Nuclear Power Emergency Plans: Regula...

Nuclear Power Emergency Plans: Regulators Scale Back Community Readiness Efforts

There are 40 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from May 16, 2012, titled Nuclear Power Emergency Plans: Regulators Scale Back Community Readiness Efforts. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

This change, however, raises the likely severity of a panicked exodus outside the official evacuation area

Without fanfare, the nation's nuclear power regulators have overhauled community emergency planning for the first time in more than three decades, requiring fewer exercises for major accidents and recommending that fewer people be evacuated right away.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Your Ex

Madison, WI

#1 May 16, 2012
Nuclear waste experts say the Japanese are literally playing with fire in the way nuclear spent fuel continues to be stored onsite, especially in reactor 4, which contains the most irradiated fuel -- 10 times the deadly cesium-137 released during the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. These experts also charge that the NRC is letting this threat fester because acknowledging it would call into question safety at dozens of identically designed nuclear power plants around the U.S., which contain exceedingly higher volumes of spent fuel in similar elevated pools outside of reinforced containment
http://www.alternet.org/story/155283/the_wors...
koz

Brecksville, OH

#2 May 16, 2012
Each community is in control of the community's emergency planning. The community may do as much evacuation practicing as they wish. Of course, practicing evacutions has a higher probability of injury or death than the operation of a nuclear power plant. But anti-nukes don't care about actual injury or death, they only care about accomplishing their political agenda.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#3 May 16, 2012
koz wrote:
Each community is in control of the community's emergency planning. The community may do as much evacuation practicing as they wish. Of course, practicing evacutions has a higher probability of injury or death than the operation of a nuclear power plant. But anti-nukes don't care about actual injury or death, they only care about accomplishing their political agenda.
Certainly not true.

The NRC controls all aspects of emergency planning; and is able to reject local plans it disagrees with.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#4 May 16, 2012
koz wrote:
Each community is in control of the community's emergency planning. The community may do as much evacuation practicing as they wish. Of course, practicing evacutions has a higher probability of injury or death than the operation of a nuclear power plant. But anti-nukes don't care about actual injury or death, they only care about accomplishing their political agenda.
Convince me "NUKES ARE SAFE."

Tell me the name of the insurance company that offers innsurance on my home for a nuclear incedent or accident.

Convince me you are not a lying fool.
koz

Brecksville, OH

#5 May 16, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
Certainly not true.
The NRC controls all aspects of emergency planning; and is able to reject local plans it disagrees with.
You are wrong, FEMA evaluates local planning. Read the regulations some time. The change in evaluation methodology does not affect the local plans anyway, nor does the change affect whatever drills the local area wishes to carry out. You are ignorant.
koz

Brecksville, OH

#6 May 16, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
Convince me "NUKES ARE SAFE."
Tell me the name of the insurance company that offers innsurance on my home for a nuclear incedent or accident.
You already have insurance provided to you by the company that owns the plant, the nuclear industry as a whole and the federal government. Of course, if you don't think that nukes are safe, you could move. I have moved out of EP zones three times and made a profit each time. Now I live about a mile from a nuclear power plant.
BDV

East Haven, CT

#7 May 17, 2012
The 100 us$ that Japan has spent to replace its nuclear electricity with oil electricity would be enough to give EVERY man, woman, and child evacuated from Fukushima 1 million US$ for their troubles.

Neither Japan, nor anyone else, is doing "nukular" for shits and giggles.
BDV

Hatfield, MA

#8 May 17, 2012
100 billion

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#9 May 18, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> You are wrong, FEMA evaluates local planning. Read the regulations some time. The change in evaluation methodology does not affect the local plans anyway, nor does the change affect whatever drills the local area wishes to carry out. You are ignorant.
And can reject them, thereby controlling them.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#10 May 18, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> You already have insurance provided to you by the company that owns the plant, the nuclear industry as a whole and the federal government. Of course, if you don't think that nukes are safe, you could move. I have moved out of EP zones three times and made a profit each time. Now I live about a mile from a nuclear power plant.

You have the answer the answer: NUKE Plants are unsafe.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#11 May 18, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> You already have insurance provided to you by the company that owns the plant, the nuclear industry as a whole and the federal government. Of course, if you don't think that nukes are safe, you could move. I have moved out of EP zones three times and made a profit each time. Now I live about a mile from a nuclear power plant.
The "the company that owns the plant" is only on the hook for the insurance amout they have paid for, anout 1.5 cents on the dllar. Please don't lie.

There is no inssurance against a minor nuclear release event that will pay even 5 cents on the dollar.

There is NO INSURANCE that will pay even ONE CENT on the dolar iina major event.

There is no "federal insurance" just empty assumptions.
Wher would TRILLIONS suddenly appear from?

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#12 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
You have the answer the answer: NUKE Plants are unsafe.
The US Navy has 150 nuclear reactors.

Liberals should have to live in dark caves. They freeze poor people in winter and kill our businesses.

What form of energy do you support?
BDV

United States

#13 May 18, 2012
Unsafe as compared to WHAT?

Oil?
Coal?
Hydro?
Solar?
Wind?

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#14 May 18, 2012
mjjcpa wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Navy has 150 nuclear reactors.
Liberals should have to live in dark caves. They freeze poor people in winter and kill our businesses.
What form of energy do you support?
I feel safe from US Navy accidents. No so for the commercial power industry, here or in Russia, or France.
koz

Brecksville, OH

#15 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
You have the answer the answer: NUKE Plants are unsafe.
Compared to what?
koz

Brecksville, OH

#16 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
I feel safe from US Navy accidents. No so for the commercial power industry, here or in Russia, or France.
In a the realm of the physical world, the value of feelings is zero. I have been at both types of plants, I have seen no basis for your feelings.
koz

Brecksville, OH

#17 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
The "the company that owns the plant" is only on the hook for the insurance amout they have paid for, anout 1.5 cents on the dllar. Please don't lie.
There is no inssurance against a minor nuclear release event that will pay even 5 cents on the dollar.
There is NO INSURANCE that will pay even ONE CENT on the dolar iina major event.
There is no "federal insurance" just empty assumptions.
Wher would TRILLIONS suddenly appear from?
I suppose in your world, laws are empty assumptions. Your figures are completely speculative.
koz

Brecksville, OH

#18 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
And can reject them, thereby controlling them.
Your reasoning is faulty and based on false premises. Final acceptance or rejection of a plan does not control the methods used to achieve the plan nor the methods used to exercise the plan. If your reasoning were valid, then every state, federal and local government would be in control of every activity and action that anybody ever takes. That may be the liberal nirvana, but so far it is not reality. I would suggest that you read the Memorandum of Understanding between FEMA and the NRC. It is linked to the NRC website from the discussion of Emergency Planning.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#19 May 18, 2012
Mr_Bill wrote:
<quoted text> You have the answer the answer: NUKE Plants are unsafe.
koz wrote:
<quoted text> Compared to what?
Compared to ANYTHING LESS THAN A NUCLEAR DEVICE OF WAR.

“It's a Brand New Day”

Since: Feb 06

New Rochelle

#20 May 18, 2012
koz wrote:
<quoted text> Your reasoning is faulty and based on false premises. Final acceptance or rejection of a plan does not control the methods used to achieve the plan nor the methods used to exercise the plan. If your reasoning were valid, then every state, federal and local government would be in control of every activity and action that anybody ever takes. That may be the liberal nirvana, but so far it is not reality. I would suggest that you read the Memorandum of Understanding between FEMA and the NRC. It is linked to the NRC website from the discussion of Emergency Planning.
No, you are splitting hairs to father a lie; that local planners have any control of plans, or licencing or any control at all over these dangerous poison bombs in our midst.

Local authorities have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AT ALL.
Federal authorities are captives of industry, working in a revolving door environment; as you must also be.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

FEMA Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris tours damaged spillways... 13 hr SURE 3
News Obama Dozed - People Froze AKA Obama's Katrina (Feb '09) 14 hr Jaydon 2,068
News Red Springs eyes FEMA repayment - Feb 20 Johnnypearson 1
News Gatlinburg FEMA recovery center closes Friday Feb 11 Sevier Resident 2
News How to stop the U.S. flood insurance program fr... Jan 31 Phyllis Schlafly ... 1
News Deadly storm heads north after battering Southeast Jan '17 next 1
News Congress Must Re-Set Department of Homeland Sec... Jan '17 Wildchild 1
More from around the web