What is involved in replacing these pipelines? Do they need to tear up the highways?

Obviously we need to consider rerouting where possible. A widened RR right of way might also bring in a new gas main.

Is pipeline No. 132 the same pipeline that failed and exploded at El Carmelo School in 1966? Luckily this happened at night and no one was injured but parts of El Carmelo School had to be rebuilt

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Just to keep in perspective ..
---
Web Link

Over the past two decades, federal officials tallied 2,840 significant gas pipeline accidents nationwide -- including 992 in which someone was killed or required hospitalization, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Those accidents killed 323 people and injured 1,372.
---

And, Bill, how many deaths from nuclear power accidents in that period?

> And, Bill, how many deaths from nuclear power accidents
> in that period?

In what country?

All of them, Bill.
And that is real deaths, not overreacting worse case scenarios.

Thank you for this article! As soon as we understood the source of the San Bruno tragedy, our thoughts turned to our own home and what ever might be buried nearby. To hear our neighbors talking about the proximity of these lines to their homes makes it very clear that we, as a community, share the responsibility to make sure these lines are made safe. It isn't just for those who live right next to the lines to take care of. Most of us use natural gas, and if its delivery to our homes puts anyone at risk, it's up to us to follow through.

> All of them
> And that is real deaths, not overreacting worse case scenarios.

For the most part, the Ukraine is the only one of note. Having communicated with someone living in that country about this issue, the general sense is that over 75,000 people have died because of the aftermath of the meltdown. These deaths are from cancers, of one form or another.

However, this question about "how many deaths can be attributed to nuclear power" comes in two parts --

a) how many actual deaths
b) how many possible deaths could we expect from a worst case scenario for a containment breach of a reactor?

The problem is that the "worst case scenarios" can not be swept under the rug.

By the way, in your answer, please include the level of compensation that the owner of the nuclear facility should be responsible for. (If memory serves, the level of responsibility was very low in the past, --maybe a total of $75M. Please don't forget to discuss this point in your answer.)

It is my understanding that the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has lower radiation than the natural radiation in Denver, CO. Should Denver be evacuated, too?

"the general sense is that over 75,000 people have died because of the aftermath of the meltdown "

Everyone who dies of cancer, and that is about 20% of deaths, will blame their cancer on a local source of radiation...thus the "general sense".

The proper question to ask about energy sources, IMO, is how much good is done versus how much bad. Clearly, natural gas and nuclear energy come out ahead in that equation.

> Everyone who dies of cancer, and that is about 20% of deaths,
> will blame their cancer on a local source of radiation
---
Web Link

But other reputable scientists researching the most radiation-contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are not convinced. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus.

Meanwhile, the Belarus national academy of sciences estimates 93,000 deaths so far and 270,000 cancers, and the Ukrainian national commission for radiation protection calculates 500,000 deaths so far.
-----

Given the wide variances, it's not hard to see why people are not happy with "the experts", and rightly afraid of this technology.

> nuclear energy come out ahead in that equation.

While not an opponent of nuclear energy my self, I am concerned about the lack of systemic accounting for the costs of storing/reprocessing of spent nuclear materials. Too much of the process is out of the public's vantage point, and accident danger is too easily dismissed by supporters of this energy source.

Bill,

You left out this part from your link:

"The UN's World Health Organisation and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people have died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually."

"Four years ago, an IAEA spokesman said he was confident the WHO figures were correct. And Michael Repacholi, director of the UN Chernobyl forum until 2006, has claimed that even 4,000 eventual deaths could be too high. The main negative health impacts of ­Chernobyl were not caused by the ­radiation but by the fear of it, he claimed."

The USSR, then Ukraine did not close down Chernobyl, because they felt that they could not survive the economic blow that it would cause. To put it another way, despite the explosion, the plant has done more good than bad.

Despite the fact that natural gas pipelines sometimes explode, try living without natural gas.

I visited southern Ukraine a few years ago. They had huge orphanages down there with children from the Chernobyl fallout zone. The government didn't have enough money to move whole cities and they figured the parents were walking dead anyway, but they wanted the next generation to have a chance.

Chernobyl,

Yes, mass irrational panic can be a disaster. In the case you mention, if true, it was the government that overreacted. The fear of radiation, in this case, was much worse than the radiation itself.

Again, the government did not shut down the nuclear plant, because it would have caused more death and misery than keeping it open. It is better to look at the actual facts, instead of the fear-mongering.

Two issues here: Gas pipeline safety, and, Nuclear Power. The subject of Chernobyl has come up. As it happens, there is an excellent article in Wikipedia:

Web Link

Jim writes: "It is my understanding that the exclusion zone around Chernobyl has lower radiation than the natural radiation in Denver, CO. Should Denver be evacuated, too?"

This is mixing apples and oranges. The background radiation standing in a spot is very different from the radiation you would receive if you grew and ate food in the same location. There is a substantial, persistent soil contamination with Cesium-137, preventing most agricultural uses. Interestingly, after Chernobyl, there was a large excess of Thyroid cancer in the vicinity (happily, most cases are treatable). This was long hypothesized to be the likely result of such an accident- the Chernobyl "experiment" confirmed the hypothesis. The ultimate impact on life expectancy in the neighborhood and around the globe (there were areas in Central and Western Europe with some exposure as well) has been debated and variously estimated, but, even pro-nuclear advocates admit that the effect has been significant. Of course, there are lots of other risks out there, too, like natural gas pipelines, and, lightning in Florida to name a couple.

Back to pipelines: the traversal of two aging and outdated major transmission pipelines to residential areas and proximity to numerous schools is definitely a safety concern. In particular, the zigzagging route through Midtown and past El Carmelo school seems unnecessary, and risky in light of the San Bruno incident.

What did this area look like in 1956? Wasn't it all fruit orchards and farmhouses? Look at it now: office complexes, tech company "campuses", new housing developments, apartments, shopping complexes, etc, etc, etc The demand for natural gas has skyrocketed in recent decades, yet the original pipes are still there. The pipes that were designed to serve a few, rural communities. The San Bruno tragedy is a consequence an obsolete, aging and neglected infrastructure, and I fear it will happen again. Forget building high speed rail, we have to focus on maintaining these older systems first.

Sue Dremann and Sally Schilling, can you please tell us about the pipelines running through Los Altos?

How did this turn from the San Bruno event to Chernobyl??? The bottom line is that if it is ur time then its ur time ... nothing u do is going to keep it from happening ... Do you all want to live ur lives worrying about what might happen to you or live ur life to the fullest ??? Enjoy life and try to stop annalyzing everything to the point that it keeps u from living a full life ... Life is way to short ... Stop worrying and live it up ... for only God knows if you will be here tomorrow ....

To answer AM's question, the area through which the PG&E line 132 jogs was a mixture in 1956--some houses (e.g. at least from 1946 on Kipling Street) and some undeveloped land.

In my view, the line 132 should be relocated to Oregon Expwy, away from homes & schools (comparatively speaking).

The Midtown Residents Association would be well-advised to take this issue up with PG&E and the City of P.A.

In the case of TMI and Chernobyl, the main casualties were those who died from dirtier power sources replacing the functional units shut down by fear. Where is the study of increased cancer in the resident animal population around Chernobyl? Where are the three eyed fish? Where are the super-strength spiders? They are all right where they have always been, in the fevered fantasies of the pathological ignorant.

"in the fevered fantasies of the pathological ignorant."

As usual, Walter, does not hesitate to denigrate and insult those that do not march in lockstep with his twisted doctrine. Yet if you dare to return his insults, Walter gets uptight and demands apologies and the banning of those that dare to dish it out like he does. Walter should get out of the kitchen if he cannot take the heat.

> Where are the studies ..

Wikipedia Page On Chernobyl:
Web Link

This section contains a lengthy section on the impact on human health:

"Assessing the disaster's effects on human health"

Reading through this section provides widely disparate findings, depending on the group writing the report.

Chernobyl's Legacy (2006 Working Group):
Web Link

> Where is the study of increased cancer in the resident animal
> population around Chernobyl?

The response of the natural environment to the accident was a
complex interaction between radiation dose and radiosensitivities
of the different plants and animals. Both individual and
population effects caused by radiation-induced cell death have
been observed in biota inside the Exclusion Zone as follows:

— Increased mortality of coniferous plants, soil
invertebrates and mammals; and

— Reproductive losses in plants and animals.

And, in addition to direct human health costs --

(Around Page.30) --

What was the economic cost of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster?

The costs of the Chernobyl nuclear accident can only be calculated with a high degree of estimation, given the non-market conditions prevailing and volatile exchange rates of the transition
period that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, the magnitude of the impact is clear from a variety of government estimates from the 1990s, which put the cost of the accident, over two decades, at hundreds of billions of dollars.

Has anyone stopped to consider that, since there are gas mains and services everywhere in Palo Alto (and the services go right up to each building!), the best way to stay safe is to report gas odors immediately (even indoors), call Underground Service Alert to locate pipes before you dig in your yard and trust that the City follows stringent rules, including yearly gas leak detection surveys mandated by the DOT? Common sense should prevail, since panic fueled by ignorance or mis-information only creates chaos.

As I stated in an earlier post, the sectionof line 132 between Alma & Waverley was was replaced several years ago by Shaw Pipeline Services (a sub-contractor for PG&E). Also , if you want gas service there is an ement of "acceptable risk". Nothing in life is risk free.

Tip- Dont ask a realtor a question that might affect their bottom
line. They will not give you an honest answer.

That aside I wonder how the hi-speed rail project and all the digging
and hammering they have to do will affect the pipe. I dont trust
any of the thugs at PG&E to be honest about anything..Perhaps the
palo alto utilities will be more forthcoming and pro-active. These
lines need to be replaced and equipeed with shutoff valves.

Gary: please let us know where we can read the record of Shaw Pipeline Services' replacement of that section of line 132 between Alma & Waverley. I'm not panicking, but a paper trail is best.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?