On Sandy, facts prevail as MSM largely ignores Arnie Gundersen

[wtmusic]

Arnie Gundersen once claimed that because of Vermont Yankee there were only 16 of these fish in the Connecticut River.

"As Hurricane Sandy approached landfall, there were plenty of things to fear. In the media, some articles focused on the "26 nuclear plants in the path of the hurricane."

This number of plants came from Arnie Gundersen, as far as I can tell. On October 29, Russia Today (RT) headlined "Nuclear plant alert as 26 facilities in Sandy's path." RT quoted a Gundersen podcast as follows: “There’s 26 power plants in the East Coast that are in the area where sandy is like to hit, and hopefully as the storm track becomes better defined, the plants that are most subject to it — likely New Jersey and Pennsylvania — preventively shut down.."

Ever since Gundersen stated that a total of sixteen shad remain in the Connecticut River. I don't take Gundersen's numbers as accurate. Whatever the number of plants, however, is it dangerous that nuclear plants are in the path of a storm? Well, no. But it is worth reporting about."

http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2012/11/fear-and-facts-about-nuclear-plants-and.html#.UJqD04Vc6xp

[AldoLeopold]

1. NRC Input

Sounds like the NRC was all over this situation. Sent in an additional inspector so that's good (not sarcasm). I wonder what their additional recommendations are for emergency planning and preparedness. Can't wait to see a report.

[FBaggins]

2. As it should

I've always gotten a kick out of that shad nonsense. As usual, he just makes stuff up as he goes along. The facts are an inconvenience that he simply ignores.

This is likely because he knows that his target audience (the people he is paid to frighten) isn't likely to know the difference.

We'll give Arnie the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't mean to say that there were only sixteen shad in the river. The point he was trying to make was that the waste heat from Vermont Yankee was killing off the shad by heating up the Connecticut river. That there were once 70,000 shad in the river and now there are only 16. It's reasonable to assume that he meant 16 thousand.

Unfortunately... even giving him the benefit of the doubt leaves him in a big hole. Because VT Yankee isn't killing off the shad. In fact, this year saw the largest run in 20 years (with an estimate of over a million shad lifted over the dam).

Of course... the real factor impacting shad stock in the CT river is much easier to identify -

They're reportedly quite tasty.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Arnie isn't the only one with this problem, though.

As usual, he just makes stuff up as he goes along.

So does Guy McPherson. And Malcolm P.R. Light. And a shitload of other people whose bullshit don't do the environmentalist movement any fucking good. Honestly, it's getting to the point where I just want to tell all of these fearmongering cranks to just FUCK OFF.

The reason I say this is I've noticed that this has become a widespread problem, not just with Arnie Gundersen & nuclear issues. And all this fucking shit that's been going on, gives ammo to those who are trying to keep the status quo alive, like WUWT, Chris Monckton, Chris Booker, etc., and those like the Koch Bros., who fund and otherwise enable them.

[AldoLeopold]

4. Cautionary note

"A final word. I don't know why the Gundersens are so fond of misstatements about fish. Last summer, fish in the Connecticut River were tested for radiation, and showed only background levels. This caused Maggie Gundersen to write that you shouldn't eat fish from the river, but rather "throw them back."

Yah, but changes in ambient temperatures could easily exceed the fish's limits of tolerance or, more likely, the juvenile's. Radiation has nothing to do with it. You'd see radiation problems pretty easily. What we're talking about, and correct me if I'm wrong, is heated wastewater, not irradiated wastewater. How much water are we talking about? When is it expelled? I'm not sure where the figure 1/16,000th of a degree came from, but I'd like to see mean temperatures gridded out and statistically analyzed before I made a judgment as to who's right and who's wrong. A study should be done of the river and PDQ or at the very least we should take a look at the environmental impacts in France's river systems to compare.

That being said, it's very unlikely that a flowing river system would retain heat for very long, but I suppose it would depend on where the water was being expelled into the river and how much and what time of year it was. As we say in water resource management "the solution to pollution is dilution."

Near a major hatching ground? In winter? Who knows. That's why we pay scientists, to show goobers like this (these) ex-ceo guys that you can't go on anecdotal evidence or your gut, but by good hard sampling data and statistical analysis.

[XemaSab]

5. Welcome to DU!

And the E/E group!

[caraher]

6. But Maggie Gunderson specifically cites the radiation

The pro-Vermont Yankee blogger understands that heated, rather than irradiated, water is the vastly more plausible mechanism if the plant indeed has had a deleterious effect on the shad. What they're highlighting is that the Gunderson claims are specifically about the radioactivity of the fish. The blogger interprets Gunderson, correctly in my view, as saying

The confusing quotes above require some translation. To understand them, you have to believe the following:

The fish in the Connecticut River are dangerously contaminated with radioactive strontium.
This strontium comes from Vermont Yankee.
The fish in the Connecticut River should not be eaten.

[wtmusic]

7. There would be no reason not to eat heated fish

I prefer mine that way

[RobertEarl]

8. Typical pro nuke attitude, eh?

Making fun of a radiated environment.

No concern whatsoever that a food source for millions of poor people is contaminated with radiation from their precious nuke plants?

"There would be no reason not to eat heated fish" says wtmusic

Sounds like something Romney and his people would say.

Have you no feelings at all for a clean environment?

[AldoLeopold]

9. I think WTmusic was trying to be funny

Kinda bombed, though. There's really no proof or reason to think that this is an irradiated environment. You would see serious damage and problems if Sr isotopes were wandering about the rivers there.

That said, I'm against nuclear power. It uses far too much water to be considered reliable sustainable if we switch over to it entirely. Its akin to getting off of heroin and getting on cocaine. Plus, and I really don't understand why people don't understand this, on a state by state basis only about 7% of our hydrocarbon emissions are from coal or ng plants. Your big problem is with car emissions. They account for the VAST majority of anthro hydrocarbon emissions and yet all I hear is no coal no coal. Well, great, shut the coal plants down, but realize that is only a small part of the problem when considering climate change.

I ran the numbers for a rather huge and cumbersome class project, it was really dreadful, and I was shocked to find that we're barking up the wrong tree - but people just won't give up their fossil fuel engines. We've got to switch to something which is coming up the pipe which I think has great potential: Ni-Li batteries which allow much larger vehicle ranges. That, and we're going to have to institute population controls. Pretty much now. Pretty much world-wide.

[GliderGuider]

10. Globally, oil generates 35% of all hydrocarbon CO2

NG generates 20%, coal generates 45%, according to data from the IEA (http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/news/2012/may/name,27216,en.html).

Coal and NG generate electricity, and people have managed to convince themselves that there are other sources for that - excerpt that wind turbines right now require a lot of gas turbines for backup, so that leaves us talking about coal.

The American Dream, however, is powered by a V8 engine (with dual quads and a Hurst 4-speed). Accept no substitutes.

Population controls will happen voluntarily after the crash, but not before.

[Nihil]

11. Inflation now running at biblical proportions?

>> Gundersen stated that a total of sixteen shad remain in the Connecticut River.

> a food source for millions of poor people



Puts the old "5 loaves & 2 fish for 5000" picnic to shame doesn't it?

[RobertEarl]

12. Hah

Crazy smiling nuked out smilie



Typical nukie face mask to hide behind

The dear girl of the OP works for the nukies. Now I am not going to, but there are some who would say she is whoring for the nukies.

Unlike Arnie who is a good cop trying to save us from certain radiation.