Consider it removed! Never was, like a Stalinist-era photo of the reviewing stand.
charlie hebdoBut generally wild ass speculation without a scintilla of evidence gets you laughed out of any serious discussion.
More precisely it never gets you into any serious discussion in the first place. (Which is in part why I do try to refrain from commenting on those Amtrak accounting threads, where the relevant information is firmly in the 'can't know' category.)
Concluding with Watergate? Seriously??
Well, it seemed to make sense when I was typing it. Since you have a record of it in your quote I can get rid of it for anyone else who has to read the thread. You're right, no one will miss it.
Overmod PJS1 You challenged the NRC findings. Why should we believe you? Certainly not because "I said so". But it is a matter of common knowledge (and easily backstopped with some engineering calculations) about the magnitude of radionuclides released during the cladding failure, and it is also reasonably easily calculated what the bounds of time over which that release took place. Where would you say, alternatively, that all this would go? I didn't challenge the "NRC findings"; I challenged a claim in the NRC public report. Without checking primary sources I'd have to wonder whether there's an aspect of 'not documented, not done' regarding actual radiological data that were 'not adequately recorded' during the period of the peak release; this would be fairly easy to track down in the primary records once you know what to watch for. It was a pretty common attitude in at least one of the Columbia classes that at least some of the NRC attitude represented political whitewash. I'm particularly not speaking to that, but again it would be sufficient to compare the report findings against the primary data, knowing some of the physics, and see whether there is any "careful presentation" or selective data interpretation going on there. Don't EVER take what I say on a technical matter as 'gospel truth'; if it's right, it will hold up and if it's wrong, I need to change it. And I admit most of the information I used about TMI is not stuff that has publication citations that are accessible, so it comes down to proof by contradiction in a sense: where did the material go if only 'small' releases took place? (I said at Columbia, and I say again here, tongue not really as much in cheek as I'd wish, that if they had said 'short' rather than 'small' in the NRC report it would have been essentially fully correct, and semantically near-identical in perceived sense to most people who read the report to find out what happened.) We know it's the published information that you cite, and I would be among the last people to criticize you for doing so. The 'controversy' is in shutting down any (admittedly, speculative at best) possibility that Amtrak might be using creative although unquestionably 'legal' conventions to achieve certain of its published figures. Arguably if we used similar standards of proof in the Seventies, Nixon would probably be looked at today as one of our most successful two-term presidents...
PJS1 You challenged the NRC findings. Why should we believe you?
Certainly not because "I said so". But it is a matter of common knowledge (and easily backstopped with some engineering calculations) about the magnitude of radionuclides released during the cladding failure, and it is also reasonably easily calculated what the bounds of time over which that release took place. Where would you say, alternatively, that all this would go?
I didn't challenge the "NRC findings"; I challenged a claim in the NRC public report. Without checking primary sources I'd have to wonder whether there's an aspect of 'not documented, not done' regarding actual radiological data that were 'not adequately recorded' during the period of the peak release; this would be fairly easy to track down in the primary records once you know what to watch for.
It was a pretty common attitude in at least one of the Columbia classes that at least some of the NRC attitude represented political whitewash. I'm particularly not speaking to that, but again it would be sufficient to compare the report findings against the primary data, knowing some of the physics, and see whether there is any "careful presentation" or selective data interpretation going on there.
Don't EVER take what I say on a technical matter as 'gospel truth'; if it's right, it will hold up and if it's wrong, I need to change it. And I admit most of the information I used about TMI is not stuff that has publication citations that are accessible, so it comes down to proof by contradiction in a sense: where did the material go if only 'small' releases took place? (I said at Columbia, and I say again here, tongue not really as much in cheek as I'd wish, that if they had said 'short' rather than 'small' in the NRC report it would have been essentially fully correct, and semantically near-identical in perceived sense to most people who read the report to find out what happened.)
We know it's the published information that you cite, and I would be among the last people to criticize you for doing so. The 'controversy' is in shutting down any (admittedly, speculative at best) possibility that Amtrak might be using creative although unquestionably 'legal' conventions to achieve certain of its published figures. Arguably if we used similar standards of proof in the Seventies, Nixon would probably be looked at today as one of our most successful two-term presidents...
As to Amtrak accounting, it is of course possible they could be engaging in sharp practices with overhead allocation. But generally wild ass speculation without a scintilla of evidence gets you laughed out of any serious discussion.
PJS1You challenged the NRC findings. Why should we believe you?
Overmod Well then, why did you ask?
To see what you would say. You challenged the NRC findings. Why should we believe you?
I would take what you say about your creds as the gospel truth. But if you linked me to an article in a professional journal that showed your creds, I might be a believer.
Anyone can verify the information in Amtrak's published financial statements or the GAAP standards that govern their compilation. They are public information. That is the source of my information, which I frequently although not always cite.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
PJS1There is no way you or anyone else could prove otherwise.
Well then, why did you ask? And in such a snotty way, too...
That's why I reference most of my postings to authoritative sources that people can check out.
Well, good for you! Good thing this is a railroad and not a technical forum. You probably think NTSB reports are fully factual sources, too.
You go right ahead believing what you want.
But don't expect us to swallow that 'CPA standards' stuff you're fond of trotting out the next time Amtrak's potential bookkeeping creativity comes up, quite as respectfully as we did before this -- who are we to believe potentially random anonymous posters without hard Amtrak data?
(BTW you didn't even find, or probably recognize, the appallingly dumb mistake I made in the post you so lavishly quoted. I've corrected it, but the overall utility company was GPU, obviously not the Transport Worker's Union...)
You go right ahead believing what you want. But don't expect us to swallow that 'CPA standards' stuff the next time Amtrak's potential bookkeeping creativity comes up -- who are we to believe potentially random anonymous posters without hard Amtrak data?
Overmod PJS1 What are your creds with respect to TMI. Considerably more than yours, and we could leave it at that. But I was a personal friend (via Knickerbocker Country Club in Tenafly) of the then-president of TWU, who filled me in on many of the technical details people like you will never find, and I did my Princeton JP on the technical coverage (and miscoverage) of the incident, which included being in the control room roughly a week after the accident (I probably would have been there earlier but was in the BVI during the week it occurred) and having some of the folks on the scene describe the release and the instrumentation 'issue'. Also studied the incident in several courses at ... since you make such a point of mentioning it ... Columbia during the early '80s, and did some extended consultation regarding B&W design policies and procedures in connection with ITU group R10. You can contact Will Davis for some of my other experience in nuclear matters. You know, I don't question your knowledge of bookkeeping. Why would you question mine on nuclear without technical competence beyond a Google search or some participation -- I suspect on the financial side, not technical, but feel free to contradict me with facts if that is unjust -- in utility conferences?
Considerably more than yours, and we could leave it at that. But I was a personal friend (via Knickerbocker Country Club in Tenafly) of the then-president of TWU, who filled me in on many of the technical details people like you will never find, and I did my Princeton JP on the technical coverage (and miscoverage) of the incident, which included being in the control room roughly a week after the accident (I probably would have been there earlier but was in the BVI during the week it occurred) and having some of the folks on the scene describe the release and the instrumentation 'issue'. Also studied the incident in several courses at ... since you make such a point of mentioning it ... Columbia during the early '80s, and did some extended consultation regarding B&W design policies and procedures in connection with ITU group R10.
You can contact Will Davis for some of my other experience in nuclear matters.
You know, I don't question your knowledge of bookkeeping. Why would you question mine on nuclear without technical competence beyond a Google search or some participation -- I suspect on the financial side, not technical, but feel free to contradict me with facts if that is unjust -- in utility conferences?
I never claimed to be an engineer or had any experience with TMI.
I have no way of validating what you say about your education or experience, or who you are.
I am sticking with the NRC's published findings.
PJS1What are your creds with respect to TMI.
Considerably more than yours, and we could leave it at that. But I was a personal friend (via Knickerbocker Country Club in Tenafly) of the then-president of GPU, who filled me in on many of the technical details people like you will never find, and I did my Princeton JP on the technical coverage (and miscoverage) of the incident, which included being in the control room roughly a week after the accident (I probably would have been there earlier but was in the BVI during the week it occurred) and having some of the folks on the scene describe the release and the instrumentation 'issue'. Also studied the incident in several courses at ... since you make such a point of mentioning it ... Columbia during the early '80s, and did some extended consultation regarding B&W design policies and procedures in connection with ITU group R10.
.
Overmod The catch, of course, is that the detectors were not positioned or being read correctly during the relatively short time of the critical release.
As one poster has indicated, this discussion has drifted far afield. But I must ask.
What are your creds with respect to TMI.
What experience have you had with nuclear power?
Were you part of the NRC team, or one of the researchers in the aforemention universities, that studied the issue?
PJS1 although its small radioactive releases had no detectable health effects on plant workers or the public.”
The catch, of course, is that the detectors were not positioned or being read correctly during the relatively short time of the critical release. The issue (which I did not see formally addressed as such in the NRC material) was that the cause of the 'hydrogen bubble' was the essentially simultaneous failure of much of the zirconium rod cladding, and this implies the release of a very significant percentage of the gas-phase (at that temperature) fission products built up to that time. This was not nearly as significant as it would have been in a plant running a longer time, but it can be calculated and it is in line with the partial reports showing a short but intense spike from the vent stack. The decay chain for some of the daughters is also known, and at least theoretically some statistics could be developed for the ones that 'plated out' downwind, but the actual human exposure in something practical like rem would remain vanishingly small in any real medical context.
This would have been very different had there been particulate emissions, as at Windscale, or a large amount of gas with short half-life to a chemically-reactive solid. Because there was not, the size and intensity of the spike is not often recorded (as people would start drawing entirely the wrong conclusions from it).
I have been interested for many years in seeing demographic stats for late-developing illness in the Bechtel remediation workers and other staff who did the actual disassembly and passivation.
I thought the video that started this forum topic was actually pretty good.
It discussed some things Amtrak has done well and some things Amtrak has not done well.
It accurately points out the economic issues facing long-distance trains.
Personally, I think we are going to have to face the problem and make the decision: Do we want LD trains and are we willing to pay the price to run them well?
I'm in the "no" group.
York1 John
I asked my doctor if I gave up delicious food and all alcohol, would I live longer? He said, "No, but it will seem longer."
know what? getting way too off topic. Deleted.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
I understand each of us are influenced through our experience. I've lived 20 or 30 miles from nuclear plants almost all my life. Regarding my well-being, I'm far more wary of a slip and fall or an irresponsible driver.
Batteries, used vehicle batteries, pumped storage, heck, even a round trip to hydrogen and back. Lots of ways to store renewable engery.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Overmod TMI paradoxically was a much worse accident than expected which wound up actually releasing almost nothing. If you look at aerial pictures of unit 2 even several years afterward you will see wisps of steam in one of the cooling towers -- that was decay heat still being dissipated before Bechtel could finalize extracting the corium. But they did get it all, under full authority.
TMI paradoxically was a much worse accident than expected which wound up actually releasing almost nothing. If you look at aerial pictures of unit 2 even several years afterward you will see wisps of steam in one of the cooling towers -- that was decay heat still being dissipated before Bechtel could finalize extracting the corium. But they did get it all, under full authority.
For those unaware of what that is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corium_(nuclear_reactor)
The valve failure which started the TMI accident had also occurred at another nuclear plant a year and a half earlier. The operators there noticed the problem right away and correctly identified it, and were able to safely shut down the reactor before any damage was done.
The valve manufacturer (Babcock & Wilcox) did not notify their other customers even after being made aware of the problem.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
There isn't much question that there was one enormous release of volatiles during the course of the TMI incident. The biomedical effects of this, though, were very short and did not leave any measurable decay daughters behind or show any sign of metabolic uptake. There is no medical or scientific reason to expect this to result in any properly-measurable cancer rate increase, even of thyroid or other tissue susceptible to the radionuclides in the plume. Not to excuse either the magnitude in curies of the release or the appalling failure chain that led to its 'liberation' into the atmosphere.
The great problem that killed effective PWR/BWR plants in this country was the elimination of West Valley and no replacement of its reprocessing with any other facilities. No one anticipated that spent rods would start accumulating in pools when there was 'no solution' to take positive action. And of course nothing to fix the situation since then, from vitrification to structured entombment, has caught on enough to be implemented.
As it happens, I had a fun couple of months designing a full PUD for the prospective reprocessing operation for Homer, Louisiana, in the early Nineties I think. Of course no one said the P-word very loudly, and 'mixed oxide' was about as close as the folks would say, but that one facility could have gone a long way toward solving the spent-fuel issues for a great many, and helped with the fuel for others. (I think it was Clinton's clever deal/scam for the Russian disarmament materials that killed the idea then, but we do need something like it ASAP.)
I'd like to think that the new generation that EDF wants to bring here, and alternatives like pebble-bed reactors, could be made without the "compromises" made at TMI to get it into the rate base ASAP. But absent active transport or reprocessing I'd really rather not find out quite yet.
One can only hope that nuclear can be much safer and spent fuel can be safely dealt with. But I have serious doubts, cover ups by corporate culture not withstanding.
azrail The problem is that in Texas (and other areas), the wind doesn't blow during the hottest and coldest parts of the year-when the most power is used.
It is not that the wind does not blow during the hottest and coldest parts of the year. The issue is that it does not blow with enough velocity during the part of the day when the load requirement is highest.
Electroliner 1935Also, about Three Mile Island, NO Human being was injured in the accident.
If you believe that crap, I have a bridge to sell you. Of course they are going to claim nothing was released. I get it, they were trying to calm an anxious public. But I think that was an outright lie. I've lost family members to cancer - including one to one of those 1-in a billion cancer types that supposedly has had way too many cases in the TMI area. Just a coincidence, I guess.
Some things, I believe, man were not meant to fool with. Nuclear power is on the top of that list for me.
zugmannGramp To me, what's been unfortunate has been the halting of nuclear power generation.
Or mine either.
Got my gas bill this weekend. Dec fuel cost was $0.27/therm. Last dec. fuel cost was $0.36/therm. That's a significant supply cost decline. No wonder the RR's are considering CNG. I just hope the country doesn't burn all the future gas and create a shortage. But it is nice in the pocket book while it lasts.
Also, about Three Mile Island, NO Human being was injured in the accident. The timing with the coincidence with the movie THE CHINA SYNDROME was a PR nightmare. I am reminded of how most people today have to have their home tested for RADON before they can sell it. That problem was discovered when an employee at a nuclear plant caused the radiation detectors to alert UPON HIS ARRIVAL at work. He had come from home and was more radioactive than the plant. But enough.
zugmann Gramp To me, what's been unfortunate has been the halting of nuclear power generation. As someone that grew up near TMI: Nope, they can all go away. You will never change my mind of that.
Gramp To me, what's been unfortunate has been the halting of nuclear power generation.
As someone that grew up near TMI: Nope, they can all go away. You will never change my mind of that.
You are not glowing in the dark - yet.
Whomever develops some form of beneficial process that consumes spent nuclear fuel and renders it as no longer being radioactive will become a billionaire many times over.
Man has had to learn how to control wind, fire and water as tools - sometimes with catastrophic consequences - Nuclear power generation is just another tool that man needs to continue to learn about for its safe use.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
GrampTo me, what's been unfortunate has been the halting of nuclear power generation.
The problem is that in Texas (and other areas), the wind doesn't blow during the hottest and coldest parts of the year-when the most power is used.
Gramp To me, what's been unfortunate has been the halting of nuclear power generation. Also, I wonder where electricity for vehicles will come from if EV's succeed? Electricity rates to get a jolt?
Also, I wonder where electricity for vehicles will come from if EV's succeed? Electricity rates to get a jolt?
U.S. nuclear power plants generated slightly more than 610 billion megawatts of electric energy for the year to date period ended September 30, 2019. This was down .3% from the same period in 2018. This was 19.4 percent of the electric energy produced during the period. It ranked third in power generation behind natural gas (38.2%) and coal (23.9%).
As of October 1, 2019, according to the Energy Information Administration, there were 58 operational nuclear plants in the U.S. They had 96 nuclear reactors, which was down from a peak of 112 reactors in 1990.
The newest reactors went on line in 2016. The Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant is the only nuclear plant - two units - under construction in the U.S. Whether it achieves operational status is problematic.
The low price of natural gas is the major factor causing the shuttering of numerous coal and nuclear power stations. Wind and solar are not yet major factors, but they will become increasingly so in the future. Through September 2019 wind accounted for 7 percent of the electric energy generated in the U.S.; solar accounted for just 1.8 percent.
The timetable for EVs to be a major factor in the personal vehicle market is pretty long. The electric power industry will have the time to increase capacity, where necessary, to meet the incremental loads placed on the system by EVs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.