Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Power United States Technology

Flood Berm Collapses At Nebraska Nuclear Plant 417

mdsolar writes "A berm holding the flooded Missouri River back from a Nebraska nuclear power station collapsed early Sunday, but federal regulators said they were monitoring the situation and there was no danger. The Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station shut down in early April for refueling, and there is no water inside the plant, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said. Also, the river is not expected to rise higher than the level the plant was designed to handle. NRC spokesman Victor Dricks said the plant remains safe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flood Berm Collapses At Nebraska Nuclear Plant

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Sunday June 26, 2011 @06:10PM (#36578802)

    "It seems that there really was no danger."

    I assume you don't have any real estate 15 miles around the reactors?

  • And Cooper? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mdsolar ( 1045926 ) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @06:57PM (#36579050) Homepage Journal
    Seems like the flood preparations at the operating plant Cooper have made it very difficult to access emergency equipment. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27nuke.html [nytimes.com]
  • Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday June 26, 2011 @08:52PM (#36579790)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 26, 2011 @10:59PM (#36580348)

    A decade of hope? I really don't think so. Yes, the music didn't suck compared to now (courtesy of our homogenized radio station overlords who are too cheap to pay for anything past 1995 for license fees.)

    Want to know why those decades sucked?

    1: A button press from Armageddon. We were under that fear 24/7/365.

    2: Soviets were mean as hell. People talk about the crap US troops did in Afghanistan, it didn't even hold a candle to the Soviet actions. The Soviets would find people hunkered in a cave, pour gasoline and a couple other chemicals down a hole, set it afire, then send pictures home picturing the incinerated bodies and how well-done they can cook the "Afghan fried chicken".

    3: Soviets were winning on the global stage. I remember in '88 what a social science teacher taught -- there has never been a single country that has been able to free itself from communism. The fact that any protest in any Soviet-bloc country would be answered by heavy machine gun fire made this so. Picture US troops going into Canada and shooting Canuck fans just because they were protesting. That was life in Eastern Europe in the 1970s and 1980s.

    4: Carter caused the Shah to fall in Iran by pulling US troops out (which were requested by the recognized Iranian government to be there.) The Shah was a tyrant, but at least he was moving Iran forward. Women could drive. When Carter handed Iran over to the fanatics, they killed the top Iranian generals. Guess what? Saddam next door thought it would be a perfect time to come on in due to no real military expertise at the top. It took the sheer will of the Iranian people to drive him out. Had Carter just left US troops in as asked, the millions of people that died in that conflict would be alive today.

    Of course, Carter putting the moratorium on all nuclear development meant that Big Oil and Big Coal would be the mainstay of our energy supplies for the known future. Had he actually given into rational thought, we would have newer generation plants, energy independence, and not be OPEC's bitch as a whole.

    Carter gutting the US military didn't help either. His broken policies pretty much ensured that we will be under the thumb of the woo-woo whacko right wing forever after.

    5: Reagan: Deregulation was his game. He deregulated the airlines, causing the service to go from decent to miserable. Banks? 2008 showed his handiwork.

    6: Cars sucked ass. Combine emissions laws and the gas crunch, and we had wonders such as the AMC Gremlin, the Chevy Chevette, the Ford Escort, and other wonders. It wasn't until the mid to late 90s when we saw the horsepower numbers get back to where they should be.

    7: The crack epidemic. Before that, if a guy was in your house, they actually would take off like a bat out of hell. Crack came around, and turned burglaries into homicides, joyrides into carjackings, and robberies into mass murders.

    Before the 1980s, I knew police officers who went 20+ years on a beat without ever having to reach for their service revolver. Now, the service semi-autos come out at a moment's notice.

    8: Prisons being made private. Now we have a private prison lobby who fights to make marijuana illegal and felonize as many crimes as possible. More people locked up, the more cash they make. Had this not been the case, we likely wouldn't be spending billions on the "War on Drugs".

    9: Defunding of mental hospitals. Before the '80s, the insane were kept off the streets. Now they inhabit every street corner, forcing people who raise families to further out neighborhoods just to get away from them. The insane also end up in prison, making money for private industry, but definitely not getting treated.

    10: "Peace and Love" being replaced by "I got mine. Up Yours!" as a motto for generations. Want to know one reason China is kicking our asses in both economic and military numbers? Most Americans don't give a whit beyond themselves and the next gadget announcement from Apple. You g

  • by KDR_11k ( 778916 ) on Monday June 27, 2011 @02:14AM (#36581038)

    The problem with nukes is that letting private companies run them for profit means they'll cut costs wherever possible. Look at how Deepwater Horizon blew up: They ignored a whole load of safety regulations because they thought nothing bad could happen and it's just cheaper to skip on the safety stuff that'll never get used anyway.

  • Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by michelcolman ( 1208008 ) on Monday June 27, 2011 @04:47AM (#36581534)

    The water level around Fukushima was not expected to rise higher than the level the plant was designed to handle either. And according to some reports [slashdot.org], the Fukushima plant was not even able to handle the earthquake itself even though it was designed to handle it.

    Now I'm all for modern nuclear plants, we should be building a lot more of them, but I've learned to take official reports on nuclear incidents with a grain of salt

Today is a good day for information-gathering. Read someone else's mail file.

Working...