Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Indian Point: The Next Fukushima?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 2:57 p.m. EST by alouis (1511) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Twenty million people live within 50 miles of the Westchester County plant


"A severe accident at Indian Point, whose two reactors opened in 1974 and 1976, is a remote but real possibility. We’ve had two severe accidents with large releases of radioactivity in the past. The Chernobyl accident was dismissed in Western countries on the grounds that it was the product of Soviet sloppiness and “couldn’t happen here.” But the Fukushima accident involved reactors built to American designs.

The essential characteristic of this technology is that the reactor’s uranium fuel — about 100 tons in a typical plant — melts quickly without cooling water. The containment structures surrounding the reactors — even the formidable-looking domes at Indian Point — were not designed to hold melted fuel because safety regulators 40 years ago considered a meltdown impossible.

They were wrong, "



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (21784) 2 years ago

Great article!

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

It's not just Indian Point either. Since the Manhattan Project the US power grew from it's beginnings to the 63 we have now + plans for more and at the intersection of human technology and economic power and productivity Nature lies in wait to unleash her wrath: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/news-and-blogs/campaign-blog/new-maps-of-nuclear-power-plants-and-seismic-/blog/33826/

HomeBlogs/MediaCampaign BlogNew maps of nuclear power plants and seismic hazards in the United States

EmailShare New maps of nuclear power plants and seismic hazards in the United States Blogpost by Michelle Frey - March 18, 2011 at 13:5115 comments

This map shows areas of equal seismic hazard and indicates the minimum peak horizontal ground acceleration value, a measure of the how hard the ground shakes in a given area. 

The map also shows locations of the 63 US nuclear power plants. The data comes from the US Geological Survey Geological Hazards Team and the US Energy Information Administration. Shapefiles provided by Michael Meuser,http://www.mapcruzin.com/nuclear-power-plant-earthquake-shapefiles/ Click here to see a larger version of the seismic hazard map >>

This map shows the locations of documented earthquakes in the US since 1568 along with the 63 US nuclear power plants.

The data comes from the US Geological Survey and the US Energy Information Administration. Shapefiles provided by Michael Meuser, http://www.mapcruzin.com/nuclear-power-plant-earthquake-shapefiles/ Click here to see a larger version of the documented earthquakes map >> Take action right now and tell the President that taxpayers should not take on the risk of building new nuclear plants. Topics nuclear Tags fukushima, fukushima nuclear disaster, japan nuclear disaster, earthquake, nukes, nuclear,maps Next: Stand with the people of Japan - join us March 28thPrevious: Pig Business 15 Comments Add comment

(Unregistered) benny says: How could a government EVER allow the placement two (2) nuclear power plants smack-dab IN THE MIDDLE of the WORST EARTHQUAKE zone in the nation, California?  What was the rationalization? Sales pitch? Corruption? Anybody know? 

Posted March 18, 2011 at 19:35 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) yoface says: don't look for rationalization amigo 

they do what they want with our life and i'm sure there are a bunch of happy people zipping on mimosas on a beach far away from any danger 

it's good to be a capitalist if you have the land/crowd to exploit 

its people that don't have sustainable in their vocabulary 

it's up to the people  when we'll have enough, change will be possible  Posted March 18, 2011 at 20:14 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) soozcoast says: In the late 70's, there were many of us fighting the prospect of Diablo Canyon. We argued that California was earthquake county although we didn't know about the specific fault it sits on. ALL of us in California, especially by the coast, know that we live in earthquake country and anything can blow at any time. It couldn't be insured on it's own, so the fed agencies stepped in. The economics of operating a plant don't factor in insurance hazards since they don't have to foot the bill. 

We also argued for equal investment in alternative technologies: solar, wind, etc. Had the federal government chosen to also invest in these clean technologies, we wouldn't be so far behind today. The discussions took place but the powers that be pushed for the fat nuclear contracts. 

The Bechtels of the world stood to make a lot of money from building an expensive nuclear power plant. International construction companies profit from big government contracts. What I didn't know then, but now know, is that the powerful consortiums of large-scale construction and weapons manufacturers dictate policy. They can't make money off of small-scale manufacturing, so they will squash the competition through their surrogates in Washington, DC.  Posted March 19, 2011 at 23:15 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) Mr.Troll says: I live in California and i would prefer to live next to a nuclear power plant than to live right next one of those loud and ugly wind turbines. Posted March 20, 2011 at 4:47 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) confused!? says: This web site and also some others are stating there are only 63 US nuclear plants, this is not true there is actually 104!!! I think this website is informative, but it dosen't have the correct amount of reactors on the map!!?? Posted March 20, 2011 at 12:11 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) galenvtp says: There is no way that the sun in passage over the Pacific Ocean is going to add two protons to 131-iodine being released in Japan's failed nukes, to make it 133-Xenon reportedly detected on the west coast. Maybe the hospitals and diagnostic laboratories are releasing old 133-Xenon so that they don't have to dispose of it properly, but 131-Iodine has a gamma signature, too, that the 133-Xenon doesn't have. I suspect that this is an attempt to control the run on potassium iodine and other iodine sources to protect the thyroid against damage from radioactive iodine fallout that is exquisitely documented. 

Nuclear testing in Nevada and the fallout (Iodine-131):  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/US_fallout_exposure.png Posted March 20, 2011 at 18:08 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) MapCruzin says: Another mentioned that there are 104 not 64 nuclear reactors in the U.S. The 1999 NRC data shows 103 nuclear facilities but not all of those are reactors. Even though this data is over 10 years old it still should be accurate since no nuclear power plants have been built since the 70s in the U.S. The data also has fuel licensees, mill sites, etc. You can download the NRC spreadsheet at http://www.mapcruzin.com/nuclear-power-plant-earthquake-shapefiles/ 

Maybe the number 63 refers to the facility sites and some sites have multiple reactors. Posted March 21, 2011 at 11:59 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) MapCruzin says: About the 104 vs 63 nuclear power plants on the map. I believe this solves the problem. Looking at the data, there are 63 power plant facilities that have a total of 96 nuclear reactors. Plus there are 8 that have been decommissioned. 96 plus 8 equals 104. You can see this in the spreadsheet and shapefile that you can download for free (no commercial reseller constraints here) at:  http://www.mapcruzin.com/nuclear-power-plant-earthquake-shapefiles/ 

I'll be adding a column to the spreadsheet showing the number of reactors at each site. 

Note too that there are many more reactors at national labs, universities and the like. I'll try to get a handle on these as well. 

Mike Posted March 21, 2011 at 12:41 Flag abuse

Michelle Frey says: Thanks for all the comments! 

To follow-up on the questions about how many nuclear power plants there are in the United States. We have 63 nuclear power plants and 104 reactors. The reason that there are more reactors than plants is because some plants have more than one reactor on site. Hope this clears things up. Posted March 21, 2011 at 14:02 Flag abuse

(Unregistered) Yaroslav Bondarenko says: 3D GeoSEIS model of tectonic structure of geologic-geophysical environment of Fukushima nuclear power plant: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeisus2012/5541801626/ This created 3D GeoSEIS model has mapped volumetric structure of a strains field which is related with subduction an oceanic plate in the western and southern directions. The 3D GeoSEIS Model proves, that the nuclear station has been constructed in very adverse tectonic structure which increments destructive energy of the earthquakes and tsunami. 3D-4D GeoSEIS models should be created before construction of objects dangerous for people!  Posted March 21, 2011 at 20:52 Flag abuse NextPrevious 1 2 1 - 10 of 15 results. Post a comment  Please note: Required fields are marked with an asterisk (*).

Your name *

Screen name

If you don't want your name to be displayed, enter a screenname (max 30 characters) Your email *

info Comments *

Please type in the two words you see below. This helps prevent automated fake signatures.

What you can do:

Latest videos Breathe in, Breathe Out Video Chicken of the Sea's Tuna Recipe for Disaster Video Greenpeace Semester: Direct Action Training Video Greenpeace Semester: From the Classroom to the Real World Video Michigan State students risk arrest for clean energy Video More videos Related Blogs Living with Fukushima City's radiation problem Blog The future of nuke power: Greenpeace restarts the debate Blog Japan’s Shame Goes Up Once Again Blog Security breaches, radiation leaks, disasters; Nothing worries the... Blog Happy December 5: International Volunteers day! Blog  
Close toolbar Blog Comments

All comments on the Greenpeace blogs are moderated before they appear on the site, and this takes time. We appreciate your patience and ask that you refrain from posting the same comment repeatedly. When posting a blog comment, please be respectful and follow our policy.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I remember when I was a little boy (late 50's) my uncle, who owned a two family house had installed electric heating throughout. You see, nuclear was not only safe and clean, it was going to generate power that is too cheap to meter!

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

I wonder what the average monthly utility bill for that house might be. Now energy companies keep hiking their rates and GASP want to install SMART meters so that consumers will conserve their energy usage (while paying more)

Lookup Smart Meters Nevada Energy. Most in Nevada want the smart meters to be optional vs. mandatory and one of the reasons includes the fact that hackers can detect when people are at home or not by hacking into the smart meter!

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 2 years ago

These geniuses do things like mandate people making it public when they are not at home. And then they want to charge for it!

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

It's enough to make anybody mad enough to spit nails!