Abolish FEMA Says US Senate

[gtalum]

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, but Three Mile Island was a success. Containment functioned exactly as it was designed to do. Yet for some odd reason, TMI is offered as an argument against nuclear power. I never could make sense of that.

This is a very important point. Americans' fears of nuclear power are based 100% on ignorance.

[stormtruth]

Uhhh...they can build one next to my house if they want. It's safer and cleaner than anything else that makes electricity. It's better than burning coal...it's better than Natural gas...and it a lot better than daming a river.

75% of all the energy in France in on Nuke power...and a large part of the world is starting to head that way...like China. It's safe...especially with the newer technology that is much more efficient and produces very little waste.

Of course...most people think three-mile Island and Chernobyl when they think of nuke power. That's a shame...because most nuke engineers are environmentalists at heart and it really is the cleanist thing we have for power production...the problem is ignorance of the masses and fear of the unknown.

Oh please. There is so much nuclear waste we are desperate for places to put it. There is so much that they are going to try and dump it inside a non-dormant volcano -- Yucca mountain.
http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9803/27/nuclear.waste.ap/

My argument wasn't against nuclear power (we absolutely need the power it provides) but just that it needs to be regulated by the government and not by the nuclear power company in case they get lax. Corporations are always trying to cut costs and cut corners. There were some people wanting to abolish the EPA. We don't want any mistakes -- you can see what happened to some of the Chernobyl people here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/22/ch ... ars_l.html

Recent studies suggest that Chernobyl could eventually kill 200,000 people:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4917526.stm

And Chernobyl is the "perfect example" of what can go wrong which is why people use it.

Maybe some new technology -- that has not yet been invented -- can help us get rid of the waste. I think I once read some research into some microorganisms that might "eat" nuclear waste. Yum! Until then we are having to keep inventing new places to "hide it" No one wants the waste next to them -- not even Air Force Met

[Air Force Met]

After IVAN, FEMA was a Godsend to all of us in this area...........it worked here like a well-oiled machine. They helped me personally and everyone I know. FEMA worked 24/7 with very few kinks in the system............I don't know what happened but I know that FEMA can work wonders.............is FEMA really to blame or just a scapegoat for ineptitude?

I have worked with FEMA during many a disaster drill and real-world scenario. They are being a scape-goat. It ticks me off.

Were there problems? Yes. But I have said before that the problems in New Orleans can be likened to this (and since I worked with FEMA on "Hurricane Pam" in 2004...which was a Cat 5 going into NOLA, I have a personal perspecitve):

Suppose you invited 20 people over for Thanksgiving dinner. YOu have food for 20, and seats and settings for 20. Well, at noon...50 people showed up. What happens? There are a lot of people going hungry and a lot of people sitting on the floor.

Due to failures at the state and local level, and other un-foreseen problems (but mostly the failures)...that is what happened. When we exercised the scenario...the state and local gov't were supposed to handle a certain amount of load pre-storm...so all the Fed. gov't (FEMA) had to handle post-storm was 20 people at noon. The state and local gov't did not follow their pre-storm checklists (which some have seen) and what resulted was we ahve 50 people show up at noon to eat lunch. The Fed gov't was not ready for it...and could not handle it.

Let me put it to you another way. Emmitt Smith does NOT hold the NFL record for most rushing yards gained in a career if the Dallas Cowboys Offensive line of the 90's was just ok. He's a good running back, but without someone clearing the way for him, he's laying flat on his butt 2 yeards behind the line of scrimage.

NOLA and LA did not clear the line for the federal government....so they got sacked...but at the same time...the Fed. gov't was running like Curvin Richards...and not Emmitt Smith.

[Air Force Met]

And Chernobyl is the "perfect example" of what can go wrong which is why people use it.
No one wants the waste next to them -- not even Air Force Met

Good grief. Chernobyl is not a perfect example what can go wrong. Chernobyl is a perfect example of terrible engineering...in an era of bad Soviet politics and an illustration of how socialism is a bad system that leads to imcompetance. Period. . Nobody today would even think of building an plant like Chernobyl...so how can it be an example? It had no containment to speak of.

As far as keeping waste next to them...I live in the city...so it's not feasible. But...if I did live in NM...yes...you could put it next to me because I am a SCIENTIST and I understand SCIENCE and not scare-tactics...and I don't allow myself to give into the fear of the "one chance in a million" scenarios. I also don't care that the stuff will be in teh ground for 10,000 years...because I know it won't. Given that we went from flying to the moon in 70 years...I figure we will be able to turn nuclear waste into Pop-Tarts in the not to distant future....so what we need is a temporary solution...and while we can place to keep stuff for 10,000 years, it won't need to be...we will have the technology to deal with it long before that.

[Air Force Met]

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, but Three Mile Island was a success. Containment functioned exactly as it was designed to do. Yet for some odd reason, TMI is offered as an argument against nuclear power. I never could make sense of that.

This is a very important point. Americans' fears of nuclear power are based 100% on ignorance.

Yep...and I think if they knew how much it would make their fuel costs go down if there was a Nuke plant taking the place of all the gas-burning plants...they might change their minds.

And as x-y-no said...TMI was a success. Chernobyl was a failure because it was designed to be a failure...it was a disaster when it was it was still sitting on the drawing board.

GEEEE...the Ford Pinto was a bad design from the beginning and lead to one disaster after another...but we haven't banned CARS!

[stormtruth]

As far as keeping waste next to them...I live in the city...so it's not feasible. But...if I did live in NM...yes...you could put it next to me because I am a SCIENTIST and I understand SCIENCE and not scare-tactics...and I don't allow myself to give into the fear of the "one chance in a million" scenarios. I also don't care that the stuff will be in teh ground for 10,000 years...because I know it won't. Given that we went from flying to the moon in 70 years...I figure we will be able to turn nuclear waste into Pop-Tarts in the not to distant future....so what we need is a temporary solution...and while we can place to keep stuff for 10,000 years, it won't need to be...we will have the technology to deal with it long before that.

Yucca mountain has a lave flow at least once every 1,000 years not "once in a million" -- plus the waste has to be driven to the site from all over the U.S. There are plenty of SCIENTISTS that disagree with you about the safety of nuclear power. Accidents can and will happen. Companies can and will get sloppy. That's why it is and must continue to be regulated

It is still not perfectly safe, however. The nuclear power companies can't even keep there owners workers safe from radiation ->

Exposure to a low level of radiation is linked to a small increase in a person's cancer risk, a study of nuclear power station workers found.

An international team studied over 407,000 workers in 15 countries, who were followed up for around 13 years.

The British Medical Journal study estimates up to 2% of cancer deaths were due to radiation exposure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4629461.stm

Wow! So safe that some of their own workers die of cancer!

P.S. SCIENTISTS conducted this study.

[Air Force Met]

Yucca mountain has a lave flow at least once every 1,000 years not "once in a million"

An international team studied over 407,000 workers in 15 countries, who were followed up for around 13 years.

The British Medical Journal study estimates up to 2% of cancer deaths were due to radiation exposure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4629461.stm

Wow! So safe that some of their own workers die of cancer!

P.S. SCIENTISTS conducted this study.

Hmmm...1st...you forgot to mention that the article said "In absolute terms, it is a fairly small increase in risk." and " He said workers in the industry should be reassured by the study's findings. "

So...it's not some kind of SKY IS FALLING report...it's actually a good thing. Go work somewhere else and you will have another risk. If it's not cancer...it will be a hammer falling on your head! or getting rolled over by a truck!

There is no such thing as a safe work environment. A 2% increase in the risk of cancer for working in an otherwise VERY SAFE environment is a good swap. Tell you what...you go work in the military...or in construction...or as an engineer on a construction site...anywhere else...and see what other occupational hazards you encounter.

2%? For sitting at a desk? What's the rate of being a King Crab fisherman? I think they would take the swap off. Again...you missed the article...The study is actually REAFFIRMING the industry...not trying to SCARE them as you are trying to do.

Now...onto your misunderstanding about Yucca. The last large scale eruptions at Yucca were 12 million years ago. The last cinder-type eruption...NOT LAVA...was 80,000 years ago.

The USGS and the DOE said teh following about an eruption at Yucca:

"Using their extensive studies of the Yucca Mountain region, experts estimate the chance of a volcanic event disrupting the proposed repository to be about one in 63 million per year. This equals about 0.0000016 percent chance per year that a volcano will disrupt the repository. Put another way, it means there is about a 99.9999984 percent chance per year that a volcanic event will not disrupt the repository."

Get your facts right. Some "scientists" are are nuts.

[Air Force Met]

Yucca mountain has a lave flow at least once every 1,000 years not "once in a million"

Oh...and let me head you off at the pass...I've seen the new report of the sat. surveys of the stretching at Yucca. They are 1) inconclusive and 2) Do not change the FACT that the last eruption WAS 80,000 years ago and thus makes the above quote false...it does not have a lava flow every 1000 years....and again...it was a cinder eruption even then...not lava.

And...they say it COULD happen every 1000 years (IF the stretching continues...but it has only existed for a short time)....maybe...and these are the "scientists" who are against the project...not the geologists and vulcanologists studying the area. In 1000 years...we will eat nuke waste on toast for breakfast....or place it on spaceships and sail it into our sun...or someone else's sun....or send it to the moon (and we could do that in the next 100 years).

Plus...the bulging...even as admitted by those who found it...is still only 1-10 % what they see in active volcanic areas...such as Mammoth Mountain in California....and BTW...those eruptions...the largest of which was very small was over 250 years ago...have not really done much of anything for over 500 years.

So with a bulge of 1-10% of that...well...you can imagine what you will get.

[stormtruth]

There is no such thing as a safe work environment. A 2% increase in the risk of cancer for working in an otherwise VERY SAFE environment is a good swap. Tell you what...you go work in the military...or in construction...or as an engineer on a construction site...anywhere else...and see what other occupational hazards you encounter.

2%? For sitting at a desk? What's the rate of being a King Crab fisherman? I think they would take the swap off. Again...you missed the article...The study is actually REAFFIRMING the industry...not trying to SCARE them as you are trying to do.

This is a 2% increase from dying from cancer just in the workers themselves. The study did not include any nuclear power workers that died from industrial accidents or any other non-cancer related deaths that occured at the facility -- it was just cancer deaths. If it was 100% safe than NONE of the workers would die from cancer at all from being in the plant. Clearly, nuclear power is not safe as you like to suggest but something very dangerous that requires great care. Even as careful as these plants are they still increase the risk of cancer for the people that work there.

And here I thought we were discussing the safety of nuclear power not the safety of king crab fishing. Unless you want to argue that the waste from king crab fishing is so dangerous that it needs to dumped in Yucca mountain as well.

Yucca -> "The Nevada site proposed for storage of the nation's nuclear waste could have an earthquake or lava flow every 1,000 years or so, about 10 times more frequently than earlier estimated, according to a new study." Like I said every 1,000 years

[stormtruth]

Yucca mountain has a lave flow at least once every 1,000 years not "once in a million"

Oh...and let me head you off at the pass...I've seen the new report of the sat. surveys of the stretching at Yucca. They are 1) inconclusive and 2) Do not change the FACT that the last eruption WAS 80,000 years ago and thus makes the above quote false...it does not have a lava flow every 1000 years....and again...it was a cinder eruption even then...not lava.

And...they say it COULD happen every 1000 years (IF the stretching continues...but it has only existed for a short time)....maybe...and these are the "scientists" who are against the project...not the geologists and vulcanologists studying the area. In 1000 years...we will eat nuke waste on toast for breakfast....or place it on spaceships and sail it into our sun...or someone else's sun....or send it to the moon (and we could do that in the next 100 years).

Plus...the bulging...even as admitted by those who found it...is still only 1-10 % what they see in active volcanic areas...such as Mammoth Mountain in California....and BTW...those eruptions...the largest of which was very small was over 250 years ago...have not really done much of anything for over 500 years.

So with a bulge of 1-10% of that...well...you can imagine what you will get.

I'll give you the Yucca mountain argument. Hopefully that study is wrong and Yucca is a safe place to dump the waste. I agree that we will find a way to turn the waste in to Pop-Tarts someday -- the sooner the better.

[Air Force Met]

And here I thought we were discussing the safety of nuclear power not the safety of king crab fishing. Unless you want to argue that the waste from king crab fishing is so dangerous that it needs to dumped in Yucca mountain as well.

Yucca -> "The Nevada site proposed for storage of the nation's nuclear waste could have an earthquake or lava flow every 1,000 years or so, about 10 times more frequently than earlier estimated, according to a new study." Like I said every 1,000 years

No...you missed my point....which is EVERY JOB has risk to it. EVERY JOB. There is a risk in EVERY JOB. Industrial accidents in the nuclear industry are VERY LOW (my dad worked in the industry...he told me all about the safety...he worked as a pipefitter at STP) compaired to other industries. So...compaire that to king-crab fishing. A 2% increase in cancer...which is the RISK for working in the plant...offsets the the 10% risk in falling off a scaffold.

There is a risk in every job you do. Considering every other aspect of the work environment is safer than most other work environments you can work in...the trade off is worth it. Maybe not if you are the one getting cancer...but for the rest it is.

But hey...you know you have a higher risk of contracting cancer if you work in a chemical industry...like if you work around Benzyne...right? So...let's shut down all the Benzyne plants...you have a much higher risk of getting cancer from working near Benzyne than you do from working in a nuke plant! There are other chem plants that are much more dangerous as far as cancer risks...shut them all down if 2% is your threshold...because working around some chemicals will place you at much greater risk tahn working in a nuke plant.

As far as Yucca goes...I've already addressed that...but here it is again...

First of all, the 10,000 year estimate was never the estimate. The last eruption was 80,000 years ago. Now you are saying "could," whereas before you declared a fact: "has." That is NOT true. It has NOT had an eruption in 80,000 years.

[Audrey2Katrina]

FEMA came through for a lot of folks... and failed miserably for others... the simple fact is that the Katrina disaster was of a magnitude unprecidented since the organization's inception. A2K

Sometimes I wonder if there is just too much expectation from governent agencies like FEMA. Fueled of coarse, by the overpoliticisation (is that a word?) of just about everything these days. It seems to me, that no matter how well organized, funded, or administered, it will fail to some extent, in a disaster like Katrina. The government can't possibly thwart all the problems in a disaster.

Well Said.. people definatley rely on them to much for everything at times and disasters like Katrina are always going to have some failures... However they decide to "fix" FEMA in all reality they just need to make a system that works..

I agree completely!

A2K

[Air Force Met]

FEMA came through for a lot of folks... and failed miserably for others... the simple fact is that the Katrina disaster was of a magnitude unprecidented since the organization's inception. A2K

Sometimes I wonder if there is just too much expectation from governent agencies like FEMA. Fueled of coarse, by the overpoliticisation (is that a word?) of just about everything these days. It seems to me, that no matter how well organized, funded, or administered, it will fail to some extent, in a disaster like Katrina. The government can't possibly thwart all the problems in a disaster.

Well Said.. people definatley rely on them to much for everything at times and disasters like Katrina are always going to have some failures... However they decide to "fix" FEMA in all reality they just need to make a system that works..

I agree completely!

A2K

I agree with your agree.

What's the old addage? You should always be prepared to take care of you and your family for 7 days BEFORE you get help from anyone. That has always been the recommendation (left over from teh cold war). When we expect others to take care of us at Zero hour...we place ourselves and our loved ones in danger.

[Audrey2Katrina]

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, but Three Mile Island was a success. Containment functioned exactly as it was designed to do. Yet for some odd reason, TMI is offered as an argument against nuclear power. I never could make sense of that.

This is a very important point. Americans' fears of nuclear power are based 100% on ignorance.

Dang, ya'll are beating me to all the quotables... and agree 100%! It's a shame we don't have more CLEAN nuclear power plants.

A2K

[HURAKAN]

I go with Solar and Wind power for the future, a clean, safe source of energy. Nuclear Power always offers a risk and the toxic waste is very dangerous. Lets develop technologies to harnest the energies that will never be a danger to us.

[stormtruth]

Dang, ya'll are beating me to all the quotables... and agree 100%! It's a shame we don't have more CLEAN nuclear power plants.

A2K

It a shame that we don't have a single clean power plant. They all give cancer to a small percentage of the people that work there. And they all produce deadly radioactive waste (which hopefully will someday be turned into pop tarts as Air Force Met suggested).

[stormtruth]

No...you missed my point....which is EVERY JOB has risk to it. EVERY JOB. There is a risk in EVERY JOB. Industrial accidents in the nuclear industry are VERY LOW (my dad worked in the industry...he told me all about the safety...he worked as a pipefitter at STP) compaired to other industries. So...compaire that to king-crab fishing. A 2% increase in cancer...which is the RISK for working in the plant...offsets the the 10% risk in falling off a scaffold.

I understood your point. It's an apples and oranges comparison. A mistake during king-crab fishing might kill the king-crab fisherman but it won't create an environmental disasters. King-crab fishing waste is also not radioactive and toxic like nuclear waste is. You clearly have an emotional attachment to nuclear power because of your Dad's job. It is necessary for us to have this power but that doesn't mean it is safe. In fact it is very risky. It is worth the risk because of the enormous energy nuclear power produces -- but the risk is undeniable.

[Air Force Met]

It a shame that we don't have a single clean power plant. They all give cancer to a small percentage of the people that work there. And they all produce deadly radioactive waste (which hopefully will someday be turned into pop tarts as Air Force Met suggested).

I hope that becomes the case one day as well...but what everyone needs to realize is that working in the petro-chemical industry causes "cancer to a small percentage of the people that work there." We aren't shutting them down and they do more damage to the environment than nukes do. Nuke energy is just hypothetical damage...possible damage. Petro-chemical industry damage is tangible...not hypothetical.

You know...they have ever speculated that the burned pieces of meat on my BBQ cause cancer. Everything causes cancer. A 2% increase in workers in not a reason to not have the industry (and again...that article was actually a reassurance to the industry...it was a good thing).

There are lots of jobs in which you are exposed to radiation. Flight crews have a higher cancer risk....so who is going to fly your aircraft?

Flight attendants have a 50% greater risk of getting breast cancer over the general population. Who's going to get your Juice for you?

THAT's MUCH GREATER THAN 2%

So...if you are so worried about cancer risks in the work place...you need to shut down the airline industry...it's far more dangerous (in terms of cancer risk AND accidents) than the nuke industry. 50% increase verse 2%? That's not even a contest.

[Air Force Met]

I understood your point. It's an apples and oranges comparison. A mistake during king-crab fishing might kill the king-crab fisherman but it won't create an environmental disasters. King-crab fishing waste is also not radioactive and toxic like nuclear waste is. You clearly have an emotional attachment to nuclear power because of your Dad's job. It is necessary for us to have this power but that doesn't mean it is safe. In fact it is very risky. It is worth the risk because of the enormous energy nuclear power produces -- but the risk is undeniable.

No...no emotional attachment here. My dad died from lung cancer working with chemicals and asbestos. The nuke plant was the safest job he ever had....he said so...not me. I do, however, recognize the science and understand the safety and dangers. I also know that I would rather have 10 nuke plants than 1 dam blocking a salmon migration. I hate dams. I do not like coal-burning refineries. There has been one accidental release of radiation and that was by a poorly designed facility in a communist government. Over the whole history of the industry? Well...any industry would kill for that rating.

And it's not apples and oranges. A Nuke lab tech getting cancer won't create an environmental disaster either! We aren't talking about environmental disasters...we are talking about safe work environments...that's apples and oranges. The fisherman maybe falling off his boat (work hazard) and the lab tech maybe getting cancer (also work hazard) are apples. Environmental disasters would be oranges.

No one is denying the risks....but it is far safer than most people are aware. They think it is so unsafe and it is not. Can we start building tomorrow? No. BUt we could formulate a policy that would allow us to start building 10 years from now and have a system of plants built within the next 20-30 years that are based on new technology that are safe and very efficient that yield low waste levels...see last months National Geographic for aan article about it. NG also did a study about a group of senior citizens who have moved back into the hot zone of Chernobyl years ago...and guess what...they are healthy as horses. 4000 others are dying of cancer over the last 20 years (and over teh next 30) but these geezers ae living in the middle of it and doing just fine. Go figure.

[caribepr]

Let's just git rid of the government and go crazy. Get rid of the EPA and let businesses build smoke stacks and nuclear power plants next to MGC's house!!

Uhhh...they can build one next to my house if they want. It's safer and cleaner than anything else that makes electricity. It's better than burning coal...it's better than Natural gas...and it a lot better than daming a river.

75% of all the energy in France in on Nuke power...and a large part of the world is starting to head that way...like China. It's safe...especially with the newer technology that is much more efficient and produces very little waste.
Of course...most people think three-mile Island and Chernobyl when they think of nuke power. That's a shame...because most nuke engineers are environmentalists at heart and it really is the cleanist thing we have for power production...the problem is ignorance of the masses and fear of the unknown.

There is another alternative...and it is being used, and working, in more than one place on a large scale. It doesn't even include damming a river...

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,865561,00.html


Air Force Met:
"As far as keeping waste next to them...I live in the city...so it's not feasible. But...if I did live in NM...yes...you could put it next to me because I am a SCIENTIST and I understand SCIENCE and not scare-tactics...and I don't allow myself to give into the fear of the "one chance in a million" scenarios. I also don't care that the stuff will be in teh ground for 10,000 years...because I know it won't. Given that we went from flying to the moon in 70 years...I figure we will be able to turn nuclear waste into Pop-Tarts in the not to distant future....so what we need is a temporary solution...and while we can place to keep stuff for 10,000 years, it won't need to be...we will have the technology to deal with it long before that."

You know...I usually agree with a lot of what you say but this paragraph comes across to me like nothing I've read before from you. Pop-Tarts????? Please. As a scientist, I'd think you'd give credence to the potential reality that there can be chemical creations that have a shelf life beyond a cure, rather than dismissing it in such a cavilier manner.
To make a little seque back to the topic, it is thinking like that, in my opinion, that leads to tragic consequences resulting from programs designed for disasters that no one believes can really happen...and then it does, with a lack of real world preparation, while everyone is wide eyed with shock.
The truth is, if it can go wrong, eventually it will (I'm not a pessimist, actually am accused of being an idealist, but truthfully, I'm a realist who looks to the sunny side while covering my butt). The best I think anyone, individual or gov't can do is say, we're as prepared as possible, and that probably isn't enough, but it's what we can do.