American Fukushima? Flooding Missouri River endangers nuclear power plants! (Update: 6/19/2011)

Looks like this Aqua Dam failed early this morning. 6/26/11

What happened is that nothing flagged that the penetration that was installed for fire fighting would be a potential leak during a flood. I would say their should have been an inspection of that penetration sense it could leak and flood the space. Sounds like someone tried to save some money and time.

http://news.lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/2011/06/fort-calhoun-nuclear-power-plant-s...

The above URL goes to the NRC's report onFort Calhoun's when the NRC did post-Fukushima inspections of all NPPs in the U.S.

After reading over this a few times, I'm still not sure about a couple of things: were these leakage problems fixed before the fire in June 2011? ("Event date" on the report is in February 2011, "Report Date" is 5/16/2011).

Were these leaks in the basement, into the electrical guts of the plant?

Was the fire caused by shorting out of the electrical workings because water leaked on them--because the leaks identified by the NRC were not fixed?

Page 1, "ABSTRACT: During identification and evaluation of flood barriers, unsealed through wall penetrations in the outside wall of the intake, auxiliary and chemistry and radiation protection buildings were identified that are below the licensing basis flood elevation.
A summary of the root causes included: a weak procedure revision process; insufficient oversight of work activities associated with external flood matters; ineffective identification, evaluation and resolution of performance
deficiencies related to external flooding; and “safe as is” mindsets relative to external flooding events.
The penetrations were temporarily sealed and a configuration change was developed and implemented whereby permanent seals were installed. Comprehensive corrective actions to address the root and contributing causes
are being addressed through the corrective action program."

Page 2, BACKGROUND: "BACKGROUND
As a result of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted from January 1 to June 21, 2010, the NRC determined that Fort Calhoun Station (FCS) did not have adequate procedures toprotect the intake structure and auxiliary building against external flooding events. Specifically, contrary to Technical Specification 5.8.1.a, the station failed to maintain procedures for combating a significant flood as recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.33, Appendix A, section 6.w, “Acts of Nature.” The NRC identified the following violation of NRC requirements associated with a yellow significance
determination process finding in the mitigating systems cornerstone in inspection report 05000285/2010008 dated October 6, 2010:...."

The document goes on with the specifics of the problems the NRC found.

Then it goes to the "narrative":

"Page 4, NARRATIVE: EVENT DESCRIPTION
During identification and evaluation of flood barriers (condition report (CR) 2010-2387), in response to NRC findings previously noted, unsealed through wall penetrations in the intake structure were identified that are below the licensing basis flood elevation. These penetrations were installed during
the installation of upgrades to the plant fire protection system. As a result of the penetrations not being sealed, the intake structure was vulnerable to water inflow during an extreme flooding event. This inflow had the potential to affect the operability of both trains of safety related raw water pumps
(ultimate heat sink).
On February 4, 2011, an eight (8) hour report was made under 10 CFR 50.72 (b)(3)(v)(D) to the NRC Headquarters Operation Office (HOO) at 1717 CST (Event Number (EN) 46594). The report should have been made on September 9, 2009. (Documented in Condition Report (CR) 2011-0801) During the extent of cause analysis for this issue the following penetrations were identified as not having been reported. In addition, the extent of cause evaluation identified the following unsealed penetrations:....

If anyone has insight into this LER, I'd appreciate any clarification. Thanks!

The following is an article from yesterday, from the Omaha.com website. I will post issues with it in the next post.

------------------

Published Friday June 17, 2011

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110617/NEWS01/706179913

NRC: No flood danger at reactor
• By Nancy Gaarder
Fort Calhoun nuclear reactor surrounded by water and the weeks of flooding that lie ahead, the plant is in a safe cold shutdown and can remain so indefinitely, the reactor's owners and federal regulators say.
“We think they've taken adequate steps to protect the plant and to assure continued safety,” Victor Dricks, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Thursday.
Tim Burke, vice president at Omaha Public Power District, said the plant's flood barriers are being built to a level that will protect against rain and the release of record amounts of water from upstream dams on the Missouri River.
“We don't see any concerns around the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station,” Burke said at a briefing in Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle's office.
The nuclear plant, 20 miles north of Omaha, was shut down April 9 for refueling. It has not been restarted because of the imminent flooding.
Cooper Nuclear Station, which is about 70 miles south of Omaha near Brownville, Neb., continues to operate even as it makes similar flood protections. Cooper is owned by Nebraska Public Power District. The river would have to rise about 6 feet higher for the plant to go into a cold shutdown.
Time has been on Fort Calhoun's side, said David Lochbaum, director of nuclear safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. The group is a leading watchdog of the nuclear industry.
Lochbaum is among the handful of outside experts whom Congress taps for perspective on nuclear problems, including the crisis caused by the March earthquake and tsunami in Japan.
At the Fukushima Daiichi plant, operators had less than an hour to react to the quake before the tsunami hit, Lochbaum said. Fort Calhoun has had weeks to ready itself for flooding.
“That's not enough time to relocate a nuclear plant to higher ground or jack it up on stilts,” he said, “but it is plenty of time to check to ensure that watertight doors are intact, backup power supplies are available and functional, fuel oil tanks are topped off, etc.”
That is what OPPD has been doing.
However, other problems at the plant and some of the flood precautions themselves have unnerved people:
>>A fire at the outset of flooding temporarily disrupted power to the spent fuel pool.
>>The nuclear station shifted to an alert status.
>>Flights over the plant have been restricted.
>>Fort Calhoun was and continues to be one of the NRC's most tightly monitored plants because of problems it had before the flooding.
Dricks said the NRC has taken the unusual step of sending more inspectors and a branch chief to Fort Calhoun. A branch chief is a top regional regulator. In this case, it's the individual responsible for overseeing Fort Calhoun inspections and compliance.
Also, OPPD is bringing in additional boats, food and water for employees, which is not a cause for alarm, Dricks said.
“It's called prudence.”
Perhaps it's just as well that Fort Calhoun got into trouble last year with federal regulators over flood preparedness. During routine inspections in June 2010, the NRC concluded that deteriorating conditions during catastrophic flooding could make sandbagging near the river difficult.
Regulators required OPPD to improve flood defenses and signaled in April that those improvements were taking the plant in the right direction.
At that time, the plant was putting the finishing touches on the improvements, and utility officials were hopeful that this would be the month that the federal agency signed off on Fort Calhoun's flood upgrades.
Instead, the nuclear plant is in an all-out battle with the river.
In May, OPPD learned from the Army Corps of Engineers of the imminent flooding.
Since then, the utility has taken a number of steps that Dricks said have given federal regulators confidence in OPPD's ability to endure what will be a summer of flooding:
>>Installing an approximately 8-foot-tall, 16-foot-wide water-filled tubular rubber dam. The dam encircles the reactor building, like a black snake, and holds the floodwaters at bay.
>>Building an earthen berm around the switchyard, and other berms or sandbag walls around other electrical structures. Protecting the structures allows continued electrical power to the plant.
>>Trucking in two more fuel oil tanks that will supplement those on site and provide a total of four weeks' fuel for the backup diesel generators. The plant is developing plans for additional supplies of fuel.
In addition, the plant's backup batteries can provide power for eight hours, Dricks said. The plant's daily source of electricity is brought in from outside via transmission lines. The plant has six power lines coming into the plant, and any one of those is sufficient to run it.
>>Ordering six additional boats.
The plant began sandbagging on the weekend of May 21, according to the utility.
On June 6, the plant issued to federal regulators a “Notification of Unusual Event” because the river was projected to reach a flood level that would prevent the plant from operating. This type of notification is the least serious of four emergency classifications.
On June 7, a fire occurred that caused an interruption of power to the spent fuel pool. As a result, the plant was unable to continue active cooling of that pool. According to OPPD, power was out 90 minutes.
Within minutes after the start of the fire, the utility issued an “Alert,” the second-lowest of the four levels of emergencies.
Both the NRC and OPPD agree that the disruption of power was not a threat to public safety. Calculations indicate that the plant's spent fuel pool could have gone 83 hours without power before the water in it would have begun boiling, Dricks said.
Lochbaum said that once again, time was on OPPD's side. The time cushion offered the utility the “luxury” of choosing a solution to the problems created by the fire, Lochbaum said.
Elizabeth Ishan Cory, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said the flight restrictions at Fort Calhoun are intended to keep curiosity seekers out of the immediate vicinity. Planes can still fly near the plant if they have flight plans and are in contact with air traffic controllers. Smaller aircraft are restricted in how close they can get to the plant.
Otherwise, there's a risk of midair collisions that could jeopardize operations on the ground.
“When you keep the area above the ground safe, you're going to keep the people on the ground safe, too,” Cory said.
John Remus of the Corps of Engineers said the river level at Fort Calhoun had yet to reflect the full release of water from Gavins Point Dam.
When that happens, and given normal rainfall, the river level at the plant will most likely rise about 6 inches higher than it has been for much of this week, he said. Should higher-than-normal rainfall occur this summer, the river might rise 2.5 feet higher than it currently is, he said.
River levels and other flood measurements at the plant are made in terms of feet above sea level.
Earlier this week, the river stood at 1,005.6 feet elevation, Remus said, and has been mostly unchanged since then. The corps' projections place the river crest this summer, barring extraordinary rains, between roughly 1,006 and 1,008 feet.
Burke said OPPD's flood barriers would protect the plant to 1,010 to 1,012 feet elevation. The reactor itself is in a watertight container and the spent fuel pool is at 1,038.5 feet elevation.

-----------------------

The Rod Pool is at 1038.5 feet, that is 33 feet higher than the water is right now, also they have a rubber bladder 8 feet tall and 16 feet wide around everything. If you look at the picture you can see the bladder it is black and circles the plant. Someone asked what the black ball on the left side of the picture is, it's a tree.

Another interesting article--makes the point that, the spent rods have the potential of being swept, by the flooding, out of the pools in which they are stored.

Article also says that there are already leaks at Ft. Calhoun--and explains.

--------------
http://visionsgreen.com/2011/06/ft-calhoun-cooper-nuclear-plants-flooded/

Ft. Calhoun & Cooper Nuclear Plants Flooded
June 17, 2011 No Comments
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant: How Bad Can It Get? Really Bad!
By Tom Burnett

Fort Calhoun Nuclear Power Plant, NE Radiation, at minimum in the form of tritium, and more likely other particles and radionuclides, are leaking into the Missouri River from the Fort Calhoun nuclear generation plant in Nebraska.

I do not have proof. What I do have is the knowledge that every reactor is susceptible to small leaks at any time. Typically they are undiscovered and thus unreported – they are a few drops here and a few drops there from an improper weld or a stressed fitting – maybe the last one of the day before pau-hana time. And he intended to check it later, but never did. New baby, vacation, other things to think about. So thirty years later there are a couple gallons of it sitting under a pipe somewhere, not visible from the inspection point – and hey, this is all sealed up anyway….except for that pesky water leak the NRC is upset about…but a little water can’t hurt….

Until the plant gets submerged — or nearly so by a fast-running river which doesn’t cover the top (yet) but sure washes out all the leaky lines and the incomplete repair jobs which we didn’t care much about at the time because the river would never go that high.

So we are all standing on top of the buildings watching water pour in one side and out the other. Sandbags are sandbags. One million gallons of water a second washes sandbags away and all the cute little plastic pipes full of water – supported by sandbags and chain and not designed to hold 8 million pounds of water a second. Tomorrow it might be 150 million gallons of water a minute. If the dams hold. But we all know they aren’t going to — they are are right at the top of the US DAM potential failure list. The ‘domino’ dams.

Let’s skip that. At least we know why there is a no-fly zone around the plant. Workers are being brought in by helicopter and boat — to the roof and to SECOND STORY windows — maybe third story by tomorrow.

So….it’s a sand castle and the tide is coming in. Once the water washes out the underpinnings, the whole thing may happily slosh downstream until it hits the next one…

Is that all? Not hardly.

The Cooper nuclear plant can’t discharge sludge and it’s partially submerged just like Fort Calhoun. We don’t require any special knowledge to grasp what is going on. The plants have windows and doors and control rooms and pumps and heat exchangers and expended fuel pools. And they are all going underwater – but not like Fukushima where the water washed in and washed out. This is just going to get worse through August.

But it isn’t all bad. The Missouri river is cold enough to keep the pools and cores cool all by itself. And it’s also powerful to pull the fuel out and irradiate half the country.

And about that time, the hemp ropes are gonna come out.

-------------------

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/fukushima-groundwater-contamination-worst-nucl...

In this video/article of 5/6/2011, Dr. Gunderson discusses the possible contamination of groundwater in one Fukushima perfecture town they are reporting radioactivity in the sewage sludge.

However, a report from another source (ABC News-AM, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3244096.htm) 2 days ago relates the following:

"High levels of radioactive caesium have been found in sewage sludge in treatment plants in 16 prefectures.
It's believed rain soaked soil contaminated with radiation was washed into sewage lines and facilities during this wet season. The contamination's then settled in the sludge.
The sludge is usually incinerated and the ash used in materials like cement, but no-one wants it now so piles of radioactive sludge are growing around the country...."

I don't know what types of wastewater treatment plants are in operation in Japan. I know some about some of the types operated in the U.S.

In the U.S., WWT plants, in addition to residential sewer contents, also are reservoirs for the runoff that makes it to storm drains (if the community doesn't just let the runoff from the streets flow into local bodies of water). So, from the quote, above, that makes sense.

I'm not quite sure how they get to sludge so quickly, except the johkasou sludge, which appears to come from what we call in the U.S. "compostable toilets."

Anyway, the issue is that now, in 16 prefectures, they've recorded radioactive sludge. Sewage sludge usually has a high concentration of heavy metals, anyway. From reviewing some of the WWT plants in Japan, they seem to be either secondary- or tertiary-level treatment (going by U.S. standards).

In secondary systems, usually it takes a long time to accumulate enough sludge to have to get it trucked away. Apparently, this is not the case in Japan.

They are having issues with what to do with the sludge now since the previous disposal process (having it trucked to plants where it is turned into ash and then made into concrete bricks--oy vay, the energy used for that process must be A LOT).

A small percentage of sludge is dumped into the ocean. I hope Japan doesn't decide to use the ocean as the answer for its need to dispose of sewage sludge.

Also, most WWT plants who serve residential areas also serve commercial and industrial businesses, as well as hospitals, so that mix was already in the sludge.

Anyawy, just another thing to think of as being a potential problem if Ft. Calhoun goes south on us.

http://leroymoore.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/fact-sheet-risk-from-plutonium-in-the...

[NOTE: The image that accompanies this fact sheet is the same one as posted previously]
---------------------------------

Plutonium fact sheet

• Long-term danger: Plutonium 239, the material of principal concern at Rocky Flats, has a half-life of 24,110 years. It remains dangerously radioactive for more than a quarter-of-a-million years. Tiny particles left in the environment pose an essentially permanent danger.

• Lethal quality of internalized plutonium: The alpha radiation emitted by plutonium cannot penetrate skin like gamma radiation or x-rays. But tiny particles inhaled, ingested, or taken into the body through an open wound may lodge in the lungs or migrate to the liver or to the surface or marrow of bone. For as long as it resides in the body it continues to bombard surrounding tissue with radiation. The result may be cancer, genetic defects, harm to the immune system. The latent period for cancer is likely to be 20 to 30 years.

• Plutonium particle in lung tissue: “The black star in the middle of this picture shows the tracks made by alpha rays emitted from a particle of plutonium-239 in the lung tissue of an ape. The alpha rays do not travel very far, but once inside the body, they can penetrate more than 10,000 cells within their range. This set of alpha tracks (magnified 500 times) occurred over a 48-hour period” (Robert Del Tredici, At Work in the Fields of the Bomb [1987], plate 39).

• Dangerous in very small amounts: Plutonium particles of 10 or less microns can be inhaled. The average diameter of human hair is about 50 microns. Meteorologist W. Gale Biggs concluded that most airborne particles at Rocky Flats were probably smaller than 0.01 microns (“Emissions and Monitoring of Plutonium from Rocky Flats,” April 26, 2007).

• More harmful than other forms of radiation: Internal alpha emitters like plutonium are much more harmful per unit dose than penetrating gamma or x-ray radiation. To account for the difference, the International Commission on Radiological Protection refers to the “relative biological effectiveness” (RBE) of alpha emitters. Looking at the potential harm to different organs and for different disease end-points, ICRP concludes that the average RBE for alpha emitters is 20. This means that, on average, internal alpha emitters are 20 times more harmful than penetrating radiation of the same dose. But because 20 is an average, for some body organs and certain cancers as well as for particular individuals the actual RBE can be higher, sometimes much higher. For example, the RBE for bone cancer ranges as high as 320. (On RBE for plutonium, see Helen A. Grogan et al, Assessing Risk of Exposure to Plutonium, Feb. 2000 [Risk Assessment Corporation], pp. 6.27-6.39)

• Incautious approach used in setting Rocky Flats cleanup standards: Those who set the cleanup standards for Rocky Flats followed the ICRP in using 20 as the RBE for plutonium. This averaging approach disregards the harm that may result from plutonium exposure to certain organs of the body or to given individuals; it does not protect the most vulnerable members of the population. The Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement allows 50 picocuries of plutonium per gram of soil to remain in surface soil after “cleanup,” much larger quantities of plutonium at levels below three feet. Doubling the plutonium RBE to 40 would reduce the 50 picocuries allowed in surface soil to 25; each RBE doubling would reduce by half the amount of plutonium allowed in the surface soil.

• Potential harm to the human gene pool: A British research team concluded that the RBE for chromosomal damage from plutonium exposure is essentially “infinite,” because the extent of harm to the human gene pool is incalculable (M. A. Khadim et al, Nature, vol. 355, no. 20 [Feb. 1992], pp. 738-740). The resultant “genomic instability” may account for illnesses other than cancer, illnesses so elusive that epidemiology is “powerless” to detect any relationship between their incidence and exposure to radiation (Rob Edwards, New Scientist, vol. 11, Oct. 1997, pp. 37-40).

• Harm from a single particle: Tom K. Hei and colleagues at Columbia University demonstrated that a single plutonium alpha particle induces mutations in mammal cells. Cells receiving very low doses were more likely to be damaged than destroyed. Replication of these damaged cells constitutes genetic harm, and more such harm per unit dose occurs at very low doses than would occur with higher dose exposures. “These data provide direct evidence that a single alpha particle traversing a nucleus will have a high probability of resulting in a mutation and highlight the need for radiation protection at low doses.” In a follow-up study, they found that “a single alpha particle can induce mutations and chromosome aberrations in [adjacent] cells that received no direct radiation exposure to their DNA” (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 94 [Apr. 1997], pp. 3765-3770; and vol. 98 [4 Dec. 2001], pp. 14410-14415).

• Current radiation standards inadequate: The Committee Examining Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters, consisting of British government and independent scientists, concluded in 2004 that cancer risk from very low-doses of plutonium may be ten or more times more dangerous than allowed for by existing exposure standards. Among other adverse effects, the cellular descendants of seemingly unharmed exposed cells can suffer delayed damage (http://www.cerrie.org/).

• Excess cancers among Rocky Flats workers exposed to purportedly safe levels: In 1987 Gregg S. Wilkinson of DOE’s Los Alamos Lab published results of his study showing that some exposed Rocky Flats workers with internal plutonium deposits as low as 5% of DOE’s purportedly safe permissible lifetime body burden developed a variety of cancers in excess of what was normal for workers who had not been exposed (American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 125, no. 2 [1987], pp. 231-250).

• “Genetic uncertainty problem” for wildlife: Genetic specialist Diethard Tautz says that effects of radiation exposure on a given species of wildlife may not be readily apparent in individuals of that species until the passage of several generations. He calls this a “genetic uncertainty problem” (Trends in Genetics, vol. 16 [Nov. 2000], pp. 475-477). This finding suggests that wildlife at Rocky Flats could in the long-term be hurt by conditions at the site.

• All the Rocky Flats site contaminated: Historically, while some areas at Rocky Flats were more heavily contaminated than others, plutonium particles released in fires, accidents, and routine operations were laid down across the whole of the site. This conclusion is supported by soil sampling done at predominantly upwind locations by F. Ward Whicker of Colorado State University and Harvey Nichols of the University of Colorado.

• Extent of contamination unknown, cleanup inadequate: The government agencies responsible for cleanup of Rocky Flats never thoroughly “characterized” the Rocky Flats site to determine the full extent of contamination in the environment. They knowingly did not clean the site to the maximum extent possible. An unknown quantity of plutonium and other toxins remain in the environment.

• Harmful form of plutonium left behind: Plutonium left in the Rocky Flats environment is in the form of very fine particles that can be inhaled or ingested. Buried plutonium can be brought to the surface most especially by the actions of burrowing animals that dig down to as much as 16 to 20 feet below the surface and are constantly moving soil and its contents. Plutonium particles brought to the surface can be picked up by wind and moved to other locations near and far. There is no guarantee that plutonium left in the Rocky Flats environment will remain safely in place or even on the site.

--------------------------

http://vimeo.com/25002205

This is a link to Arnie Gunderson's discussion about the hot particles from Fukushima D which are being inhaled and swallowed by the peeps in Seattle.

Here's a short summary. TEPCO underestimated the amount of radiation released in the first week after the tsunami. It turned out to be about twice as much as has been released since the event began--not just the first week.

Much of the additional radiation not reported are "hot particles." In the first week of April, in Tokyo people were taking in, on average, 10 hot particles per day. In the area surrounding Fukushima, about 300 to 400 hot particles per day. In Seattle, Washington, about 5 hot particles a day.

The hot particles are a micron or less in size, and people inhale them, or swallow them. They deposit in the person's lungs, intestines, bones and muscles. They cause continual damage in the tissue directly surrounding the particle itself. Over years, for instance, in the lungs, cancer may or may not result, but there are other diseases that may--COPD, emphysema, decreased lung capacity due to scarring, etc.

Also, some people in Japan, immediately following the Fukushima D explosion, reported having a metallic taste in their mouth. This same phenomenon was reported by people in the surrounding areas of 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl when their respective reactors released contaminated material. In addition, some people who undergo radiation therapy for cancer report a metallic taste.

Gunderson's website is full of great stuff. Here's a URL (http://vimeo.com/24803980) for Gunderson's interview with CNN.

Many States have shortages of drinking water today, the last thing that the US can stand would be to contaminate several States drinking water. Japan may have done that to their Island.

They build them in flood zones because they need massive water supplies for cooling in normal operation (or as we have seen in Japan, even MORE water in emergency situations). I don't mean that this is okay or good, just that this is why they are on lakes, oceans, and rivers... it is just one more reason among many why nuclear power is a very bad idea. The real question is why the hell we continue to believe the economic mythology, safety mythology, and the new "green" mythology of the nuclear energy pushers? At least some formerly pro-nuke countries are starting to see the truth.

meanwhile every day we continue to unleash billions of tons of Co2 into the sky, mainy from coal which produces more radioactivity than nuclear waste.

at least nuclear waste is buried in the ground and not spewed into the air!

we really need to study science a little more and do the math.

no mo nukes

Hurriedly just added to "Nuclear News."

This is going to be a dead zone for the next 100 years. Great post very informational thanks.

I think MSM isn't covering this because they don't think there's a reason to be alarmed. Fukushima was damaged from a 9.0 earthquake and a 30+ft tsunami slamming into it. I think comparing a flooding river to what happened in Japan is a bit over board. No way it could possibly cause similar if any damage.

One thing that needs to be changed is the storing of spent Fuel Rods. If you have a problem your multiplying the problem many times by having these Rods on site. It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that this is a stupid idea. No matter what changes are made these Plants are unsafe and with the changes in the weather, that are being seen, these Plants are time bombs. We have been lucky but we do not need to push our luck by continuing with this stupidity.

Ugggh, more Bad news... =(
A great post all the same PA... =)

When i was a kid i was afraid of nuclear war . No need , nuclear power is the slow suicide i ought to have feared .

I speculate no one wants the public to panic especially with college world series in Omaha this week.

I speculate no one wants the public to panic especially with college world series in Omaha this week.

MSM doesn't bother with news till the house is on fire
having cans of gas in the basement and record heat isn't news till she blows

mayhem is news
maybe mayhem is not news

know any ways to change the psychology of our culture?

Lot of things have been done related to Nuclear Reactors that the general public have no knowledge of. In 1951 the Convair X6 was being used to test the use of reactors to power an airplane GE built the plant, the plane (NB-36H) made 47 successful shielding tests flights over the US from Sept 1955 till March 1957.

Interesting... The floods already put us face to face with food shortages... Now it could potentially be long term. My suggestion: Arm yourselves and wait for the rioting. It's coming sooner than i thought... Oh booooyy...

Wow. I had no idea. I feel s stupid right now- I mean not that I was giving a shit about the Weiner stuff or any of the other vapid and incessant reporting, but I feel like I should have known about this. Thank you so much! Attention will now be directed to the east...

More Republican type bull---------the end is nearing, Thank Gawd!