AP - MONTPELIER, Vt. - Two pieces of a highly radioactive fuel rod are missing from a Vermont nuclear plant, and engineers planned to search onsite for the nuclear material, officials said Wednesday. The fuel rod was removed in 1979 from the Vermont Yankee reactor, which is currently shut down for refueling and maintenance. Remote-control cameras will be used to search a spent fuel pool on the property, officials said. "We do not think there is a threat to the public at this point. The great probability is this material is still somewhere in the pool," said Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan. But Sheehan said it was possible the spent fuel was mixed in with a shipment of low-level nuclear waste and ended up at a repository in South Carolina, or a facility in Washington state. He said it was also possible it was taken to a nuclear testing facility run by General Electric, which designed the plant. The material would be fatal to anyone who came in contact with it without being properly shielded, Sheehan said. Spent nuclear fuel also could be used by terrorists to construct so-called dirty bombs that would spread deadly radiation with conventional explosives... Why doesn't someone go on to tell me why, in the large scheme of things, this is covered by BushCo.'s plans...and that I shouldn't be worried; and then, after you do that, go ******** off.
lolol---I used to live in Putney, about 10 miles north of Brattleboro, which is home to this powerplant (despite Montpelier dateline). Windham county, at least certain parts of it, is a very politically liberal place, full of artists, professors, and wannabes thereof. But yet in my four years of living there, I never heard anybody complain, even though VY was likely an unnecessary fixture of our local economy. Odd to hear things going wrong now. Via BigSoccer. I'd love to see what the Brattleboro Reformer editorial contributors are saying. lol
Mel, I agree this is obviously a problem, but why is ths Bush's direct fault? I can see criticism of Iraq, etc, but constantly pointing the finger for every possible problem at someone who can only be in one place at one time is stupid.. The idea that one man can effectivley manage a group (in this case homeland security) and have THEM train EVERYONE to perfection is impossible.. If a CEO runs a large fortune 500 company, and somewhere in east bumm-Fack Idaho, a sales rep is caught giving BJ's to clients in exchange for business contracts, it isnt the CEO's direct fault. It is out of his hands. IF IT BECOMES A PATTERN, then blame has to fall on his shoulders for not doing anything to curb it...
Problem here is, if missing nuclear or radioactive material becomes a pattern, its, uh, too late. That's why this is Bush's direct fault. Instead of having reservists losing their lives for the invasion of a nation that did not attack us, they should be guarding and monitoring nuclear facilities. This should not have been ABLE to happen; that it did is directly a result of Bush's policies, or lack thereof. See, maybe it's me, but on 9/12, every nuclear facility in America should have been secured, or, at a minimum, a plan for doing so should have been begun; instead, as O'Neill, and Clarke, and now Woodward are telling us, Iraq seemed to be on the table 9/12, not meaningful and effective securing of vital American infrastructure. And remember, this is the missing radioactive material we know about. Who else has done a Homer Simpson that we have yet to hear about? What's the procedure for accountability of nuclear and/or radioactive material? Where's Tom Ridge? WTF is going on?
Jebus, you've come unglued. This has f-all to do with Bush. You want reservists guarding and monitoring nuke facilities? Doing what, exactly? Looking at the sky for airplanes? This is most likely some inventory management f-up. The NRC has procedures in place for this, and likely did long before 9/11.
let me get this straight,youre blaming Bush for a 25 year old mishap that happened under a Democrats watch?
Mel, I agree 100% about a plan to secure Nuclear plants, etc. I just dont think it IS ALWAYS BUSH'S fault, if an incident does happen.) All you can do is look and see if the proper plans were put into place. I also think that recreational aircraft should be limited/monitored like a hawk as well as courier aircraft (UPS/FED-EX, etc.) The fact is that aytime Bush/Ridge and co. try to make changes, people fly off the handle and the sky comes falling in. "Why does Bush hate our freedoms," blah, blah, blah... My point is simply blaming BUSH for all that is wrong in the world weakens peoples arguements..
To be fair, it's not clear that the rods went missing in 1979. It just says it was removed from the reactor then. Spent fuel rods are usually kept on site, until a facility is built to handle them (Yucca Mountain).
(1) If there's no plan currently securing civilian/recreational air traffic, Bush is a fool. (2) There's all kinds of ways to do that without a PATRIOT Act, and without curtailing anyone's freedoms. It DOES, however, require investment into the human resources end of the Fatherland Defense Dept., and that means less money spun off to George's energy and weapons buddies, and more to jobs for people to pay attention to what's going on at key infrastructure sites...I mean, let's hope this isn't the first freakin' conversation about recreational airflight (although I KNOW that as of September of last year, nothing meaningful in terms of checking up on flight plans, local procedure class attendance, fuel purchases, or the like was taking place in North Jersey / Teterboro, which is a Cessna T-41's throw away from large buildings in Newark, Jersey City, NYC, Hoboken, etc. etc. ad stupidem...); if it is, Bush ought be impeached on that alone...
It's still much more efficient to load up a van or a Ryder truck with explosives than it is to fly a Cessna into midtown Manhattan loaded with explosives. You wouldn't get much bang for your buck, so to speak. And smaller recreational aircraft aren't required to file flight plans, nor will they likely be required in the future. And, for what it's worth, Teterboro has pretty good security with regards to controlling who is allowed on the tarmac and whatnot. Much better than some of the other regional airports I've been to. I'm much more concerned about port security than I am about regional aircraft. Let's just hope this post doesn't come back to haunt me (or us).
This morning I saw headlines (LA times )(no links yet, I am waiting to see some)stating that: " Amid growing concern that nuclear weapons labs are vulnerable to a terrorist attack, Energy Dept seriously considering major steps to improve security -- including removal of plutonium, highly enriched uranium from weapons sites, the LA TIMES planning to report on Tuesday," Which makes me side with Mel on this one.. The fact that this wasnt one of the first things ironed out (or at least attempted to iron out post 9/11) is a little, scratch that, a lotta frightening..
Weapons sites and nuclear power plants are two different things. Anyone who thinks the nuke plants' security definitely lags behind the government labs' security probably didn't follow the Wen Ho Lee and Los Alamos case too closely. Security at supposedly secure government facilities is often shockingly bad.
I noticed that and I agree they are 2 different animals, but the fact that so much time has elapsed and things are being done NOW is a little alarming for either case.
You must have missed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Wherein the problems of massive and slow-to-respond government bureacracy are rectified by the establishment of....a massive and slow-to-respond government bureacracy.