunt, or gather wild foods b/c it will all be radiated from an accident.To me this is much to serious a anger to take chances. Its time.
Shumlin has not only based his campaign on shutting VTY down. He will also be protecting VT from being put in debit when Entergy tries to back out of their decommissioning responsibilities leaving VT footing the bill. No one in VT will profit from this. The entire state will be in a huge debt.
He wants to build a renewable and profitable energy future. sounds great and like a smart plan for everyone.
Also, for anyone that thinks nuclear energy is carbon neutral you are seriously wrong. From the mining refining and transportation there are huge amounts of carbon being used. Also many communities suffer the health effects of the nuclear industry along the way, namely the miners. If you don't believe me, visit a uranium mine or community. Then consider yourself educated on the manner.
Also, I do not support this plant continuing operation and yet I shower, smell very nice, go to school, and have a job.
Best,
JT
Greenpeace has only been one of many groups working on this issue. Many of these groups have been against this idea since before the plant was built. These groups are composed of VTers and people that live near the reactor.(RADIATION W/O REPRESENTATION)
http://www.safeandgreencampaign.org/
www.nukebusters.org
http://www.vtcitizen.org/
www.vpirg.org
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NoNukes/petitio...
No good. Sir or madam, if you are basing your hopes on Peter Shumlin's willingness and ability to stand behind his promises I will simply quote a famous Nuclear expert...no not Mike Mulligan...Homer Simpson....DUH!
LawyerCalhoun

Chester, VT

#58 Nov 23, 2010
hhmmmmmmmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
"Just what Entergy needs to further improve its community image. Shooting down a Greenpeace lighter than air craft near its plant."
The above statement came across to me that you were saying Entergy/employees wanted to shoot the blimp down. If that is not what you were implying then I apologize for reading more into that statement then you intended.
I guess I was not clear. But if the Government shot down the balloon, it would be a public relations nightmare for Entergy as well. I am sure you would agree.
Just sayin

Dover, NH

#59 Nov 23, 2010
Well I think the Greenpeace guys have obviously not looked up their facts... turbine fire? Leaks inside the reactor?? IF there was a leak inside the reactor, then what exactly would that leak be leaking INTO?! I mean... come on, man.

I can appreciate people doing what they think is right, even if my views are different from theirs. However, it is -=NOT OK=- to make a video that is straight-up lying to the public. I have to be honest, I cannot believe that you anti-nuke guys are buying this. What the Greenpeace guy says doesn't even sound remotely correct.

Pro-nukes like me are always going to be pro-nuke. Anti-nukes are always going to be anti-nuke. But to the people who are kind of straddling the fence here... well, the guys who actually know what they're talking about are probably the ones who are correct.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vernon Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Former employee suing Mack Molding over alleged... Jan '18 Comrade Sanders 2
News Diversity dialogue to continue in Brattleboro (Aug '17) Dec '17 Comrade Sanders 6
Grout Pond National Forest Area to Become Paid ... Nov '17 Defiant1 3
News Protesters see long road ahead (Dec '14) Mar '15 BDV 14
Entergy Subsidiaries Agree to Buy Union Power S... (Dec '14) Dec '14 ManyKilled By Str... 6
News Vernon's police chief speaks out after departme... (Mar '14) Nov '14 Patty O Furniture 20
News Brattleboro officials prepare for 'Pay-As-You-T... (Aug '14) Oct '14 Jersey Sure 5

Vernon Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Vernon Mortgages