THEY DID NAZI THAT COMING. Russians Holding Nuclear Power Plants Hostage. "Surrender or We'll Explode a Dirty Bomb and Freaking Nuke Europe." - Possible Threat by Putin!

Of all the Horrible things about Atomic Power... This is Something the Designers Did Not Plan For. 

I Hope that Russia Does NOT Get Frantic at the End of this War and Blow Up a Power Plant for Revenge... When they Lose... 

I don't want to add Zaporizhzhia to the List... Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI, Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Nyonoksa ... 

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/02/analysis-nuclear-disaster-ukraine-could-make-swaths-europe-uninhabitable-decades

Analysis: Nuclear Disaster in Ukraine Could Make Swaths of Europe 'Uninhabitable for Decades'

Russia's assault on Ukraine risks nuclear devastation "far worse even than the Fukushima Daiichi catastrophe of 2011," Greenpeace warns.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/04/russia-accused-nuclear-terror-after-fire-zaporizhzhia-power-plant

Russia Accused of 'Nuclear Terror' After Fire at Zaporizhzhia Power Plant

"This is the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe," said one nuclear non-proliferation group. "We are perched on the precipice of catastrophe."

SOLAR, WIND, HYDRO & BIOMASS are Cheaper than Nuclear Power Plants... That's Why We Aren't Building any Nukes. That and the Radioactive Waste That has to be Stored and Guarded for 10,000 Years... To Prevent Terrorists from Building a Dirty Bomb...

The Danger of A Crazy Man Simply Placing a Traditional Bomb Under A Cask of Atomic Waste is IMMENSE... Sometime During the 10,000 Years That Nuclear Waste is Actively Radioactive, It's Almost Certain that a "WhackJob" will Blow It Up!

Unemployed Physics Graduates Can't Get a Job in the Nuclear Power Industry so they Write Magazine Articles all about how wonderful Nukes Are... and Make Pro Nuke Videos...

In 1976 PG&E Said NO NUKES! and Shut it Down... The Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit 3 was a 63 MWe boiling water reactor, owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Company that operated from August 1963 to July 1976 just south of Eureka, California... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKJ_73_8kzo

Power - No Nukes concert

 Remember: The Only Good Nuke is a Decommissioned Nuke... Shut 'em DOWN!

What is the main reason why fewer nuclear power plants are being built today compared to 40 years ago? Nuclear power plants have become too expensive to generate electricity at a reasonable cost. Which of the following accurately describes the use of fossil fuels for energy?

https://web.archive.org/web/20110825210125/
http://redwoodalliance.dreamhosters.com/files/10-98NFT.pdf

Humboldt Nuke Faces Dismantling By Jim Adams Twenty-two years after shutdown, PG&E’s Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Plant may become the first commercial reactor to be dismantled or decommissioned in the US. A major project got underway in September as the 250 ft. tall concrete vent stack began to be demolished. The utility has also announced its intent to remove 390 spent (irradiated) fuel rods from the pool at the plant, and place them in on-site steel containers called dry casks. For more than a decade, Redwood Alliance has urged PG&E to take this action. This will keep our community safe and allow complete dismantling to take place. Four miles south of Eureka and adjacent to Humboldt Bay, the Humboldt nuke sits on top of and close to major earthquake faults. The Alliance has worked since 1978 to make sure that the nuclear plant, one of the oldest and dirtiest in the country, would never reopen and will be properly dismantled.

The Nyonoksa radiation accident occurred on 8 August 2019 near Nyonoksa, Russian Federation. Five military and civilian specialists were killed and three (or six, depending on the source) were injured.[1][2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyonoksa_radiation_accident

American intelligence officials are racing to understand a mysterious explosion that released radiation off the coast of northern Russia last week, apparently during the test of a new type of nuclear-propelled cruise missile hailed by President Vladimir V. Putin as the centerpiece of Moscow’s arms race with the United States.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nuclear-energy-too-slow-too-expensive-to-save-climate-report-idUSKBN1W909J

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/1/5958943/nuclear-power-rise-fall-six-charts

Nuclear power is slowly going out of style. Back in 1996, atomic energy supplied 17.6 percent of the world's electricity. Today that's down to just 10.8 percent — and it could drop even further in the years ahead.

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change.

Analysis: New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory

The hot lab suffered a number of fires involving radioactive materials. For example, in 1957, a fire in the hot cell "got out of control and ... massive contamination" resulted.[23]

At least four of the ten nuclear reactors suffered accidents: 1) The AE6 reactor experienced a release of fission gases in March 1959.[24] 2) In July 1959, the SRE experienced a power excursion and partial meltdown that released 28 Curies of radioactive noble gasses. The release resulted in the maximum off-site exposure of 0.099 millirem and an exposure of 0.018 millirem for the nearest residential building which is well within current limits today.[25] 3) In 1964, the SNAP8ER experienced damage to 80% of its fuel. 4) In 1969 the SNAP8DR experienced similar damage to one-third of its fuel.[24]

A radioactive fire occurred in 1971, involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products.[26][27]

The reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, and therefore had no containment structures. Reactors and highly radioactive components were housed without the large concrete domes that surround modern power reactors.[citation needed]

and then a Guy of FaceBorg Said:  

I recommend this page, 

https://www.facebook.com/timetogonuclear/posts/4855025154545048

it debunks the lies about "radiation deaths" supposedly caused by nuclear power. Give it an honest try. I used to be against nuclear power, 3 Mile Island was closed, and yet there was no radiation or damage outside the plant itself. Even Fukishima radiation was down to backround levels within a few hundred yards of the plant. Wildlife is everywhere around Chernobyl, with no observed radiation problems. This site will respond to your arguments against nuclear power with reason and demonstrable statisitics to back their argument that it is safe. I support Solar and Wind power, but it is nowhere near being able to completely replace fossil fuels, just ask Germany, with their new gas pipeline coming from Russia.

Why did the Nuclear Waste policy act fail? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act

The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 is a United States federal law which established a comprehensive national program for the safe, permanent disposal of highly radioactive wastes. 

The Nuclear Waste Fund previously received $750 million in fee revenues each year and had an unspent balance of $44.5 billion as of the end of FY2017.^[8] However (according to the Draft Report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future), actions by both Congress and the Executive Branch have made the money in the fund effectively inaccessible to serving its original purpose. The commission made several recommendations on how this situation may be corrected.^[9]

In December 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the only site to be characterized as a permanent repository for all of the nation's nuclear waste.^[11] The plan was added to the fiscal 1988 budget reconciliation bill signed on December 22, 1987.

On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing the Yucca Mountain site is no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste.^[19] 

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pilesscientists-seek-best/98/i12

Regardless of whether you are for or against nuclear power, and no matter what you think of nuclear weapons, the radioactive waste is already here, and we have to deal with it.”

That’s Gerald S. Frankel’s matter-of-fact take on the thousands of metric tons of used solid fuel from nuclear power plants worldwide and the millions of liters of radioactive liquid waste from weapons production that sit in temporary storage containers in the US. While these waste materials, which can be harmful to human health and the environment, wait for a more permanent home, their containers age. In some cases, the aging containers have already begun leaking their toxic contents.

“It’s a societal problem that has been handed down to us from our parents’ generation,” says Frankel, who is a materials scientist at the Ohio State University. “And we are—more or less—handing it to our children.”

IN BRIEF:

More than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste sits in storage near nuclear power plants and weapons production facilities worldwide, with over 90,000 metric tons in the US alone. Emitting radiation that can pose serious risks to human health and the environment, the waste, much of it decades old, awaits permanent disposal in geological repositories, but none are operational. With nowhere to go for now, the hazardous materials and their containers continue to age. That unsustainable situation is driving corrosion experts to better understand how steel, glass, and other materials proposed for long-term nuclear waste storage containers might degrade. Read on to learn how these researchers’ findings might help protect people and the environment from waste leakages.