What is everyone planning to do about September's radiation exposure from SONGS?

<p>In September, they are planning to open up the containment dome at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and releasing the radiation into the air. The NRC, which as the AEC was responsible for 50 years of secret radiation on unsuspecting Americans is planning to let them nuke us and they will probably tell us the radiation is healthy.</p>

<p>What can we do as students to stop the planned nuking? Is there a chance we could close down San Onofre before it happens?</p>

<p>We're much closer to SONGS than Kiev was to Chernobyl.</p>

<p>They are have never risky procedure before and they thought they would experiment with us. They have already released tons of radiation into the local area and the public found out when they read about it or saw them doctors.</p>

<p>Releasing radiation =\ “planned nuking”.
Furthermore releasing radiation =\ “nuclear meltdown” a la Chernobyl.</p>

<p>There’s several things different between the three.</p>

<p>countmein youre full of crap</p>

<p>You better watch out! There is a nuclear reactor below Rowland Hall!</p>

<p>Countmein is right on the money. San Onofre came close to going into a meldown a couple of years ago when the fires almost hit the plant while the safety systems was down. They had the safety systems off line for years and faked safety reports for a full five years. The only punishment for falsifying the reports was a requirement that they hold a training session. There was a meeting last week to discuss the long list of safety violations and it was more than a little disturbing.</p>

<p>San Onofre has released major amounts of radiation before. Generally the public isn’t informed.</p>

<p>One of the political science professors at UCI is trying to get the campus reactor closed down. It is a very tiny one, compared to San Onofre. </p>

<p>San Onofre is considered the most dangerous power plant in the United States. For those who think it is OK to cut open the containment dome and release the radiation, I suggest you sit in the middle of the next nuclear test.</p>

<p>Sandy1000 do more research. And try to find the contradiction in what you typed. loL</p>

<p>Apparently some people here are uneducated about the dangers of radiation poisoning. I think that the greatest risk is to small children and to students who want to have children one day.</p>

<p>Exposure to depleted uranium has caused a lot of birth defects for the children of personnel serving in the Gulf. The exposure that is likely to occur from San Onofre is far worse than the kind of exposure Gulf War Vets have experienced.</p>

<p>I wonder if we can get profs to allow students to take classes by Internet from safer locations in September and October. We could set up radiation detectors in San Clemente to indicate when or whether it is safe to return.</p>

<p>Just read an article about this here:
[OCEANSIDE:</a> Steam generators arrive for San Onofre : North County Times - Californian 01-10-2009](<a href=“North County – San Diego Union-Tribune”>North County – San Diego Union-Tribune)</p>

<p>I saw a weird contradiction:In the plant’s draft environmental report they wrote, “De-tensioning tendons of the type at (San Onofre) has never been attempted at another operating nuclear plant,” the report states.“Most of the tendons are not designed to be de-tensioned or removed.” and then the chief nuclear officer said, “This operation has been performed at, I believe, 28 other plants across the country,” Ridenoure said. “We are confident that it will go smoothly.”
So this has never been done, but it has been done at 28 other plants? lol</p>

<p>there’s quite a bit more article between those 2 quotes, I believe they are saying de-stressing the tendons in place at San Onofre will be unique but the replacement of the generators is common as it has been done at 28 different power plants.</p>

<p>Tatertots, are you willing to risk the lives of your classmates on your generosity to Edison? These guys have been contaminating OC for years.</p>

<p>TMI and Chernobyl had more conscientious operators than San Onofre does. Both situation were operator error. The safety violations at San Onofre are the worst of any plant in the United States.</p>

<p>Are you aware that San Onofre is on top of a major earthquake fault?</p>

<p>An interesting source is the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. [Alliance</a> Home Page — Alliance For Nuclear Responsibility](<a href=“http://a4nr.org/]Alliance”>http://a4nr.org/)</p>

<p>The following Indymedia article is very much worth reading. </p>

<p>[Radioactive</a> Waste: The San Onofre File : Indybay](<a href=“Radioactive Waste: The San Onofre File : Indybay”>Radioactive Waste: The San Onofre File : Indybay)

San Onofre’s liquid radwastes flow out of the plants through “outflows” pipes and empty into the Pacific. They are highly diluted but nevertheless still there.</p>

<p>According to the plant’s 2007 Radioactive Effluent Release Report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there were 202 liquid effluent “batch” releases that year.</p>

<p>These releases lasted a total of 489 hours, or over 20 days. The longest was 7.6 hours in duration. The releases averaged 2.4 hours.</p>

<p>The releases contained many dangerous radioactive chemicals, including cesium 137, cobalt 60, iodine 131 and strontium 90.</p>

<p>Cesium 137 has a radioactive life of over 300 years, cobalt 60’s over 50 years, and strontium 90’s almost 300.</p>

<p>Iodine 131’s radioactive life is only a few months, but during that time it is intensely radioactive. I-131 mimics regular iodine, and concentrates in the thyroid gland if it enters our bodies.</p>

<p>I-131 caused high rates of thyroid cancer after Chernobyl exploded and burned its nuclear core, releasing virtually all its radioactivity.</p>

<p>San Onofre’s airborne radioactive releases included all of the radioactive chemicals cited above.</p>

<p>The 2007 report informs us “waste gas decay tank releases are considered to be ‘batch’ releases. Containment purges and plant stack releases are considered to be ‘continuous’ releases.”</p>

<p>Though San Onofre Unit 1 permanently shut down in 1992, the 2007 report states that its liquid and gaseous radioactive releases did not cease until 2006.</p>

<p>And in 2007, though Unit 1 had been shut down for nearly 15 years, a radioactive accident happened in April, the report states.</p>

<p>During the transfer of the contents of a large liquid container there, “a worker noticed a steady flow of water exiting a pipe onto the sand in an area that had been recently excavated.”</p>

<p>Turns out that a pipe had been “inadvertently severed…As a result, nearly all of the contents…about 2000 gallons, spilled through the severed pipe onto the sand.”</p>

<p>The spill contained “trace amounts” of cesium 137, according to the report. </p>

<p>…</p>

<p>However, numerous studies have found higher rates of cancers around nuclear power plants, such as the one reported recently in the OB Rag that found high mortality rates for childhood leukemia in counties adjacent to San Onofre. And virtually all nuke dumps, such as the massive one in Barnwell, South Carolina, have already leaked.</p>

<p>In addition, in 2005 the National Academy of Sciences committee to study the effects of radiation on our health concluded that there is no exposure to radiation without risk.</p>

<p>The committee’s chairman, Richard Monson of the Harvard School of Public Health, stated “The health risks—particularly the development of solid cancers in organs—rises proportionally with exposure. At low doses of radiation, the risk of inducing solid cancers is very small. As the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk.”</p>

<p>And since San Onofre has been operating since 1970, there are all too many lifetime exposures already.</p>

<p>And you will note that EnergySolutions low level waste dump isn’t anywhere near its HQ of Salt Lake City, but instead embedded in a restricted and defiled region riddled with the remains of atomic explosions, whose memory will forever shame mankind.</p>

<p>San Onofre’s owners would like to operate their two remaining active reactors for an extra 20 years, until 2042, to continue their legacy of contamination for an extra generation, and its consequences for many more generations.</p>

<p>With true green energy looming on the horizon as real energy solutions for our future, why let the insanity that is San Onofre waste it?</p>

<p>I was simply responding to the structural interpretation of the article the previous poster presented. I was not wishing to argue about the overall situation as I do not know enough about the issue, and I feel this is an inappropriate venue to debate such an problem.
Since were on the issue, the sources you have presented are somewhat weak. Independent media, basically blogs, have lax requirements concerning sources and are hardly reliable.
The one “study” the OB rag was referring to titled “Childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations” can be found on Pubmed and is a letter to the editor, not a peer reviewed article. It simply calls for more research and is not conclusive or even subject-able to scrutiny. As a matter of fact they mention one study(Jablon S., Hrubec Z. & Boice J.D. (1991) Cancer in populations living near nuclear facilities: a survey of mortality nationwide and incidence in two states. New England Journal of Medicine 265, 1403–1408.)that found “If, however, any excess cancer risk was present in US counties with nuclear facilities, it was too small to be detected with the methods employed.”</p>

<p>Last week at the hearing, Edison admitted it did not know if the plant was earthquake safe. It stacked the meeting with its employees and its hired public relations consultants and the public barely got any chance to ask questions. The questions that were asked were not answered.</p>

<p>The plant has the worst safety violation record in the country, but the foxes are watching the hen house as the regulator was formed out of an organization that conducted the radiation experiments that Clinton exposed. </p>

<p>Once they open the dome, they can’t take back the radiation.</p>

<p>The Indy Media is actually more accurate than most other media. Remember the lies leading up to war? The corporate media told the lies it was paid to say and Americans had to look to the Indy Media for the real answers… There is a basic blackout on truth in the media and a lot of reporters are very unhappy about it. I’ve spoken to many who say they would lose their jobs if they told the public what is going on.</p>

<p>Regardless of where you stand on nuclear power, San Onofre is dangerous. It was only designed to last until about now and they are trying to endanger the public by extending the life of a plant that has so many problems it should have been shut down long ago.</p>

<p>Those figures on the waste should be alarming if you want to swim in the ocean in Orange County or breathe the air in Orange County.</p>

<p>Here are some other articles can be found through google.</p>

<p>[San</a> Onofre Nuclear Plant Caught Falsifying Records - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego](<a href=“http://www.10news.com/news/15047670/detail.html]San”>http://www.10news.com/news/15047670/detail.html)</p>

<p>[San</a> Onofre Nuclear Plant: Highest Childhood Leukemia Death Rates](<a href=“San Onofre Nuclear Plant: Highest Childhood Leukemia Death Rates”>San Onofre Nuclear Plant: Highest Childhood Leukemia Death Rates)</p>

<p>[As</a> San Onofre struggles with errors, NRC scrutiny picks up - OC Watchdog - OCRegister.com](<a href=“http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/01/san-onofre-problems-remain-nrc-schedules-public-meeting-may-7/18063/]As”>http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/05/01/san-onofre-problems-remain-nrc-schedules-public-meeting-may-7/18063/)</p>

<p>[San</a> Onofre Risks to Children](<a href=“[creativeyouth]”>[creativeyouth])</p>

<p>[Orange</a> County News - San Onofre Nightmare Generating Station - page 1](<a href=“http://www.ocweekly.com/2002-06-27/news/san-onofre-nightmare-generating-station/]Orange”>http://www.ocweekly.com/2002-06-27/news/san-onofre-nightmare-generating-station/)</p>

<p>[Ace</a> Hoffman’s blog – mostly about nukes: 24 Reasons to Shut San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station TODAY, not Tomorrow! (Expanded Version)](<a href=“http://acehoffman.blogspot.com/2008/06/24-reasons-to-shut-san-onofre-nuclear.html]Ace”>Ace Hoffman's Nuclear Failures Reports: 24 Reasons to Shut San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station TODAY, not Tomorrow! (Expanded Version))</p>

<p>[Green</a> Change:San Onofre nuke plant lapsed on safety](<a href=“http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1433]Green”>http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=1433)</p>

<p>[SEISMIC</a> RISKS AT SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION](<a href=“http://www.utopiasprings.com/songs.htm]SEISMIC”>http://www.utopiasprings.com/songs.htm)</p>

<p>[San</a> Onofre nuclear power plant “dead last” in industrial safety - KPCC News In Brief](<a href=“http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/08/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant.html]San”>http://www.publicradio.org/columns/kpcc/kpccnewsinbrief/2008/08/san-onofre-nuclear-power-plant.html)</p>

<p>[Atomic</a> Plant Casts a Pall on Paradise - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/atomic-plant-casts-a-pall-on-paradise.html]Atomic”>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/12/us/atomic-plant-casts-a-pall-on-paradise.html)</p>