[Deo Gratias!]

If the Cascadian fault causes an earthquake,
how safe is the Nuclear Power Plant in Washington State?

Does anyone have information on that particular power plant & the effects
on the surrounding areas?

With all of the problems with recent nuclear power plants,
how safe is this plant?
Is there, or could there be a runoff of nuclear waste into the water supply?
What area, how far can its radiation reach? Into Idaho? Into Montana?
What do you think?

Many thanks in advance!

 

[Moccasin]

The one at Richland? It's supposedly a modern plant and far enough east of the Cascades that even a major earthquake on the west side shouldn't bother it. The automatic safety features and multiple backups - none of which the Japanese plants had - should shut it down without trouble in any quake. Hanford, the crap they've got at Hanford I'd be a bit more concerned about, but even there, a west side quake shouldn't be a problem. However, keep in mind there are fault lines on the east side, too; they're not as active as the Cascadia faults, but might be even more dangerous if they slip due to built up tension. Still, it's a long shot that any harm could come of this. I hope.

 

[Highwater Filters]

Not sure about the fault or earthquake risk but there is radioactive waste that threatens the Columbia River. There is a plume that is moving toward the river. That is more of a threat, I think.

 

[Highwater Filters]

and there is a power plant at Hanford, but it's much more than that.
From wiki:

Some of the facilities currently located at the Hanford Site:

The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, owned by the Department of Energy and operated by Battelle Memorial Institute
The Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF), a national research facility in operation from 1980 to 1992 (in cold standby as of 2007)
LIGO's Hanford Observatory, an interferometer searching for gravitational waves
Columbia Generating Station, a commercial nuclear power plant operated by Energy Northwest.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks! Good info.!

Not sure about the fault or earthquake risk but there is radioactive waste that threatens the Columbia River. There is a plume that is moving toward the river. That is more of a threat, I think.

Thanks for your reply & information!

Could you please elaborate more on this?

Where is this radioactive waste coming from? How & from what?

I was wondering if I moved to Northern Idaho or to the Montana side, if I would be safe from nuclear waste,
radioactive waste, etc. And or even fall out if a quake hit.

I also wanted a safe place from a possible Yellowstone eruption (even if its more unlikely)
However, with all of the nuclear problems we have had recently & the cancer
rates in the country. I really wish I could find out more about this.
I appreciate any information you can give me on this.
I had no idea about what you just mentioned!

One thing, I have always heard is that it is not safe to eat the fish in different areas of Idaho & Nevada as well. If you go fishing in the different lakes. I also think if the fish are contaminated, then the entire water table
must be contaminated as well. And this also leads to what you grow in the area.

I do not know if this is related or not, but people do not understand why
there are high cancer rates in Marin county, in Northern California. And all
of these people tend to eat organic produce & are able to afford better diets
than lets say someone in Mississippi (sorry to people from Miss.)
Something is not right???

Many thanks!
Would love to hear more about this!

 

[Moccasin]

Thanks for your reply & information!

Could you please elaborate more on this?

Where is this radioactive waste coming from? How & from what?

Hanford, of course. Remember it was built and operated pretty rough and wild back in the 40's, and run much the same way through the 50's and 60's. In addition to all the contamination they released into the air (damned 'Green Runs') and soil, a lot of the storage tanks for radioactive waste have decayed over time and allowed stuff to leak into the ground water. They've stopped the leaks - they say - but what contamination is already loose would be very difficult to remove, and it's slowly creeping towards the Columbia. In fact I think some of it's already there. Nobody agrees how dangerous it is (the government says 'Minimal". Of course), especially since the contamination will be diluted by all the water; but it will be there.

I was wondering if I moved to Northern Idaho or to the Montana side, if I would be safe from nuclear waste,
radioactive waste, etc. And or even fall out if a quake hit.

I also wanted a safe place from a possible Yellowstone eruption (even if its more unlikely)
However, with all of the nuclear problems we have had recently & the cancer
rates in the country. I really wish I could find out more about this.
I appreciate any information you can give me on this.
I had no idea about what you just mentioned!

One thing, I have always heard is that it is not safe to eat the fish in different areas of Idaho & Nevada as well. If you go fishing in the different lakes. I also think if the fish are contaminated, then the entire water table
must be contaminated as well. And this also leads to what you grow in the area.

I do not know if this is related or not, but people do not understand why
there are high cancer rates in Marin county, in Northern California. And all
of these people tend to eat organic produce & are able to afford better diets
than lets say someone in Mississippi (sorry to people from Miss.)
Something is not right???

Many thanks!
Would love to hear more about this!

The fish are a different matter, I think. Don't forget, there was a awful lot of gold, silver, and other mining in Idaho and Nevada way back when, with heavy use of toxic materials like arsenic and mercury. Much of that wound up in the rivers and settled to the bottom, where it was buried in sediment. But it's still there, and some absorption by river plants and animals takes place. And of course anything that stirs up the mud, like flooding, dredging, or construction, sets it free... This is one of the arguments against breaching dams in the Pacific Northwest, much of the mud in the bottom of the reservoirs behind the dams are full of heavy metals and if the dams are removed the mud will be washed downstream, affect communities along the way, and finally flood out into the oceans, doing a lot of harm to the ecology out there. It is a problem without a viable solution.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks!

Hanford, of course. Remember it was built and operated pretty rough and wild back in the 40's, and run much the same way through the 50's and 60's. In addition to all the contamination they released into the air (damned 'Green Runs') and soil, a lot of the storage tanks for radioactive waste have decayed over time and allowed stuff to leak into the ground water. They've stopped the leaks - they say - but what contamination is already loose would be very difficult to remove, and it's slowly creeping towards the Columbia. In fact I think some of it's already there. Nobody agrees how dangerous it is (the government says 'Minimal". Of course), especially since the contamination will be diluted by all the water; but it will be there.



The fish are a different matter, I think. Don't forget, there was a awful lot of gold, silver, and other mining in Idaho and Nevada way back when, with heavy use of toxic materials like arsenic and mercury. Much of that wound up in the rivers and settled to the bottom, where it was buried in sediment. But it's still there, and some absorption by river plants and animals takes place. And of course anything that stirs up the mud, like flooding, dredging, or construction, sets it free... This is one of the arguments against breaching dams in the Pacific Northwest, much of the mud in the bottom of the reservoirs behind the dams are full of heavy metals and if the dams are removed the mud will be washed downstream, affect communities along the way, and finally flood out into the oceans, doing a lot of harm to the ecology out there. It is a problem without a viable solution.

Thanks for your detailed reply!
I have tried looking into it, and it is pretty scary!
The Columbia has connections with a ton of other rivers in Idaho & other states,
I never realized how massive it is! Which means that this
nuclear waste problem is bigger than I think most people realize

I wonder what the cancer rates will be in the coming years, from people
eating & drinking from an area that is just too close to it all...
And from what I was able to find, it seems it covers a huge area. All of this
filters into the soil & its a cycle.
I can't believe that there is not more awareness on this.
When Obama was a candidate, he had no clue on this
huge mess, when visiting the area, how can that be??
It affects different states & most likely will affect the ocean one day
This is depressing!
So, I guess moving to either Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington
or Nevada just to name a few, would in some way be affected by this, right?
Thanks!

 

[Moccasin]

Thanks for your detailed reply!
I have tried looking into it, and it is pretty scary!
The Columbia has connections with a ton of other rivers in Idaho & other states,
I never realized how massive it is! Which means that this
nuclear waste problem is bigger than I think most people realize

Yes, the Columbia river system is huge. But keep in mind radioactive contamination in it is/will only be a problem mostly downriver from Hanford. It won't go upriver or up any of the tributaries like the Snake or Yakima. Of course if you ARE one of those people living between Hanford and the mouth of the Columbia and you draw drinking or irrigation water from the river, that doesn't help you much...

I wonder what the cancer rates will be in the coming years, from people
eating & drinking from an area that is just too close to it all...
And from what I was able to find, it seems it covers a huge area. All of this
filters into the soil & its a cycle.
I can't believe that there is not more awareness on this.
When Obama was a candidate, he had no clue on this
huge mess, when visiting the area, how can that be??
It affects different states & most likely will affect the ocean one day
This is depressing!
So, I guess moving to either Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington
or Nevada just to name a few, would in some way be affected by this, right?
Thanks!

Cancer rates from radiation in the Pacific Northwest are actually are going down, I would suspect. As I noted in a previous post, Hanford used to release a lot of stuff into the environment, both by accident and - unbelievably - intentionally. The Dept. of Defense wanted to know how radioactive gases and particles would spread in the air, so Hanford released plumes of them during the 50's and 60's so they could track what happened. Cancer rates downwind of the plant rose. Once people found out why, the lawsuits started and still haven't stopped... But all but a few of those particles have decayed to virtual non-existence since then, and everything else (except for the groundwater contamination) remains on the Hanford Reservation, which is a pretty large chunk of buffer land that surrounds the Hanford reactors. I imagine radon gas (which comes from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive materials in the soil and rocks) is a bigger radiation threat than Hanford, these days, and only if you allow those gases to accumulate. Of course there's still the threats posted by pesticide and fertilizer runoff in the rivers from the farms, chemical wastes in the soil, smoke in the air from fires...

The Northwest isn't the pristine wilderness a lot of people like to think it is. Mankind has contaminated the whole world with his by-products; these days it's a matter of choosing your poison rather than trying to avoid it.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks! Great post! A couple of more questions?

Yes, the Columbia river system is huge. But keep in mind radioactive contamination in it is/will only be a problem mostly downriver from Hanford. It won't go upriver or up any of the tributaries like the Snake or Yakima. Of course if you ARE one of those people living between Hanford and the mouth of the Columbia and you draw drinking or irrigation water from the river, that doesn't help you much...



Cancer rates from radiation in the Pacific Northwest are actually are going down, I would suspect. As I noted in a previous post, Hanford used to release a lot of stuff into the environment, both by accident and - unbelievably - intentionally. The Dept. of Defense wanted to know how radioactive gases and particles would spread in the air, so Hanford released plumes of them during the 50's and 60's so they could track what happened. Cancer rates downwind of the plant rose. Once people found out why, the lawsuits started and still haven't stopped... But all but a few of those particles have decayed to virtual non-existence since then, and everything else (except for the groundwater contamination) remains on the Hanford Reservation, which is a pretty large chunk of buffer land that surrounds the Hanford reactors. I imagine radon gas (which comes from the decay of naturally occurring radioactive materials in the soil and rocks) is a bigger radiation threat than Hanford, these days, and only if you allow those gases to accumulate. Of course there's still the threats posted by pesticide and fertilizer runoff in the rivers from the farms, chemical wastes in the soil, smoke in the air from fires...

The Northwest isn't the pristine wilderness a lot of people like to think it is. Mankind has contaminated the whole world with his by-products; these days it's a matter of choosing your poison rather than trying to avoid it.

Thanks for your detailed post!
I am really sad because of the information out there, and the lack of awareness. And the fact that I do not think our governemnt has ever
cared about its citizens! And the fact that they have done some of this intentionally is beyond me.....

The reason I asked about how the rivers work. Is because I noticed
how the top 4 counties in Idaho have the highest cancer rates in the state.
Along with the bottom left county bordering with Oregon & Nevada.
So, I figured that there has to be a connection with Hanford regarding
the bottom left side county, what do you think?


If I want to move somewhere & grow my own food, the water supply is important! And I have just seen too many young people
dying of cancer recently, so I am super concerned!

I would really appreciate your opinion on both Northern Idaho & Southern
Idaho. Thank you!


Something else I do not get, Idaho seems to be so Libertarian, "get the government out of here type" Yet, they allowed nuclear waste from
"Three Mile Island & Kuwait" to be DUMPED in their state!!
WHY?????

And if you are form Idaho, I do not mean to offend, but I just have to wonder
WHY??? Did the state allow this???


Thanks for your help M!:thumb:

 

[oldcamper]

Well I recomend you don't move to washington state. Maybe you should stick with the Colorado idea. Just south of Wyoming but you will still have plenty of natural problems there as well. Good luck.

 

[ForestBeekeeper]

The dozen or so military Nuc plants in Washington state should be fairly safe from any earthquakes there. As well as the hundreds of nuc warheads stored there.

However I would be more concerned about the INF facility in Idaho that stores scores of nuc cores and hundreds of partly expended rods.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks!

Well I recomend you don't move to washington state. Maybe you should stick with the Colorado idea. Just south of Wyoming but you will still have plenty of natural problems there as well. Good luck.

Regarding Washington, are you saying this because of the Hanford site
& the contamination of the Columbia river? Could you please elaborate more on this?

Regarding Colorado, what Natural problems are you talking about?
Could you please elaborate more on this as well:

I am trying to choose the lesser evil.....ahhh:
Many thanks!

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks!

The dozen or so military Nuc plants in Washington state should be fairly safe from any earthquakes there. As well as the hundreds of nuc warheads stored there.

However I would be more concerned about the INF facility in Idaho that stores scores of nuc cores and hundreds of partly expended rods.

Thanks for your reply. Could you please expand more on this.
If I were to move to Northern Idaho, would this issue still affect me?

In the INF facility, is that where they also have stored
the "Three Mile Island & Kuwait" nuclear waste?

Would you be concerned about the Hanford nuclear waste problem
in Washington state from spilling over into Idaho one day?
Many thanks!

 

[ForestBeekeeper]

Thanks for your reply. Could you please expand more on this. If I were to move to Northern Idaho, would this issue still affect me?

Assuming that nothing ever goes 'wrong' it would have no effect on you.

...In the INF facility, is that where they also have stored
the "Three Mile Island & Kuwait" nuclear waste?

Yes.

The US has had hundreds of nuc plants.

You list two?

I have worked on 2 that are stored at the Idaho INF facility; the 633 and the 654 [among the hundreds that are there].

... Would you be concerned about the Hanford nuclear waste problem
in Washington state from spilling over into Idaho one day?
Many thanks!

Spills, schmills, a little airborne, a little water contamination, a little ground contamination, what's a few rems between friends?



Plot the Washington state and Idaho facilities on a map [all of them]; draw a 500 mile radius downwind from each of them. If your in that area, well, ...

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thank you!

Thank you FBkeeper!:thumb:
I like your sense of humor! And I do not want any rems at all.

The reason I was focusing on the west coast, is because I saw a map
that had all of the nuclear plants all over the country. The east coast seems to have the most. I will see if I can find the map, it has a bunch of red circles on it. Then I read & also saw a map with the cancer rates all over the country. The Northeast seems to have the highest cancer rates in the entire country. And I figured that being close to nuclear power plants might have
an effect. Others have written about this. A correlation between
living close to nuclear power plants & high % of cancer rates.

Having said that, I am not an expert on nuclear stuff I do not know
the difference between nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants & nuclear
waste sites in terms of danger.:

Should I assume that being closer to what is in Washington State & Idaho,
since they dump everyhthing there (I am still trying to figure out, why
is the state of Idaho holding nuclear waste from Kuwait)

Is the above worse than lets say being close to Nuclear power plants, like
lets say Vermont Yankee in VT, Seabrook in NH, I think there is 1 in Maine,
1 in CT, something else in MA, in NY, in NJ, in PA, DE etc. etc.... And everything else on the East coast.


Again, where would you feel safer,
on the west coast with less nuclear power plants,
but instead with sites such as INF in Idaho, Hanford in Washington state

VS.

Lots of Nuclear power plants on the East coast ?

I appreciate your expertise, wisdom & help in the matter.
Many thanks!



http://www.nukepills.com/nuclear-reactor-maps.htm



P.S: The above link has the map of the US with all of the Nuclear reactors, red circles I mentioned
Thank you for reading this & for your help!

Assuming that nothing ever goes 'wrong' it would have no effect on you.





Yes.

The US has had hundreds of nuc plants.

You list two?

I have worked on 2 that are stored at the Idaho INF facility; the 633 and the 654 [among the hundreds that are there].





Spills, schmills, a little airborne, a little water contamination, a little ground contamination, what's a few rems between friends?



Plot the Washington state and Idaho facilities on a map [all of them]; draw a 500 mile radius downwind from each of them. If your in that area, well, ...

 

[ForestBeekeeper]

Thank you FBkeeper!:thumb:
I like your sense of humor! And I do not want any rems at all.

The reason I was focusing on the west coast, is because I saw a map
that had all of the nuclear plants all over the country. The east coast seems to have the most. I will see if I can find the map, it has a bunch of red circles on it. Then I read & also saw a map with the cancer rates all over the country. The Northeast seems to have the highest cancer rates in the entire country. And I figured that being close to nuclear power plants might have
an effect. Others have written about this. A correlation between
living close to nuclear power plants & high % of cancer rates.

I honestly do not know why these guys making nuclear maps refuse to show the military reactors, the university reactors, the nuc warhead storage facilities, and the core storage sites.

I have no idea.

A map showing less than half of all our reactors, is king of lacking data.

Personally I think they are done to mislead.

Why else show more on the East coast than on the West coast?

... Should I assume that being closer to what is in Washington State & Idaho, since they dump everyhthing there (I am still trying to figure out, why is the state of Idaho holding nuclear waste from Kuwait)

Is the above worse than lets say being close to Nuclear power plants, like
lets say Vermont Yankee in VT, Seabrook in NH, I think there is 1 in Maine,
1 in CT, something else in MA, in NY, in NJ, in PA, DE etc. etc.... And everything else on the East coast.

Again, where would you feel safer, on the west coast with less nuclear power plants, but instead with sites such as INF in Idaho, Hanford in Washington state

VS.

Lots of Nuclear power plants on the East coast ?

I appreciate your expertise, wisdom & help in the matter.
Many thanks!

http://www.nukepills.com/nuclear-reactor-maps.htm

P.S: The above link has the map of the US with all of the Nuclear reactors, red circles I mentioned Thank you for reading this & for your help!

On a different forum I am in a Maine thread about Maine's high cancer rate.

The overall national average is like 511.4 cases for every 100,000 people.

In Maine it is 522.6 cases for every 100,000 people

They are all upset and concerned. The CDC and many health agencies are trying to figure it out. We are not in the fall-out pattern for any nuc facilities, we do not have higher radiation then anyone else. They have studied many factors, and so far can not isolate why.

I look at it like this:
522.6 / 100k = 0.005226 or 0.52%, 1/2 of 1% chance

as compared to
511.4 / 100k = 0.005114 or 0.51%, 1/2 of 1% chance

It is still more likely that a person will be audited by the IRS, or fly on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks for the information & post!

Thank you ForestBeekeeper:thumb:



Do you know of a map that might show what IS in every state?

More importantly, do you know WHICH state DOES NOT have anything
nuclear?

I originally looked at Colorado as well, but it turns out it has a nuclear research facility (this does not show up in the map with the red circles)

Also, something that made me even worry some more, I have read several articles that lead you to
believe that the reason the east & northeast has such high cancer rates, is because of the Nevada testing done in the 1950's
Supposedly, the wind would have carried everything over going east.
The rain & snow dropping it to the ground, the cows eating the grass, people
in turn drinking the milk. What about it falling on all of our farms along the way, again we turned around and ate that food, drank the milk, etc.
In addition, even when the regular testing stopped, they continued to do
underground testing...
With the exception of Washington, Oregon & California, everything to the East, North, South of Nevada got hit, during the testing.
If people are worried about Fukushima coming over in the air, we would all
be affected by what happened inside our own country, right?
And the thing with cancer, is that depending on the amount one receives, your particular genes, family history, diet,
it can take a short or longer period of time.
Some of the people getting a direct hit, lets say in Utah have already passed
away. Whereas others further away lived a bit longer.
So, what do you think of this possibility?

And now, with the Hanford site in Washington state, there have been
lawsuits there because of cancer cases in the area. And I am sure it will
affect people in Washington, Idaho, Oregon & maybe even California.

Regarding the East coast, what about Three Mile Island, didn't that affect the entire area?

So, we have poisoned our entire country!


FB, could you please let me know which states do not have anything nuclear?
I will be really grateful!
Many thanks!

I honestly do not know why these guys making nuclear maps refuse to show the military reactors, the university reactors, the nuc warhead storage facilities, and the core storage sites.

I have no idea.

A map showing less than half of all our reactors, is king of lacking data.

Personally I think they are done to mislead.

Why else show more on the East coast than on the West coast?





On a different forum I am in a Maine thread about Maine's high cancer rate.

The overall national average is like 511.4 cases for every 100,000 people.

In Maine it is 522.6 cases for every 100,000 people

They are all upset and concerned. The CDC and many health agencies are trying to figure it out. We are not in the fall-out pattern for any nuc facilities, we do not have higher radiation then anyone else. They have studied many factors, and so far can not isolate why.

I look at it like this:
522.6 / 100k = 0.005226 or 0.52%, 1/2 of 1% chance

as compared to
511.4 / 100k = 0.005114 or 0.51%, 1/2 of 1% chance

It is still more likely that a person will be audited by the IRS, or fly on a commercial airline with a drunken pilot.

 

[ForestBeekeeper]

... Do you know of a map that might show what IS in every state?

No, I do not.

... More importantly, do you know WHICH state DOES NOT have anything nuclear?

I used to know many nuclear personnel. Most of them are readily familiar with the data you seek.

I was a crewmember on 3 nuc subs during my career, and I was around it. But I am not a nuc operator. While I lived within 100 foot of a power plant, and slept between nuc warheads it really is not my field.

I was involved with some of the airborne blasts in N.M. and Nevada ranges.

From the 50's until we stopped around 1990, the US was averaging 13 stateside nuc blasts each year. Since then we only do overseas testing.

... the reason the east & northeast has such high cancer rates, is because of the Nevada testing done in the 1950's. Supposedly, the wind would have carried everything over going east. The rain & snow dropping it to the ground, the cows eating the grass, people in turn drinking the milk. What about it falling on all of our farms along the way, again we turned around and ate that food, drank the milk, etc.

Hold on. I want to make sure that I understand you.

Fallout from Nevada;
skipped Utah and Arizona;
flew past Colorado and NM;
then flew over Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas;
continued over Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana;
it all stayed at high altitude as it flew past Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama;
and only then did any of it settle.

Plus some it stayed up in the stratosphere and hiked 600 miles North up into the NorthEast states where it settled up here?

All of this happened without raising any of the background radiation levels?

No detectable radiation was detected anywhere along the East Coast from those hundreds of nuc tests; but it contaminated the milk?

And the proof of this, is that even while there is no higher radiation levels, but that having a 0.001% higher chance of getting cancer proves it?

I am not sure that I agree.

... In addition, even when the regular testing stopped, they continued to do underground testing... With the exception of Washington, Oregon & California, ...

Why skip the West Coast?

Keep in mind that most of our nuc testing has been done at sea, in the Pacific Ocean, where the wind blows onto the West Coast. The West Coast gets it first.

Which could explain why the West Coast has such high than average cancer rates.

... everything to the East, North, South of Nevada got hit, during the testing. If people are worried about Fukushima coming over in the air, we would all be affected by what happened inside our own country, right?
And the thing with cancer, is that depending on the amount one receives, your particular genes, family history, diet, it can take a short or longer period of time. Some of the people getting a direct hit, lets say in Utah have already passed away. Whereas others further away lived a bit longer. So, what do you think of this possibility?

There remains on average a 1/2 of 1% chance of anyone in the US dying from cancer.

Each of us has a much higher chance of dying from a vehicular accident.

Granted the cancer rates do vary from state to state. 0.001% variations do occur from one state to another.

However the odds that you slip in your bathtub, hit your head, crack your skull and die is a much higher probability.

... Regarding the East coast, what about Three Mile Island, didn't that affect the entire area?

TMI is closely watched by the DOE and by independent watchdog groups.

If the teams onsite had been allowed to fix it, the entire outage would have been less then one week, and the site would have been producing power again. Nobody would have received any radiation beyond the Federally allowed limits. However the media got into it, and politicians got into it, and the response teams were not allowed to respond.

During my AD career I did have opportunity to know some of those guys. They were really upset they were never allowed to fix the plant.

TMI goes on as a monument to the errors of our media and our politicians, and their efforts to stop industry.

Yes TMI has effected our entire culture.



May God bless you.

 

[Deo Gratias!]

Thanks & question?

Hi ForestB.


I will try answering this later on. I have to look for a map so I can show you where I got this form.
If you ever get info. on what I asked you, please remember to either post it
or send me a message. Thank you!


But, I wanted to ask you since you mentioned that the West Coast has higher
cancer rates, could you please tell me which states & or areas have the most/the least amounts of cancer?

For example, does Northern California have more than Southern CA, or does
Washington state have the most. Or is Oregon the leader, etc.
Could you please clarify this for me.
May God bless you as well.
Many thanks for such a great post!:thumb:

No, I do not.





I used to know many nuclear personnel. Most of them are readily familiar with the data you seek.

I was a crewmember on 3 nuc subs during my career, and I was around it. But I am not a nuc operator. While I lived within 100 foot of a power plant, and slept between nuc warheads it really is not my field.

I was involved with some of the airborne blasts in N.M. and Nevada ranges.

From the 50's until we stopped around 1990, the US was averaging 13 stateside nuc blasts each year. Since then we only do overseas testing.





Hold on. I want to make sure that I understand you.

Fallout from Nevada;
skipped Utah and Arizona;
flew past Colorado and NM;
then flew over Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas;
continued over Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana;
it all stayed at high altitude as it flew past Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama;
and only then did any of it settle.

Plus some it stayed up in the stratosphere and hiked 600 miles North up into the NorthEast states where it settled up here?

All of this happened without raising any of the background radiation levels?

No detectable radiation was detected anywhere along the East Coast from those hundreds of nuc tests; but it contaminated the milk?

And the proof of this, is that even while there is no higher radiation levels, but that having a 0.001% higher chance of getting cancer proves it?

I am not sure that I agree.





Why skip the West Coast?

Keep in mind that most of our nuc testing has been done at sea, in the Pacific Ocean, where the wind blows onto the West Coast. The West Coast gets it first.

Which could explain why the West Coast has such high than average cancer rates.





There remains on average a 1/2 of 1% chance of anyone in the US dying from cancer.

Each of us has a much higher chance of dying from a vehicular accident.

Granted the cancer rates do vary from state to state. 0.001% variations do occur from one state to another.

However the odds that you slip in your bathtub, hit your head, crack your skull and die is a much higher probability.





TMI is closely watched by the DOE and by independent watchdog groups.

If the teams onsite had been allowed to fix it, the entire outage would have been less then one week, and the site would have been producing power again. Nobody would have received any radiation beyond the Federally allowed limits. However the media got into it, and politicians got into it, and the response teams were not allowed to respond.

During my AD career I did have opportunity to know some of those guys. They were really upset they were never allowed to fix the plant.

TMI goes on as a monument to the errors of our media and our politicians, and their efforts to stop industry.

Yes TMI has effected our entire culture.



May God bless you.

 

[Moccasin]

Thanks for your detailed post!
I am really sad because of the information out there, and the lack of awareness. And the fact that I do not think our governemnt has ever
cared about its citizens! And the fact that they have done some of this intentionally is beyond me.....

In the defense of the government back then, they didn't realize how dangerous low level radiation was, and they were in constant terror of the Russians and the prospect of nuclear war. So they tried to investigate anything they could think of that might have given them information to increase the odds. And often, in the name of national security, they went too far...

The reason I asked about how the rivers work. Is because I noticed
how the top 4 counties in Idaho have the highest cancer rates in the state.
Along with the bottom left county bordering with Oregon & Nevada.
So, I figured that there has to be a connection with Hanford regarding
the bottom left side county, what do you think?

Keep in mind there are a lot of causes for cancer other than radiation. Chemical, biological, anything that damages a cell or its genetic structure runs the risk of the uncontrolled replication that is cancer. Asbestos, cigarette smoke, sunlight, a diet low in fiber; heck even old age. It's a truism that's got a lot of truth to it that all men, if they live long enough, will develop prostate cancer. Fortunately it's usually such a slow growing cancer that other things will usually kill you before it will. : There could be a lot of reasons why some areas of Idaho have higher cancer rates; you'd have to dig to find out, if the answer is known. For instance, northern states like Washington and Idaho have higher rates of multiple sclerosis than states to their south. Why? Nobody knows for sure. Things like this just happen, sometimes.

If I want to move somewhere & grow my own food, the water supply is important! And I have just seen too many young people
dying of cancer recently, so I am super concerned!

I would really appreciate your opinion on both Northern Idaho & Southern
Idaho. Thank you!


Something else I do not get, Idaho seems to be so Libertarian, "get the government out of here type" Yet, they allowed nuclear waste from
"Three Mile Island & Kuwait" to be DUMPED in their state!!
WHY?????

And if you are form Idaho, I do not mean to offend, but I just have to wonder
WHY??? Did the state allow this???


Thanks for your help M!:thumb:

Idaho is not the richest state in the Union. For all its disdain of the Federal government, if the Feds came and said "We'll pay you to store - temporarily - nuclear waste in your state", Idaho state government probably said "Sure, put it right over there!". Trouble is, with the permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada now apparently never going to be used, temporary is looking pretty permanent...

Northern and southern Idaho. Almost as different as eastern and western Washington state. The northern part or 'Panhandle' is hilly and even mountainous, heavily forested in places (where the timber companies haven't clear cut everything to Hell) and rolling Palouse hills in others. It's largely rural (although the areas around Coeur d' Alene and Lewiston are heavily built up). The winters can be atrocious, the rest of the year is fairly nice. Southern Idaho is much flatter - high desert in places - more urban, has less seasonal variation, is a lot drier, and much more conservative in attitude in part due to Utah's influence. Most of the political power resides in the south, but the north doesn't care much as lot as it's left alone. If you're looking for a place to settle I'd suggest north of Boise, but south of Coeur d' Alene, somewhere in central Idaho... Have a job (or be independently wealthy) before moving, though, because one of the reasons Idaho isn't the richest state is because employment is a bit hard to come by.