Please share far and wide!

Friday, August 18, 2017

Canada Refuses to Test Nuclear Plant Workers for Drugs or Alcohol

Canada, you know, where they want to store nuclear waste underground on a peninsula on Lake Huron, is fighting against drug testing for Nuclear workers....

Proving once again that a country can be more stupid that the USA

David Shier, national director of the CNWC, calls the testing "discriminatory." He says there is already an "exhaustive screening process" in place to make sure workers are fit to work. 
Compromising further to political correctness, you can show up drunk for work at a Nuke plant, and they will just counsel you.   No penalties.

According to CNSC director general Greg Lamarre, the Canadian Human Rights Commission said drug and alcohol "testing is permissible for workers in safety-sensitive positions," as long as workers are aware it's part of their condition to work, and it's non-punitive. 
In other words, workers would not be penalized if they test positive, but rather, would be given support programs to get help.
But abuse of substances even at plants were drug testing is required, shows that abuse continues

Today, 2 Different Nuclear Plants Had Workers Busted For Being Drunk on the Job

Palo Verde (AZ) 1;2;3 all @ 100 % FITNESS-FOR-DUTY
A non-licensed employee supervisor had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been suspended.
Vogtle 3;4 (GA) Under Construction FITNESS-FOR-DUTY
A non-licensed employee supervisor had a confirmed positive for alcohol during a random fitness-for-duty test. The employee's access to the plant has been terminated.
[ hard to determine what the job function of these people are. ' non-licensed employee supervisor ' could be the supervisor of the secretarial pool, gardeners or janitors. ]

Charlottesville And The Higgin's Memo, aka Deep State Attack

I had to weigh in on Charlottesville, at least quickly.

At 4:04 to 4:07 a 400 pound woman is receiving CPR and also having a baby. That seems unlikely, especially since it never made any "news" that would certainly be newsworthy.

And multiple citizens, shouting, "medic", that also seems very unlikely, like something out of Mash. Looks like a drill to me.

Rich Higgins, while working for the National Security Council, penned a 7 page "memo" that described the Deep State attack against America, but first via a Trump Takedown.

here is Page 1 through 7

here is a printed, then scanned copy of the above 7 pages

Admittedly, the author, Higgins (who was fired and no one is denying that he was fired because he
wrote that memo), does "juice it" a bit.   

Amazing how the WaPo (owned by Jeff Bezos) picks up expose' of the narrative, and constructs it to mean that Trump is:

In an alternate reality
Terrifying combination of delusions

Then they compare him to Nixon, who incidentally was also "not to be trusted with nuclear launch codes", and WaPo concludes with their end game, after dismissing every thing else as conspiracy "the end of this <presidency> cannot come soon enough."
stock here-- and "Business Insider" well now you can see how things lean over there....

Of course, an American deep state does not, in fact, exist. And in places where it does exist — like Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan — it typically results in bloody outcomes like mass killings, pogroms, and bombings. 

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The Nuclear Industry Is Based On a Series of Lies Out Of the Gate -- And They Don't Give a Damn About You

From an article at WUWT, regarding "Climate Cash" there were a number of pro-nuclear comments in the comment section, in particular, pushing Pakistan of all places, towards more nuclear.   I found it particularly disgusting and wrote of the article below.

The pro-nuclear sentiment here is disturbing, from a bunch of people who are otherwise pretty free thinking.    I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics.    Around 2005 I started hearing how nuclear was now being considered "green".   This is shortly before I started catching on to the scams related to the entire financial system, including the lies and intended massive wealth transfer related to CO2 and "Global warming".    So I thought it was "cool" that nuclear was being called green, it was high tech, and from a young lad being exposed to Cook Nuclear plant and all the great lies of "too cheap to meter"....I did not look further.    

After Fukushima, I started studying the industry and what they have been doing, and was rather appalled at the highly risky ways they handled their most dangerous product, spent fuel, and their superficial focus on "safety" in stupid ways.   A welder friend who does work at nuke plants states how they go through advanced safety training on vacuous type things as "if you are using a cart on a sloped floor stand behind it or it will run you over".   And they ignore the elephant in the room, storing spent fuel, often hundreds of tons, in water pools that are often located at the top of the reactors.   In fact, they do calculations, to "prove" that tighter packing densities are possible if they use boron sheets to separate them.   And then ignore the fact that these boron sheets degrade with time. 

The direct costs of an accident at a nuke plant, will more than wipe out any long term financial benefits of even a fleet of nuclear plants.    Fukushima will see direct costs of over $1 Trillion, and the indirect costs of pain, suffering, loss of productivity, loss of life will also be enormous.   Chernobyl was "not as bad" it was just one reactor, and they took effective action, although it put hundreds of thousands of people at risk in the mitigation effort, it was the right thing to do.   

But when you get to studying the industry, you see that the whole thing, from the bottom up, is built upon a stack of lies.   Starting with "background" which they pretend is around 6 mSv, even though in reality it is less than 1 mSv.    Then the ICRP dose model, which models the human body as a bag of water with energy being "deposited" by ionizations.   This dose model makes a mockery of science and epidemiological studies that clearly show that even low dose radiation causes cancers and contributes to many other diseases / morbidity.    

But it's big money projects, and when those happen, money can be siphoned off for bribes, kickbacks, and so industry and politicians love them.    And it has the entire backing of the Military/Industrial complex.   

But to see those who don't even buy into the CO2 lies, support nuclear on "other grounds" that I find hard to even establish, is disappointing.    Study it with an open mind, and it is very likely you will come to the same conclusions that I have, it is time to phase out all civilian nuclear power plants.

Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY.    And there is no solid, safe way to store it for the tens of thousands of years that it needs to be stored.

We shall see if I get past moderation.   This is the first time in years a comment at WUWT has been sent to moderation.  <note it did get through moderation>

  • Fukushima was an inept design putting standby generators where they were susceptible to flood. Had the standby generators been above the flood there would have been no problems with any of the plants. Putting generators in a secure position above floods with sufficient fuel to run for 150% of the expected worse case is a sensible approach but one that is beyond architects to understand. This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.
    • Incorrect, the pipes with irradiated water from the reactor that goes directly to the turbine buildings were broke as radiation alarms were going off even before the tsunami hit. Fukushima was placed at sea level because GE didn’t want to have to design with high head pumps. The fuel tanks were placed right at waters edge for “convenience”.
      They also realized before the earthquake that potential of a tsunami to swamp the plant, and they did nothing about it. This is the whole industry, secretive and greedy. In 2015 Pilgrim in Boston was one step away from a massive release of radiation, the torus heat exchanger worked and they were able to reject heat. That was the last step of their “defense in depth”. Think MSM covered how close that was? No way.
      It’s a systemic problem in what is basically the most dangerous thing on earth. In an EMP or CME was percent of plants wouldn’t shut down correctly, say 10% (note 440 running nuke plants on earth, not all would be effected by the CME or EMP, but you get the drift).
      It is nothing short of insane, chasing after the most expensive free lunch we could conjure up.
      Ian said “This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.
      uh, yeah, I think when nuclear power plants blow up and create vast sacrifice zones, I would yes, that is in fact a problem with nuclear power.
  • stock that is one of the worst bits of layman science ever. This bit I really love
    quote => Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY.
    So lets explain this radiation is an emission of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles and a percentage of that emission will be used to sustain the reaction (you extract heat to make the electricity) but the process irradiates materials in the reactor and cooling water etc which is the waste.
    Once you close the reactor the radiation stops. The problem is the materials that got irradiated along the way which are waste continue to emit radiation. So how long your run the process and your 3 nuclear bombs per day garbage is of little importance, what is important is what got irradiated. The fuel rods and much of the steel in the reactor itself are the main worries. There is a complete list of decommissioned plants on wiki
    You will note many of those closed ran for 25-30 years and several are now greenfield with only the fuel rods and close reactor structure stored. They produced your 3 nuclear bombs of radiation per day and it doesn’t really mean a dam thing it’s a layman nonsense statistic.
    The moment you have to start using emotive nonsense to try and validate an argument you have already lost.
    • Its not a “laymans nonsense statistic” it is a way to make the amount of dangerous materials created very real. Say in 30 years, some of that radioactive material has half lifed away, but most haven’t. It’s being stored, usually in water pools that require circulation for cooling. Very little is dry casked (safer but only a can kick down the road for 50 to 100 years).
      Once you close the reactor, the radiation does not stop, the fission stops. The used fuel is not as you say irradiated, new radioactive elements have been created by the splitting of the atom which occurs in a controlled by somewhat random way called the double hump.
      My 3 bombs worth of radiation per day, IS WHAT IS STILL in the used fuel. If you are going to support “nuclear science” you ought to man up on facts.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Pacific Ocean Is Dying and You Don't Even Know?

from a reader / contributor.   They have made a new site, and it is outstanding!

Table of Contents

A Rant On The Absurd State of the Union

Like a bunch of rats on tainted cheese we are. We wouldn't know crap if we were neck deep in it. Much less buried in it.

And I must include myself in this pile, I am here, participating in this madhouse chaos ridden country.

On the one hand, we have pointy hat spooks, running mad, 'exposing' their loony BS, and even themselves, saying 'look at me, this is who I am !!'

What do we do?

Become fearful, scream, cry, demand it stop.

On the other hand, we have no border, are willing to import any/all, support them if needed.

We are $20 trillion in debt. We are OK with this. We know little about it, who/what/why, seems secrets do not matter.

What do we do?

Embrace it, make excuses for it, demand it continue.

We are embracing a nuclear war. We believe much of what we are told. It is a lot of bs. We know it is.

What do we do?

Stock up, get ready, seems we don't know what else toooo do.

We live in one of the most 'food' productive nations on earth, not to mention 'other stuff'. We cheer on 'no fossil fuel', its gotta go!! We are literally obsessed by it, like a religious chant.

What do we do?

Import 25-30% of our food, placing us strategically dependent on others, enjoy 'cheap' goods at others expense, ignore the dependence on fuel, shine on the pollution it creates, fumble around like fools.

Others will..will build nuke plants to accommodate our demand. Like Japan did.

Like you have said obe, cattle.

A confused, lost, herd.

Free Speech and Paid Corruption, We Need to Draw The Line, But It's a Slippery Slope

"Monsanto Shill Fired by Forbes"

Story at-a-glance

A common corporate tactic is to hire “third-party experts” to bring the industry’s message to the public, cloaked as independent opinion or expertise

Henry Miller has been repeatedly outed as a shill for the chemical technology industry. Forbes has now fired him for publishing material under his own name that turned out to be ghostwritten by Monsanto

Internal emails reveal Monsanto pressured a journal editor to retract a damning animal study showing Roundup and genetically engineered corn caused cancer and early death"

"Faced with evidence they’d published material under Miller’s name that was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired Miller but also removed all of his work from their site. …"
""…When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from and ended our relationship with him.”"

  • Fired after the publicity and evidence? How many articles and what did they say and what was his "job"?
  • Plenty more where that came from.
  • What are they waitin' for? "Evidence"?
  • How many of the paid "relationships" are ghost-written?
  • If you can't see, hear or taste nuclear waste and pollution, why is it so apparent in the "work" 
  • displayed on Forbes site?
  • Junk journalism, much?

The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, “Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.”

By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman “Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate skeptics.”


Monday, August 14, 2017

The Awan Brothers, A Symptom of the Incredible Corruption at the Top

way OT, but this is worth getting on your radar.

Just wow….one of the Awan brothers is seen here at a House Committee hearing sitting directly behind Trey Gowdy, seemingly coaching the measured and scripted responses out of Jeh Johnson (who was Barack Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary). He also appears to be making threatening faces at Jeh Johnson. It’s obvious Jeh Johnson is being blackmailed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

So You Are Thinking About an Electric Vehicle (EV), Solid Advice on the Charging Setup

OK here is some free consulting.   LOL you get what you pay for.

In selecting a vehicle and charging system, one formula is very basic and very important.   But don't turn your brain off even if you don't want to do calcs, you don't have to, just follow along.


Voltage will always be 240V on a 2 Phase (which uses a 2 pole breaker), in your area that might be 230V no big difference in the calcs.
The Average peak charging rate shown in the spreadsheet is 6.6 kW, plug that in and solve for Amps

6600 W=240 *A

AMP= 27.5

The other main max charging rates are 10kW, and for the Tesla an option for 20kW

10,000 =240 * A    solves A for 41.67A

20,000 = 240 * A   solves A for  83.33A

Now a very important observation from over a decade of solar PV work, and the NEC (National Electric Code) has been slowly adopting more conservative codes to reflect  that fact that solar circuit often operate near peak load, and for a long time.   This means the wires heat up over time, and over time the insulation takes a beating, as well as the connections whether they are wire nutted or bolted.    
The main effect of Amperage is in selecting wire size, at least in conventional systems.    But PV electric systems, and car charging system are similar in one important way, and so the knowledge gleaned from PV systems is directly applicable to EV Charging systems, and that similarity is that they both run near peak amperage for long periods of time, many hours.   This creates heat, and also losses, and the higher the heat, the higher the losses, so it is like a cat chasing it's tail. 

One other aspect of PV, because of the heat issue, is that the most recent codes require that any wire that is in a run of conduit, that is situated where it can be directly lit by the sun must be further “derated” and this simply means you must jump up one wire size from the other calculations which also have some conservatism built into them.

I will introduce quickly one other concept that is affected by wire and breaker sizing – the amount of electricity lost while running through the wire (it’s lost as heat).    The smaller the wire the bigger the loss.   In most modern electrical systems, it is almost always a no-brainer to upsize the wire as the additional cost will be more than paid for by lower losses. 

The minimal “derate” on solar PV is done by multiplying the expected Amps time 125%, and sometimes this is also multiplied by another 125%.    125% *125% = 156%

If you take the 27.5A Charging amp above and use the 156% multiplier you get 42.9A, which would use a 50A 2 Pole breaker.  

So yes, a 50A 240V (2 Pole) circuit would be pretty comfortable for all the currently available electric cars.

How about the Volkswagen at 7.2kW charging rate?
7200 W = 240 *A = 30 A
30A *156% = 46.8A

You work out the numbers for the BMW at 7.4kW --- try it, there is no rocket science here.   You will leave your EV or PV “Salesman” in the dust though, with just this amount of knowledge.

The Tesla at 20kW
20,000 = 240 * A   solves for 83.33 A times 156% would be 130A in this conservative calc, and even using a 125% multiplier would be 104A. 

It should be clear if you are following that a 50A 2 Pole service (or breaker if you will) would be definitely pushing the limit to charge the Tesla at the 10kW rate, and may even violate local codes.   The manufacturers of the car and charger may also have their own requirements, which you can never go under, but you can definitely, and probably should, go over in picking breaker and wire size.

Electricians will probably want to “bid” the smallest breaker and wire size, not for your long term benefit, but because they want a better chance of winning bid, and if they upsize your wire and breaker to get you the safer system and the one with less power losses over time, they will lose the bid.     So be aware, they will convincingly try to assure you the smaller wire and breaker is “fine” and meets code. 

And back to the concept of electrical losses, the bigger wire and breaker will provide less electricity losses, especially on system that run often and for many hours.     So I wouldn’t necessarily rip out a 40A charging circuit, and replace it with a 50A because that project cost would probably not be justified.    But if designing fresh, I would almost always choose the 50A as the upgraded cost is minimal.

One final thought.    You might be designing a charging system for a Chevy Volt at 3.3kW.   That only gives you 11 Miles for each hour of charging.   That might be really inconvenient at times, you may want a quicker charge rate.      You might “put up with that” on your first EV, but I strongly feel that as time goes on, people are going to insist on faster charging rates, and future vehicles and chargers will require a fast, strong shot of electricity --- big Amps.    So doing it right, once, and on the first system, makes a lot of sense.    Doing it over can cost A LOT more, and with less electricity losses, doing the larger system gives you benefits right out of the gate, even if your second EV is many years down the road.  

Stock out

Max Charge
~Miles Added Per Hour
100% Electric or PHEV
Audi A3 e-tron
3.3 kW
BMW i3
7.4 kW
100% Electric / REx
Cadillac ELR
3.3 kW
Chevy Spark EV
3.3 kW
100% Electric
Chevy Volt
3.3 kW
Fiat 500e
6.6 kW
100% Electric
Ford C-Max Energi
3.3 kW
Ford Fusion Energi
3.3 kW
Ford Focus Electric
6.6 kW
100% Electric
Honda Accord Plug-In Hybrid
6.6 kW
Hyundai Sonata Plug-in Hybrid
3.3 kW
Kia Soul EV
6.6 kW
100% Electric
Mercedes B-Class Electric
10 kW
100% Electric
Mercedes S550 Plug-in Hybrid
3.3 kW
Mercedes C350 Plug-in Hybrid
3.3 kW
Mitsubishi i-MiEV
3.3 kW
100% Electric
Nissan LEAF
3.3 kW / 6.6 kW
11 / 22
100% Electric
Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid
3.6 kW / 7.2 kW
12 / 24
Porsche Panamera S E-Hybrid
3 kW
Smart Electric Drive
3.3 kW
100% Electric
Tesla Model S
10 kW / 20 kW
29 / 58
100% Electric
Tesla Model X
10 kW / 20 kW
29 / 58
100% Electric
Toyota Prius Plug-In
3.3 kW
Volkswagen e-Golf
3.6 kW / 7.2 kW
12 / 24
100% Electric

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Massive Change In Melting Point of Plutonium Published 6 Months After Fukushima

stock here -- The Nukists did not understand a very important property of "the most dangerous element on earth" that they were "playing with".     That element being Plutonium in PuO2 form.

Research released in Sept 2011 (6 months after Fukushima) showed a decrease in the temperature difference between melting and boiling (gas) point.   Prior to Fukushima, they thought they had a "comfort zone" of 350F, but after Fukushima their tests showed the comfort zone was a lot less comfortably at just 56F.      

So Plutonium can rapidly flash from a solid to a gas!

TEPCO thinks graphite melts? It vaporizes. At what temperature? Over 7,0000F degrees. Unless they know something else was going on inside Unit 3's reactor vessel (higher pressures, etc) they are still guessing to what happened.
Mock setups for meltdowns show fuel melts and collects in a blob to heat up the bottom of the reactor vessel then blasts out the bottom all at once with the help of overpressure from off-gassing. The iron bottom of the reactor vessel is going to glow red and give way long before any graphite does.
Unit 2 shows a hole in the grating from a hot blob passing thru. I suppose outer fringes of the reactor bottom might survive with some control rods and drive equipment intact below.
Simplyinfo has a pic of Unit 5's pedestal area in pristine condition to compare against.
From what I read, after Unit 4 blew, then Unit 3 pressures dropped. Possibly showing they might have been linked via tunnels and piping.
Doubt Unit 4's pool was ever hot enough to meltdown so melted fuel fallout releases were less possible. Might have been a lot of off-gassing (rod tube pressure failure) and some zirconium reactions there but not a lot of irradiation like at Unit 3 (neutron bombardment).
Still would like to know where all the scattered fuel pellets came from.
Unit 3's spent fuel condition will be hidden with the new cover being put in place.

Report comment

  • CodeShutdown CodeShutdown
    razzz if you run past that info about U3 pressure reducing when U4 blew, make sure you post it. Ive never seen that, that I recall.
    This is not to go against your info about vaporization of graphite but I have seen graphite melted somehow with my own eyes. It looked like a black moon surface. Related to a nuclear reaction…
    How can we know what the conditions in U4 sfp were? If there was a freshly unloaded fuel load, then how different is it than fuel in a shutdown RPV? Except no RPV pressure. Recall that large releases have been reported in the literature from U4. Also high neutron flux was reported there also

    • Methinks the scattered fuel pellets at R4 shown in the header of my website, were experimental MOX they were planning on tossing into R4, recently souped up with a new reactor shroud, sitting on top of the used fuel. Many looked barely damaged.

  • razzz, I didnt verify for Fuku, but nuclear fuel is usually UO2, melts at 5189F. But in the presence of oxygen (air or water) it will turn back in U3O8 at around 1600F, which will then melt at 2100F,
    which then boils to U02 (again) at 2370F.
    With MOX they also have PuO2 which melts at 2744F, but just milliseconds later in a uncontrolled chain reaction, will turn to gas at 2800F
    hmmmm, do ya thinks all that Pu may have been gifted to the atmosphere via stretched reactor bolts and the most of it that melted through the reactor vessel and then "flashed off" to a gas just 56F after turning to a melt?
    Did that massive pressure increase when turning into a gas, compress all the water vapor, thus changing the "reactivity" and thus creating a Moderated Prompt Criticality.