It is sad for even one excess cancer, of course. But small numbers and ambiguous results for nuclear effects are thousands of times better than what we get by burning fossil fuels to make our power. You may say that that is just silly, wind turbines gonna do it all. Please read "sustainable energy without the hot air", available on the internet. Renewables are not going to do it all I wish they could! Of our real choices, nuclear is far safer than fossil, for us and for the planet.
@mjangwin The exact words from the study results are "Thyroid cancer incidence was greater than expected in York County for all but 1 year between 1995 and 2002. Lancaster demonstrated a marked increase in thyroid cancer incidence over expected norms throughout the study period. An increase greater than 50% was noted in certain years." I'm not sure how you can construe that to be "small numbers and ambiguous results."
If you want a clear case of excess cancers and so forth from utility operations, there are many studies. However, you need to look at non-nuclear operations, specifically the Clean Air Task Force reports, a recent article by Power magazine on how coal utilities made sure that caol ash would not be classified as a hazardous waste, or even the wikipedia article on deaths from air pollution. Large numbers and clear correlations! Half a million die in the U.S. or 3.5 million worldwide.
"The industry continues to perpetuate the lie"...well, no. The studies you describe are easily available and pretty ambiguous. Two studies conclude: maybe we have extra cancers, maybe not. Small numbers, unclear causes. One study, by Wing, however, reviewed their data. Wing was writing a brief for people suing the utility, and his review concludes: "absolutely, new cancers!" Wing does have an axe to grind, of course! Unlike the others, he's doing a review to support a case.
Unfortunately, we haven't done a comprehensive study of cancer rates before & after VY began operating. And when such cases are discovered, it frequently does not receive the attention it deserves. For example, the National Institute of Health found an increase in thyroid cancer in counties around Three Mile Island greater than expected, in some years above 50% expected rates. However, most people don't know that, & the industry continues to perpetuate the lie that " no one was harmed."
@violetkitty44 Cumulative doses are a problem, but it is generally called "aging." We all encounter environmental insults of all kinds as we live, and we become less able to deal with them. The problem with focusing on radioactivity (which is easy to measure in small amounts) is that you can build a whole campaign against beta emissions, while cheerfully eat chlorinated hydrocarbons without anyone tracking them. Then you can blame the beta particles for everything!
@mjangwin Yes, there are other factors & aging does make us more likely to develop diseases. But, this is the 1st time I have ever heard someone attempt to diminish the preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that radiation exposure causes cancer by citing natural aging. The NIH study was so illumining because they control for those factors: Age, sex, contaminants, etc. The over 50% increase in thyroid cancers was an increase over what is expected after controlling for these.
@violetkitty44 You never answered my question. "Do you have a link to this data from the NIH?"
You refer to this "NIH study" extensively, but you don't provide any way for others to see it. Provide a link (or a report number and address where it can be ordered) to the NIH study.
Obfuscation and attacking what you claim I said....won't work. Changing the subject won't work. Send the link to the study.
@mjangwin I didn't answer because you can't post links on Youtube comments. It automatically deletes them. However a simple Google search should solve your problems. Try typing in "National Institute of Health Three Mile Island Thyroid Cancer." That will bring up a number of different links to the study. I apologize, I figured you had the basic ingenuity to search for a study on your own. I didn't realize you needed me to spell it out for you.
Wow. This video is packed full of lies. Do you really think by using fantasy creatures to explain fantasy that we will be deluded? Vermont Yankee has a long history of safety equipment failures, fires, collapses, leaks and lies. SHUT IT DOWN!
@otisntobielynn Wow. You called someone a liar, and used ALL CAPS for your assertions. Sorry, I am not impressed! If you did the kind of research Hargraves has done, you would know better. Vermont Yankee is a very reliable plant, with high capacity factors (look it up) and an excellent record according to its regulatory agencies (look it up on the NRC website). Or don't. The information I am referring to is not in ALL CAPS, so you won't believe it.
@mjangwin If I had done the research that Bob has done?I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by fallacies and your attempt to deride me with no factual basis. If you have looked at the record of the NRC, you would know that they have never denied an relicensing application nor have they ever shut down a nuclear reactor. Ever. They are a paper tiger. If you don't believe me, look up the record of the NRC (Davis-Besse might be a good place to start). Your argument is wholly unconvincing.
@otisntobielynn "Deride you with no factual basis"? Not worth my time. The NRC has shut down plants by requiring safety improvements that the owners felt were too expensive. Look up Maine Yankee, for example. You seem to think you know what needs to be done at power plants, better than the NRC, better than Hargraves (Ph.D. in physics), and you are concerned with being "derided" after you called Bob a liar? My heavens. I don't expect to convince you of anything! I simply tell the truth.
@mjangwin I apologize, but I am completely unimpressed by a Ph.D. who feels the need to put out videos laden with half-truths, lies, and misleading information. There are many nuclear engineers (all with Ph.D.s! Gasp!) that are extremely critical of VY. Arnie Gunderson, the internationally renowned Marvin Resnikoff, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, among many others, spring to mind.
@otisntobielynn Gundersen has never been licensed as a professional engineer. He also does not have a Ph.D. Resnikoff has a Ph.D. in physics, and is knowledgable about waste containment. He knows very little (as far as I can tell by reading him) about reactor operation or health effects. I have debated Gundersen. I'd like to take on the others. Fun!
You say that Bob has made a video full of lies, and you just repeat and repeat that Bob is a liar. Nasty playground namecalling.
@mjangwin I apologize. You're right. Arnie Gunderson doesn't have a Ph.D. He "only" a former nuclear power industry executive. And obviously you haven't read enough of Marvin. Are you also attempting to discredit the Union of Concerned scientists? I would like to see you debate them too. That WOULD be fun.
P.S. I know it's hard to hear your hubby criticized, but that's a natural result when he's spreading misleading information and lies. There's nothing childish about calling a spade a spade ;)
@otisntobielynn Umm..you haven't criticized my hubby, who has a Ph.D. in math, not physics. I am not married to Bob Hargraves. Why on earth do you think I am married to Hargraves? I consulted with him on putting the video together. I reviewed most of it and feel some level of ownership. You are being very sexist by making the assumption that we are married and THAT is why I am defending the video.
@mjangwin Oh good. From the irrational protectionism you've displayed, I thought for sure you were his wife. At least you have some reasonable explanation for your blind defensiveness: IT'S YOUR VIDEO TOO! Funny, the only person defending this garbage is its co-author.
I am un-impressed with the credentials of the people who speak for the anti-nuclear groups. I have a right to be un-impressed, from being a manager at the Electric Power Research Institute. I was paid to assess and judge projects and the scientists who led the projects. I've seen a lot of credentials, and these guys are just not stars at the top of the heap of scientists. I do not mean to insult them. The fact these men are hero-worshipped by followers doesn't change the facts.
@mjangwin Dr. Resnikoff does not represent an anti-nuclear group. He's with an independent company, & specializes in the remediation of sites contaminated by radiation and the disposal of radioactive waste. His work is also extremely well-known and respected internationally.
It's also rather convenient that dismiss all people who are critical of your position as being "not the stars." That's a fallacious argument of overgeneralization. If you want to be taken seriously, make a cogent argument.
@otisntobielynn You hero-worship the people opposed to nuclear energy, and you won't accept that they are just people, with moderate resumes. You hurl "racist" along with"liar" and you make sexist assumptions that I must be Bob's wife...I could not defend the video for my own reasons or from my own knowledge base! For the future, I do not plan to answer your posts. I don't like to deal with sexists. Learn from violetkitty44, who uses facts in her arguments.
@mjangwin I hardly think acknowledging the valid critiques of people with decades of experience and international accolades constitutes hero-worship. Also, the same accusation could be said of you and Bob. I also don't think that assuming you're personally connected to Bob is sexist. You could be male for all I know. VT does allow same-sex marriage, which is wonderful. Your defense smacks of personalization, but that's totally explained by the fact that you helped to make this.
Also, a company CHOOSING to shut down a reactor because they do not want to invest the capital to meet the abysmally low standards of the NRC is very different from the NRC actively revoking an operating license or denying a relicensing application. Again, the NRC has NEVER shut down a nuke or denied a relicensing permit. They are an ineffective agency that is in the back pocket of the nuclear industry, and they can hardly be counted upon to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
"Disgusting? Shameful?" I know that Bob Hargraves checked every fact in this video. You sure like to throw out the accusations, with no content whatsoever. Just shout "liar" and you've won? No, my dear, you have not won. In kindergarten, shouted accusations can win the argument. We're not in kindergarten any more.
@mjangwin This video asserts that the radiation from Vermont Yankee cannot cause cancer because "it's less than that in a boatload of bananas." In REALITY, there are well over 30 years of high-level spent uranium fuel rods stored onsite in a spent fuel pool designed for 7 years of waste. It is the spent fuel pools that caught on fire in the VY-identical Fukushima reactors & caused the worst nuclear catastrophe we have ever seen. No, we're not in kindergarten. Time to put away your fairy tales.
@violetkitty44 The video says that "radiation FROM Vermont Yankee is less than from a boatload of bananas." Yes, there is radiation in the core, in the spent fuel pool, and in the dry casks. Radiation is contained and controlled within Vermont Yankee. *Released* radiation is less than from bananas.The gas tank of my car contains flammable poisionous liquid, but it isn't spread around the neighborhood causing fires. The gasoline is contained, as is radiation at VY.
@mjangwin The actual statement in this video is, "I'm afraid Vermont Yankee MIGHT leak radiation and cause cancer." To this the white person replies, "Radiation from Vermont Yankee is too small to cause cancer. It's less than from a boatload of bananas." In these contexts, I don't think they are discussing the current leaks, but future ones. And if the video is only discussing the actual radioactive leaks, then this video is intentionally misleading.
@violetkitty44 That is an interesting statement. I believe the focus of the video was the tritium hoo-hah. I am sorry if you see this as misleading, but it was not meant to be. i can see why you might think that, however. Still, in many many years of operation, radiation releases have been controlled at Vermont Yankee and all American power plants. Are you also afraid of leaks from other industrial facilities? Should all non-leaking facilities be shut down, just in case?
@mjangwin "Hoo-hah?!" Haven't heard someone use that term in decades! LOL. Cesium-137 was discovered in the ground at VY, an extremely dangerous radionuculide. Strontium-90 was found in our fish. Now, I know you're going to say it's from bomb testing. However, we never made certain of that. If you don't LOOK for evidence, you don't find it. VY emitted Strontium-90 in 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2010. When it comes to radiation, "I think so" isn't good enough. What we do know speaks for itself.
@violetkitty44 We never made certain of that, because people are still testing more fish. We don't know. And "what we don't know" does not equal "what we do know speaks for itself." That was a neat trick, though, going from We don't know..to "therefore we know" without a pause. Gotta hand it to you. You would be tough to debate, being able to do non-sequiturs so easily.
@mjangwin What we do know is that strontium-90, a radionuculide that causes brain and bone cancer, was found in the fish. We do know from VY's own emissions reports filed with the NRC that VY emitted Strontium-90 in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2010. The Dept of Health did not conduct further testing (though other research has been able to ascertain the source of other radionuculides through finding isotropically significant markers). However, VY emitted Strontium-90. Period.
@violetkitty44 Period? Do you mean...and "VY strontium is in the fish?" Are you claiming that the minor amounts of strontium they released made it into the river and contaminated the fish? A favorite debating technique (and you are very good) is absolutism: this leaked, and the amount or timing or if it hurt anything...doesn't matter. "It leaked. Period." There is no reason to believe VY strontiium is in the fish. But all such analysis is eradicated by the word "Period."
@mjangwin To clarify, whether or not VY is the source of the Strontium-90 that is in the fish, this old reactor DID emit an extremely dangerous radionuculide and potentially exposed the public to this brain and bone caner causing radioactive isotope. This also, btw, is not "less than a boatload of bananas. Yet another way that this vid is misleading. Whether or not it "hurt anything" will take decades to discover since cancers caused by radiation exposure take many years to manifest.
@violetkitty44 The question of whether it hurt anything can actually be resolved by understanding of whether the amount was large or small. As people get older, the chances of cancer increase, and ascribing the "cause" to any cancer is impossible to determine, except in some cases (many lung cancers come from smoking). However, a huge release would lead to increased rates. You are de facto asserting that enough Sr was released to make a difference in cancer rates. That is simply not true.
@mjangwin Yes, the cause of any cancer is difficult to determine, which is why so many companies do get away with murder. Yes, we can look at an individual event and determine what the affects are likely to be, but what of the cumulative effects? What of the constant emissions of radionuculides from the stack and years of low-dose exposure? What of the total effects from multiple releases in multiple years, combined with the tritium, combine with the cesium and others?
@violetkitty44 I agree that it would be much better if they hadn't released any Sr. On the other hand, in an optimum world, no gasoline would drip from the hose as I am putting the hose away/ In other words, the amount of carcinogen released in a situation does count, no matter how often the word "cancer" is used. (Gasoline is also a carcinogen.) Just saying" they released it and therefore it will cause cancer"....doesn't work. Excpet maybe with people who don't pump their own gasoline.
@violetkitty44 Do you think that we should get rid of all dangerous substances? Gasoline, laundry bleach, chemicals that make the motherboard on your computer? An odd belief. We use dangerous substances, and we control them as they do at VY. What about the tritium leak? Well, the entire tritium leak at VY was less tritium than an ordinary exit sign, and exit signs can be shipped through the mail because they are not particularly dangerous if they break. Radiation is controlled at VY.
@mjangwin On a side note, this video is incredibly RACIST. Why is the "Vermonter" who is "ignorant" with "irrational" fears black and the "rational" person white? Disgusting video all around.
@violetkitty44 Bob chose stock cartoon characters from a video service for his message. He chose a female cartoon character to be the "rational" one and the male character to be the "worried, skittish one." He did this very deliberately. I had noticed their gender (it is pretty clear) but I didn't see the two teddy bears as a black and white person. I am surprised this jumped out at you. There are tons of cartoons with those two characters. Any racism is in the "eye of the beholder."
@mjangwin Actually racism is NOT in the "eye of the beholder." It is a very real and pervasive social problem. The fact that this video avoided being sexist does not negate the fact that there is a very real racist dynamic here. Images like this are horribly damaging to our youth and our social dynamic. And just fyi, any childhood psychologist will tell you that young people do identify with cartoon characters, and images like these can be very destructive. This video is racist. Period.
@violetkitty44 You apparently think it is racist. I do not think so. Perhaps you should write the video service that provides these characters and complain. Also, please write similar comments on all other cartoons with these two characters, to show you are not just saying "racist" because it is an anti-nuclear cartoon, but are honestly concerned with perceived cartoon racism.
@mjangwin I agree with violetkitty44. I've seen a lot of these videos. You can pick the characters in it. Bob chose black and white and assigned them certain characteristics that are racist.
This video is one of the worst and most misleading pieces of pro-nuke propaganda I have ever seen. I think it's almost amusing that RobertHargraves asserts that the information is correct. Of course one would say that about a scamming propaganda video that THEY made! It's but a cheap cover for the nuke industry to spread lies and mislead the public about the real issues with nuclear energy. Disgusting and shameful!
All statements in this video are correct. Fukushima proved that Vermont Yankee could withstand a magnitude 8.9 earthquake, but not necessarily a simultaneous tsunami that flooded backup diesel generators. The Connecticut River is not a fault line. We did learn from TMI; all plants proposed for construction in the US have cooling systems that do not depend on auxiliary power.
@RobertHargraves . (1) On the one hand, I found this to ba a very balanced and informative discussion regarding the thermodynamic realities confronting the human race. (2) But, on the other hand, I am also certain that this piece was written with the conclusion that Yankee/Nuclear Power must be used in the near and distant future. (3) I would gaurd against entering into logical and emprical argumentation when preconcieved notions are not thoroughly examined. To be continued ...
@RobertHargraves . (4) My particular opinion on the subject is as follows (and, to be sure, there are no garauntees regarding my own philosophical, empirical, or logical predilections). Thomas Malthus was, essentially, correct. The human animal can expand his/her numbers in exconential fashion and, furthermore he/she has a tendency to do so. Furthermore, his/her utilization of resources tends to increase in a arithmetic fashion, with the possible exception of things like the ..
@RobertHargraves . (4 continued) ... Industrial Revolution (England, and, more generally, "The West") and the Green Revolution (China, and more generally, "The East"). Now, what has all this got to do with Vermont Yankee and the vagueries of the modern day electrical grid of northern New England? Quite a bit, when you stop to think about it. Are you aware that Fukushima is still "melting down"? Just the other day there was story about increased heat in one of the reactors...
@RobertHargraves . (4 continued) ... and just pouring water into it did not cool it down again. Dangerous and nasty stuff! Now, I am sensitive to the balancing of REAL thermodynamic equations in the REAL world, using REAL science, but I have--in my day--seen enough politically motivated lies masquerading as scientific truth to know it when I see it. This doesn't excuse the "green brainwash", but I don't invite a "nuclear brainwash" either. In summation, monkeys use fire.
@RobertHargraves (4 continued)... Yes, I am being glib. Monkeys use fire, and they will continue to do so. When the use of fire is no longer worth the trouble, they will stop. As for what particular decisions must be made, either among politicians or businessmen, it is almost inconsequential. History will unfold; there will be "winners" and "losers", and the mass of the people, inbetween, will suffer or thrive accordingly. I just hope there will not be a population crash too!
I do not know how many people were fired. I didn't mean to imply that the event was no big deal. Even when you have multiple layers of accident defense, losing one increases the risk of some other failure. It really is hard to imagine the management issues that let the erosion continue for years. Nuclear engineers spend lots of time computing probabilities of failures from cascades of failure events and design accordingly.
Robert, your comment detail about a seven second-half life seems to suggest that the second-worst commercial reactor power event in the US was really no big deal. It also suggests that you do know at least something about the history of Davis Besse. One of the details that you could've mentioned was the number of people who were fired from their job because of the "event." Do you know that number?
Next to TMI, Davis Besse was the worst commercial reactor power event in the US. If that corroded pressure vessel had burst at the erosion, radioactive steam would have been released into the containment building. That's the same sort of steam used in a typical boiling water reactor generator room. It contains N-16, with a 7 second half life. The effluent would all be in the containment building, anyhow.
"Nuclear power plants rarely have issues in the United States because of the very high standards the NRC has for inspection and maintenance. "
Tell that to the folks in Toledo! Read a detailed history of the Davis Besse plant in Ohio. See how well the NRC lived up to its "high standards" and what's happening there today. This comment is offered respectfully and responses are welcome. Perhaps we could begin a long discussion about the many "issues" at nuclear power plants in the US.
Vermont Yankee is a "Mark I” boiling water reactor. A 1985 NRC report analyzing the containment system concluded that “the Mark I failure within the first few hours following a core melt would appear rather likely.” In 1986 Harold Denton, the NRC’s top safety official, told an industry trade group that the Mark I had “something like a 90% probability of containment failure,” in the event of such an accident. Mark I's are nolonger built.
"The NRC has the skilled people, the regulations, the funding, the experience and the responsibility to keep us safe."
The same could be said for the SEC and the Federal Reserve. Yet they failed to prevent the meltdown of the US economy. The same could also be said for the Minerals Management Service. Yet they failed to prevent the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
Oil rigs have a history of blowing out. Economies often have periods of recession. Nuclear power plants rarely have issues in the United States because of the very high standards the NRC has for inspection and maintenance.
It's scary that there are those who would shut down Vermont Yankee which is a model of human development is the crucial area of energy. There may come a day when energy for a home or factory can be generated from the sun shinning on a panel the size of a postage stamp. I welcome that day. Meanwhile let's take advantage of the genius of nuclear energy to keep Vermont productive and comfortable as well as green.
It is sad for even one excess cancer, of course. But small numbers and ambiguous results for nuclear effects are thousands of times better than what we get by burning fossil fuels to make our power. You may say that that is just silly, wind turbines gonna do it all. Please read "sustainable energy without the hot air", available on the internet. Renewables are not going to do it all I wish they could! Of our real choices, nuclear is far safer than fossil, for us and for the planet.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin The exact words from the study results are "Thyroid cancer incidence was greater than expected in York County for all but 1 year between 1995 and 2002. Lancaster demonstrated a marked increase in thyroid cancer incidence over expected norms throughout the study period. An increase greater than 50% was noted in certain years." I'm not sure how you can construe that to be "small numbers and ambiguous results."
violetkitty44 4 months ago
If you want a clear case of excess cancers and so forth from utility operations, there are many studies. However, you need to look at non-nuclear operations, specifically the Clean Air Task Force reports, a recent article by Power magazine on how coal utilities made sure that caol ash would not be classified as a hazardous waste, or even the wikipedia article on deaths from air pollution. Large numbers and clear correlations! Half a million die in the U.S. or 3.5 million worldwide.
mjangwin 4 months ago
"The industry continues to perpetuate the lie"...well, no. The studies you describe are easily available and pretty ambiguous. Two studies conclude: maybe we have extra cancers, maybe not. Small numbers, unclear causes. One study, by Wing, however, reviewed their data. Wing was writing a brief for people suing the utility, and his review concludes: "absolutely, new cancers!" Wing does have an axe to grind, of course! Unlike the others, he's doing a review to support a case.
mjangwin 4 months ago
Unfortunately, we haven't done a comprehensive study of cancer rates before & after VY began operating. And when such cases are discovered, it frequently does not receive the attention it deserves. For example, the National Institute of Health found an increase in thyroid cancer in counties around Three Mile Island greater than expected, in some years above 50% expected rates. However, most people don't know that, & the industry continues to perpetuate the lie that " no one was harmed."
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 Cumulative doses are a problem, but it is generally called "aging." We all encounter environmental insults of all kinds as we live, and we become less able to deal with them. The problem with focusing on radioactivity (which is easy to measure in small amounts) is that you can build a whole campaign against beta emissions, while cheerfully eat chlorinated hydrocarbons without anyone tracking them. Then you can blame the beta particles for everything!
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin Yes, there are other factors & aging does make us more likely to develop diseases. But, this is the 1st time I have ever heard someone attempt to diminish the preponderance of evidence that demonstrates that radiation exposure causes cancer by citing natural aging. The NIH study was so illumining because they control for those factors: Age, sex, contaminants, etc. The over 50% increase in thyroid cancers was an increase over what is expected after controlling for these.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 You never answered my question. "Do you have a link to this data from the NIH?"
You refer to this "NIH study" extensively, but you don't provide any way for others to see it. Provide a link (or a report number and address where it can be ordered) to the NIH study.
Obfuscation and attacking what you claim I said....won't work. Changing the subject won't work. Send the link to the study.
mjangwin 4 months ago
Comment removed
violetkitty44 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mjangwin I didn't answer because you can't post links on Youtube comments. It automatically deletes them. However a simple Google search should solve your problems. Try typing in "National Institute of Health Three Mile Island Thyroid Cancer." That will bring up a number of different links to the study. I apologize, I figured you had the basic ingenuity to search for a study on your own. I didn't realize you needed me to spell it out for you.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
Do you have a link to this data from the NIH?
mjangwin 4 months ago
Wow. This video is packed full of lies. Do you really think by using fantasy creatures to explain fantasy that we will be deluded? Vermont Yankee has a long history of safety equipment failures, fires, collapses, leaks and lies. SHUT IT DOWN!
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@otisntobielynn Wow. You called someone a liar, and used ALL CAPS for your assertions. Sorry, I am not impressed! If you did the kind of research Hargraves has done, you would know better. Vermont Yankee is a very reliable plant, with high capacity factors (look it up) and an excellent record according to its regulatory agencies (look it up on the NRC website). Or don't. The information I am referring to is not in ALL CAPS, so you won't believe it.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin If I had done the research that Bob has done?I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed by fallacies and your attempt to deride me with no factual basis. If you have looked at the record of the NRC, you would know that they have never denied an relicensing application nor have they ever shut down a nuclear reactor. Ever. They are a paper tiger. If you don't believe me, look up the record of the NRC (Davis-Besse might be a good place to start). Your argument is wholly unconvincing.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@otisntobielynn "Deride you with no factual basis"? Not worth my time. The NRC has shut down plants by requiring safety improvements that the owners felt were too expensive. Look up Maine Yankee, for example. You seem to think you know what needs to be done at power plants, better than the NRC, better than Hargraves (Ph.D. in physics), and you are concerned with being "derided" after you called Bob a liar? My heavens. I don't expect to convince you of anything! I simply tell the truth.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin I apologize, but I am completely unimpressed by a Ph.D. who feels the need to put out videos laden with half-truths, lies, and misleading information. There are many nuclear engineers (all with Ph.D.s! Gasp!) that are extremely critical of VY. Arnie Gunderson, the internationally renowned Marvin Resnikoff, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, among many others, spring to mind.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@otisntobielynn Gundersen has never been licensed as a professional engineer. He also does not have a Ph.D. Resnikoff has a Ph.D. in physics, and is knowledgable about waste containment. He knows very little (as far as I can tell by reading him) about reactor operation or health effects. I have debated Gundersen. I'd like to take on the others. Fun!
You say that Bob has made a video full of lies, and you just repeat and repeat that Bob is a liar. Nasty playground namecalling.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin I apologize. You're right. Arnie Gunderson doesn't have a Ph.D. He "only" a former nuclear power industry executive. And obviously you haven't read enough of Marvin. Are you also attempting to discredit the Union of Concerned scientists? I would like to see you debate them too. That WOULD be fun.
P.S. I know it's hard to hear your hubby criticized, but that's a natural result when he's spreading misleading information and lies. There's nothing childish about calling a spade a spade ;)
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@otisntobielynn Umm..you haven't criticized my hubby, who has a Ph.D. in math, not physics. I am not married to Bob Hargraves. Why on earth do you think I am married to Hargraves? I consulted with him on putting the video together. I reviewed most of it and feel some level of ownership. You are being very sexist by making the assumption that we are married and THAT is why I am defending the video.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin Oh good. From the irrational protectionism you've displayed, I thought for sure you were his wife. At least you have some reasonable explanation for your blind defensiveness: IT'S YOUR VIDEO TOO! Funny, the only person defending this garbage is its co-author.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
I am un-impressed with the credentials of the people who speak for the anti-nuclear groups. I have a right to be un-impressed, from being a manager at the Electric Power Research Institute. I was paid to assess and judge projects and the scientists who led the projects. I've seen a lot of credentials, and these guys are just not stars at the top of the heap of scientists. I do not mean to insult them. The fact these men are hero-worshipped by followers doesn't change the facts.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin Dr. Resnikoff does not represent an anti-nuclear group. He's with an independent company, & specializes in the remediation of sites contaminated by radiation and the disposal of radioactive waste. His work is also extremely well-known and respected internationally.
It's also rather convenient that dismiss all people who are critical of your position as being "not the stars." That's a fallacious argument of overgeneralization. If you want to be taken seriously, make a cogent argument.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@otisntobielynn You hero-worship the people opposed to nuclear energy, and you won't accept that they are just people, with moderate resumes. You hurl "racist" along with"liar" and you make sexist assumptions that I must be Bob's wife...I could not defend the video for my own reasons or from my own knowledge base! For the future, I do not plan to answer your posts. I don't like to deal with sexists. Learn from violetkitty44, who uses facts in her arguments.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin I hardly think acknowledging the valid critiques of people with decades of experience and international accolades constitutes hero-worship. Also, the same accusation could be said of you and Bob. I also don't think that assuming you're personally connected to Bob is sexist. You could be male for all I know. VT does allow same-sex marriage, which is wonderful. Your defense smacks of personalization, but that's totally explained by the fact that you helped to make this.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
Also, a company CHOOSING to shut down a reactor because they do not want to invest the capital to meet the abysmally low standards of the NRC is very different from the NRC actively revoking an operating license or denying a relicensing application. Again, the NRC has NEVER shut down a nuke or denied a relicensing permit. They are an ineffective agency that is in the back pocket of the nuclear industry, and they can hardly be counted upon to protect the health and safety of our citizens.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
"Disgusting? Shameful?" I know that Bob Hargraves checked every fact in this video. You sure like to throw out the accusations, with no content whatsoever. Just shout "liar" and you've won? No, my dear, you have not won. In kindergarten, shouted accusations can win the argument. We're not in kindergarten any more.
mjangwin 5 months ago
@mjangwin This video asserts that the radiation from Vermont Yankee cannot cause cancer because "it's less than that in a boatload of bananas." In REALITY, there are well over 30 years of high-level spent uranium fuel rods stored onsite in a spent fuel pool designed for 7 years of waste. It is the spent fuel pools that caught on fire in the VY-identical Fukushima reactors & caused the worst nuclear catastrophe we have ever seen. No, we're not in kindergarten. Time to put away your fairy tales.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 The video says that "radiation FROM Vermont Yankee is less than from a boatload of bananas." Yes, there is radiation in the core, in the spent fuel pool, and in the dry casks. Radiation is contained and controlled within Vermont Yankee. *Released* radiation is less than from bananas.The gas tank of my car contains flammable poisionous liquid, but it isn't spread around the neighborhood causing fires. The gasoline is contained, as is radiation at VY.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin The actual statement in this video is, "I'm afraid Vermont Yankee MIGHT leak radiation and cause cancer." To this the white person replies, "Radiation from Vermont Yankee is too small to cause cancer. It's less than from a boatload of bananas." In these contexts, I don't think they are discussing the current leaks, but future ones. And if the video is only discussing the actual radioactive leaks, then this video is intentionally misleading.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 That is an interesting statement. I believe the focus of the video was the tritium hoo-hah. I am sorry if you see this as misleading, but it was not meant to be. i can see why you might think that, however. Still, in many many years of operation, radiation releases have been controlled at Vermont Yankee and all American power plants. Are you also afraid of leaks from other industrial facilities? Should all non-leaking facilities be shut down, just in case?
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin "Hoo-hah?!" Haven't heard someone use that term in decades! LOL. Cesium-137 was discovered in the ground at VY, an extremely dangerous radionuculide. Strontium-90 was found in our fish. Now, I know you're going to say it's from bomb testing. However, we never made certain of that. If you don't LOOK for evidence, you don't find it. VY emitted Strontium-90 in 2003, 2004, 2005, & 2010. When it comes to radiation, "I think so" isn't good enough. What we do know speaks for itself.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 We never made certain of that, because people are still testing more fish. We don't know. And "what we don't know" does not equal "what we do know speaks for itself." That was a neat trick, though, going from We don't know..to "therefore we know" without a pause. Gotta hand it to you. You would be tough to debate, being able to do non-sequiturs so easily.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin What we do know is that strontium-90, a radionuculide that causes brain and bone cancer, was found in the fish. We do know from VY's own emissions reports filed with the NRC that VY emitted Strontium-90 in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2010. The Dept of Health did not conduct further testing (though other research has been able to ascertain the source of other radionuculides through finding isotropically significant markers). However, VY emitted Strontium-90. Period.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 Period? Do you mean...and "VY strontium is in the fish?" Are you claiming that the minor amounts of strontium they released made it into the river and contaminated the fish? A favorite debating technique (and you are very good) is absolutism: this leaked, and the amount or timing or if it hurt anything...doesn't matter. "It leaked. Period." There is no reason to believe VY strontiium is in the fish. But all such analysis is eradicated by the word "Period."
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin To clarify, whether or not VY is the source of the Strontium-90 that is in the fish, this old reactor DID emit an extremely dangerous radionuculide and potentially exposed the public to this brain and bone caner causing radioactive isotope. This also, btw, is not "less than a boatload of bananas. Yet another way that this vid is misleading. Whether or not it "hurt anything" will take decades to discover since cancers caused by radiation exposure take many years to manifest.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 The question of whether it hurt anything can actually be resolved by understanding of whether the amount was large or small. As people get older, the chances of cancer increase, and ascribing the "cause" to any cancer is impossible to determine, except in some cases (many lung cancers come from smoking). However, a huge release would lead to increased rates. You are de facto asserting that enough Sr was released to make a difference in cancer rates. That is simply not true.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin Yes, the cause of any cancer is difficult to determine, which is why so many companies do get away with murder. Yes, we can look at an individual event and determine what the affects are likely to be, but what of the cumulative effects? What of the constant emissions of radionuculides from the stack and years of low-dose exposure? What of the total effects from multiple releases in multiple years, combined with the tritium, combine with the cesium and others?
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 I agree that it would be much better if they hadn't released any Sr. On the other hand, in an optimum world, no gasoline would drip from the hose as I am putting the hose away/ In other words, the amount of carcinogen released in a situation does count, no matter how often the word "cancer" is used. (Gasoline is also a carcinogen.) Just saying" they released it and therefore it will cause cancer"....doesn't work. Excpet maybe with people who don't pump their own gasoline.
mjangwin 4 months ago
Comment removed
violetkitty44 4 months ago
Comment removed
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 Do you think that we should get rid of all dangerous substances? Gasoline, laundry bleach, chemicals that make the motherboard on your computer? An odd belief. We use dangerous substances, and we control them as they do at VY. What about the tritium leak? Well, the entire tritium leak at VY was less tritium than an ordinary exit sign, and exit signs can be shipped through the mail because they are not particularly dangerous if they break. Radiation is controlled at VY.
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin On a side note, this video is incredibly RACIST. Why is the "Vermonter" who is "ignorant" with "irrational" fears black and the "rational" person white? Disgusting video all around.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 Bob chose stock cartoon characters from a video service for his message. He chose a female cartoon character to be the "rational" one and the male character to be the "worried, skittish one." He did this very deliberately. I had noticed their gender (it is pretty clear) but I didn't see the two teddy bears as a black and white person. I am surprised this jumped out at you. There are tons of cartoons with those two characters. Any racism is in the "eye of the beholder."
mjangwin 4 months ago
@mjangwin Actually racism is NOT in the "eye of the beholder." It is a very real and pervasive social problem. The fact that this video avoided being sexist does not negate the fact that there is a very real racist dynamic here. Images like this are horribly damaging to our youth and our social dynamic. And just fyi, any childhood psychologist will tell you that young people do identify with cartoon characters, and images like these can be very destructive. This video is racist. Period.
violetkitty44 4 months ago
@violetkitty44 You apparently think it is racist. I do not think so. Perhaps you should write the video service that provides these characters and complain. Also, please write similar comments on all other cartoons with these two characters, to show you are not just saying "racist" because it is an anti-nuclear cartoon, but are honestly concerned with perceived cartoon racism.
mjangwin 4 months ago
Comment removed
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
@mjangwin I agree with violetkitty44. I've seen a lot of these videos. You can pick the characters in it. Bob chose black and white and assigned them certain characteristics that are racist.
otisntobielynn 4 months ago
This video is one of the worst and most misleading pieces of pro-nuke propaganda I have ever seen. I think it's almost amusing that RobertHargraves asserts that the information is correct. Of course one would say that about a scamming propaganda video that THEY made! It's but a cheap cover for the nuke industry to spread lies and mislead the public about the real issues with nuclear energy. Disgusting and shameful!
violetkitty44 5 months ago
All statements in this video are correct. Fukushima proved that Vermont Yankee could withstand a magnitude 8.9 earthquake, but not necessarily a simultaneous tsunami that flooded backup diesel generators. The Connecticut River is not a fault line. We did learn from TMI; all plants proposed for construction in the US have cooling systems that do not depend on auxiliary power.
RobertHargraves 1 year ago
@RobertHargraves . (1) On the one hand, I found this to ba a very balanced and informative discussion regarding the thermodynamic realities confronting the human race. (2) But, on the other hand, I am also certain that this piece was written with the conclusion that Yankee/Nuclear Power must be used in the near and distant future. (3) I would gaurd against entering into logical and emprical argumentation when preconcieved notions are not thoroughly examined. To be continued ...
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
@RobertHargraves . (4) My particular opinion on the subject is as follows (and, to be sure, there are no garauntees regarding my own philosophical, empirical, or logical predilections). Thomas Malthus was, essentially, correct. The human animal can expand his/her numbers in exconential fashion and, furthermore he/she has a tendency to do so. Furthermore, his/her utilization of resources tends to increase in a arithmetic fashion, with the possible exception of things like the ..
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
@RobertHargraves . (4 continued) ... Industrial Revolution (England, and, more generally, "The West") and the Green Revolution (China, and more generally, "The East"). Now, what has all this got to do with Vermont Yankee and the vagueries of the modern day electrical grid of northern New England? Quite a bit, when you stop to think about it. Are you aware that Fukushima is still "melting down"? Just the other day there was story about increased heat in one of the reactors...
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
@RobertHargraves . (4 continued) ... and just pouring water into it did not cool it down again. Dangerous and nasty stuff! Now, I am sensitive to the balancing of REAL thermodynamic equations in the REAL world, using REAL science, but I have--in my day--seen enough politically motivated lies masquerading as scientific truth to know it when I see it. This doesn't excuse the "green brainwash", but I don't invite a "nuclear brainwash" either. In summation, monkeys use fire.
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
@RobertHargraves (4 continued)... Yes, I am being glib. Monkeys use fire, and they will continue to do so. When the use of fire is no longer worth the trouble, they will stop. As for what particular decisions must be made, either among politicians or businessmen, it is almost inconsequential. History will unfold; there will be "winners" and "losers", and the mass of the people, inbetween, will suffer or thrive accordingly. I just hope there will not be a population crash too!
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
@RobertHargraves P.S. typo "exconential" should read "exponential". Several other typos, but I think you can deal with it!
dranonymous2000 3 weeks ago
Lies, half truths, obfuscations, deliberate ignorance. VY is the same kind of plant as Fukushima. It sits on a fault line - the Connecticut River.
VermontEnergy 1 year ago 2
We don't need oil, coal or nuclear. We need disclosure!
LuMagazine 1 year ago
I do not know how many people were fired. I didn't mean to imply that the event was no big deal. Even when you have multiple layers of accident defense, losing one increases the risk of some other failure. It really is hard to imagine the management issues that let the erosion continue for years. Nuclear engineers spend lots of time computing probabilities of failures from cascades of failure events and design accordingly.
RobertHargraves 1 year ago
Robert, your comment detail about a seven second-half life seems to suggest that the second-worst commercial reactor power event in the US was really no big deal. It also suggests that you do know at least something about the history of Davis Besse. One of the details that you could've mentioned was the number of people who were fired from their job because of the "event." Do you know that number?
peterblose1 1 year ago
Next to TMI, Davis Besse was the worst commercial reactor power event in the US. If that corroded pressure vessel had burst at the erosion, radioactive steam would have been released into the containment building. That's the same sort of steam used in a typical boiling water reactor generator room. It contains N-16, with a 7 second half life. The effluent would all be in the containment building, anyhow.
RobertHargraves 1 year ago
"Nuclear power plants rarely have issues in the United States because of the very high standards the NRC has for inspection and maintenance. "
Tell that to the folks in Toledo! Read a detailed history of the Davis Besse plant in Ohio. See how well the NRC lived up to its "high standards" and what's happening there today. This comment is offered respectfully and responses are welcome. Perhaps we could begin a long discussion about the many "issues" at nuclear power plants in the US.
peterblose1 1 year ago
"All US reactors have containment buildings"
Vermont Yankee is a "Mark I” boiling water reactor. A 1985 NRC report analyzing the containment system concluded that “the Mark I failure within the first few hours following a core melt would appear rather likely.” In 1986 Harold Denton, the NRC’s top safety official, told an industry trade group that the Mark I had “something like a 90% probability of containment failure,” in the event of such an accident. Mark I's are nolonger built.
peterblose1 1 year ago
"The NRC has the skilled people, the regulations, the funding, the experience and the responsibility to keep us safe."
The same could be said for the SEC and the Federal Reserve. Yet they failed to prevent the meltdown of the US economy. The same could also be said for the Minerals Management Service. Yet they failed to prevent the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
peterblose1 1 year ago
@peterblose1
Oil rigs have a history of blowing out. Economies often have periods of recession. Nuclear power plants rarely have issues in the United States because of the very high standards the NRC has for inspection and maintenance.
KeKster 1 year ago
Good video! Vermont really jumped the gun when they voted to shut down Vermont Yankee.
KeKster 1 year ago
It's scary that there are those who would shut down Vermont Yankee which is a model of human development is the crucial area of energy. There may come a day when energy for a home or factory can be generated from the sun shinning on a panel the size of a postage stamp. I welcome that day. Meanwhile let's take advantage of the genius of nuclear energy to keep Vermont productive and comfortable as well as green.
NormanVermont 1 year ago
Vermonters are weird looking. But at least they are willing to have a substantive conversation.
.
thinkpolicy 1 year ago