ScribbleLive

@fitter and RBeaner-Limerick was also listed as the third most likely nuclear plant to experience a core event, and just got permission to up their generating capacity by roughly 1.5% ( further stressing existing systems?).

@RBeaner @momof3 Public accesability to info needs improved.... it looks like the NRC briefing is "blacked out" has anyone been able to see it?

@momof3 I've worked in the nuclear power, US field. Things do in fact go wrong at times. I was never involved in big accidents, where there might be incentive to fudge the numbers. I have been involved in situations that required a 0-3 on the INES scale. My experience shows that those information releases were completely accurate. No obfuscation. No Lies. Prehaps when problems become more widespread, than the local stream, politicians get involved and start burying the consequences. I know of no circumstances like this. All situations I observed were (relatively) accurately reported on. Including the second guessing of Mr. Jack Shannon!

I've been pressing for press coverage, and I am currently emailing Sierra Club in my state to see if they have any leads on how I can pursue this further.

@momof3 I absolutely encourage you to get some smple analysis done. I am not saying believe the gov numbers. If you need help in getting in touch with your local universities for beneficient assistance, I might be able to help. But it would probably more useful if it just came from you. A local, concerned resident. Take the samples at several different points and get them analyzed. It's not hard.

@RBeaner-I got in touch with Sierra Club and several other "safe water" groups in PA. I am hoping they can direct me to some local groups that may be interested in additional independent testing and interpretation of the effluent info on Limerick. I hope they can at least suggest some ideas on how I can get more data and get the info disseminated. They have their hands full in pa right now with the hydrofracking issue, but I hope they'll give this some consideration. Finding a university interested in analysis is a good idea.

@RBeaner are you still out there

@fitter @momof3 I believe the group you're talking about is Clean Water Action? www.cleanwateraction.org They have come to my door wanting signatures and money too.

@momof3 Just remember that with groups like the sierra club, they have bigger (usually chemical ) fish to fry than these EXTREMELY low levels of radioactivity. I'm not trying to discourage investigation, just that they may not be interested because of other problems they are facing. Fracking is probably a larger hazard to you and your family than the Fukushima event. I have a portable meter that will determine your radiation exposure, if it is Significant... But the same portable device may not be available for benzine, hydrazine and other chemicals associated withy fracting.

RBeaner-Yes, we are concerned with fracking as well. We recently moved back to PA after living out of state for 5 years, and getting an RO/carbon filter system for our water is at the top of my priority list, primarily because of my concerns over fracking, but also due to the situation in Japan. My local water treatment facility (i'm in the burbs) only recently disclosed that they "treated" (I use that term loosely!) fracking wastewater last year at some point. I just emailed the head of the environmental science program at UPenn and asked him to consider whether any students would be interested in water testing, etc. I also found they have an Environmental Advocacy and Education concentration. I'm going to send my email around to a few other area chem/environmental science depts and see if anyone expresses an interest.

@General Armchair You are right, that was the group I was thinking of. www.cleanwateraction.org I don't endorse them, If they want to publish drinking water quality standards , and lack of meeting them, then I would be all for them. I think we deserve all the information available. If we can't get it through Gov. sources, then we need to get it through private sources. I don't believe in Lobbying. Get the grass roots involved, and if they feel strongly enough about it, change will occur.

I sent my email to the cleanwateraction folks as well. I found a link to several groups on the sierra club site, as well as two individuals from the sierra club who specifically focus on water related issues. If they aren't interested, I'm hoping they'll put me in contact with another group that may be interested in independent testing. I'm not as much concerned about the levels (which I do find somewhat concerning) as to the length of time someone sat on this info, and the lack of the press asking questions about the origin of the 131. I'm also concerned that they stopped testing for a lot of isotopes back in 2006-2007, which makes it tough to know what else is in the water contributing radioactivity. Without that info, I have trouble with their statements that it would be safe to drink X liters per day. Perhaps I'm overly paranoid but I'm uncomfortable with the lack of transparency.

@Jim Carver They pump in nitrogen and the pressure rises -- alarmingly! They slow that down and extend the process. Fine. Then they start to inject lots of water and the pressure drops -- alarmingly! So they stop that.

The days tick by, one after another. 3 months (and that was two weeks ago!) to get to where they are reducing emissions (according to the "Plan"). I don't see it.

@momof3 I don't blame you for being concerned (suspicious) , out in the open is the way to go, Sunshine is the best dissinfectant. All sound familiar? The fact of the matter is that most Americans can NOT make any reasonable decision or concepualize an effect from radioactivity. Sure, HUGE levels, encountered by heroic workers trying to prevent exposures to civilians might have a specific effect. Those workers understood thier risk (small, but increased) , but when translated into extremely small exposures like in the US, we fail to understand or put the risk into perspective, I repeat, according to the US cancer assosiation, 37% of women and 44% of men are going to "get Cancer" anyway .Oh and 20% will actually die of cancer. That's 1 out of 5 dearhs.

@General Armchair You are absolutely correct, it was www.cleanwateraction.org

@General Armchair Did they really pump in Nitrogen? Did the Pressure really rises? I agree with you that "The days tick by, one after another. 3 months ...." this and the fact that they are releasing radioactivity is the only thing that we really now is TRUE . Oh I forget we now also that is true that they don't want us to now the True.