Sanctum Zone

Keyword
A+ A A-
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high

Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 03:28 #1

  • Mrindigo
  • Mrindigo's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Rank0
  • Posts: 787
  • Thank you received: 677
  • Karma: 53
Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected: study

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) — some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.

The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.

The reactor accident in Fukushima has fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought, a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned.

Check out the link below for the full article.

Probability of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents is higher than expected: study

This is why I'm not a fan of nuclear fission. Humans are not perfect, and nuclear reactors are not exactly designed with fault tolerance in mind.
Form is merely a momentary manifestation of being, not a fixed reality.

History doesn't repeat itself, uninformed people repeat history.

To all progressive endeavors great or small, come unforeseen benefits on a scale larger than most give pause or contemplation of.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: domathy, Hexhammer, Chloe

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 12:11 #2

  • Chloe
  • Chloe's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 25
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 3
Thankyou Mrindago....

Yes, this is the situation now BUT apparently ( besides Teslas' free energy that was never allowed to see the light of day b/c it couldn't be metered)....I find THIS...

www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html


"Federal government" BUSTED for forcing American nuclear industry to become a ticking time bomb

I can guage how accurate a report is by how much it gets shilled in the blogs, while being defended by intelligent people. This report is getting it a LOT worse than the Fukushima report, which got nailed bad. This one REALLY hit a nerve. This is possibly the biggest scandal in American history, and it may well destroy your future if steps are not taken by the people to force the FED to overturn the mandated lunacy which now stands as a menace to us all.

You have been told the nuclear waste must go somewhere. You have been told it needed to be stored inside a mountain in the desert, where it will sit as a threat and menace to the world for millions of years. You have been told there is nothing we can do about it. But what if you have been told a lie? What if that "spent fuel" was not spent at all? What if a technology existed which allowed the same fuel to be used over and over, twenty times in fact, and expended so fully that fuel rods would be safe enough to handle directly straight out of the reactor? Think any "spent fuel pools" would be full? And even if this never happened,

What if foreign nations, (France was one) offered us hundreds of billions of dollars for our "spent fuel" only to have the U.S. Government refuse the offer for no reason at all? Would that not solve the problem of getting rid of it? And the final question, WHY would the Fed want so much nuclear material sitting around the country, only to become a menace? Could it be that we do not have a government, and instead have a band of usurpers in power who have intentionally set us up for a fall? After reading this report, I believe you will be inclined to think so.

This report consists of hard scientific fact, and even harder answers.

In my journey of discovery in my investigation into the Fukushima disaster, I interviewed an 85 year old nuclear engineer who worked in the nuclear industry during America's glory days, and earned GE over 100 patents. He was one of the engineers who designed Fukushima, so naturally when conducting a real investigation into such a disaster a responsible journalist would want that type of reference. I was surprised when my prior study of the reactor systems there was so thorough that he had no information about Fukushima I did not already dig up, and he was very surprised when I told him details about the inner workings of the reactor he never expected anyone in the media to know.

When I started to think I was going to walk away with nothing, he dropped a bombshell on a totally different subject. He opened his new direction of the discussion with the phrase "My team succeeded in closing the nuclear loop, and Carter banned our miracle with an executive order

Here is what followed that introductory line, and the reason why we need to oust the FED and start over.
The following is what he said in the interview

I started in the American nuclear program all the way back at the time of the Manhattan project, and have been involved in reactor design and nuclear engineering my whole life. There was one answer we all searched for, and it was how to close the nuclear loop.

When a reactor such as a boiling water reactor uses fuel, the waste products, which are highly radioactive isotopes that have a different fission characteristic than the fuel, build up in the fuel and poison the nuclear reaction. A reactor such as a boiling water reactor can only use the fuel until it gets contaminated by these isotopes enough to change the nature of the nuclear reactions taking place. The reaction environment inside a boiling water reactor is only one such environment that will work to trigger a chain reaction, and if that spent fuel is put into a reactor made from different materials, those materials can favor the burning of the poisonous isotopes, and use the isotopes as fuel until the fuel is purified of them, and therefore had it's original radiological characteristics restored. Once that is accomplished, the fuel can go back into the boiling water reactor, and used as new.

We perfected the second reactor design, which used liquid sodium as a coolant, and the reactor ran much hotter - 1100 farenheit as opposed to 550 in a boiling water reactor. The liquid sodium circulated inside the reactor in lieu of water, with the heat of the reaction being removed from the system by a heat exchanger which boiled the water outside the reactor for use in producing electricity. The temperature difference and coolant characteristics facilitated the burning of the isotopes, and you got to use both sides of the reaction - one side produced electricity while poisoning the fuel, and the other side produced electricity while burning the poisons out. This process can be repeated 20 times, and when it is finished the fuel is DEAD and no longer hazardous because all of it's radiological potential has been used up. It was a dream come true, and Carter banned it by executive order!

He specifically stated that the burn down was so complete that the spent fuel was safe to handle directly with bare hands, and needed no special care or maintenance at all.

He then went on to lament about what a waste of money it was, because the fuel is expensive, and they were only using it to about five percent of its total potential. He lamented the fact that his life's greatest accomplishment got banned for no good reason, and it was a tremendous waste of money to not use the technology his team developed. Electricity would have been cheap. REAL CHEAP. So cheap that homes would not have been heated with oil or natural gas, electricity would have been the only sensible choice. Furthermore, with a reduction in the price of electricity by at least 10X, electric cars would have been a no brainer.

This would have been America's free energy future, with the only real cost being maintenance of infrastructure.

His take on it was that we were now paying too much for electricity. I guess that's how an engineer thinks. He had read my article on Fukushima and liked it, so one would guess his eyes were open to the global conspiracy. Even still I think he missed the obvious in what he said.

Here is my take, and it has NOTHING to do with price, preservation of resources, or free energy.

Nuclear reactors are HUGE. They have an enormous amount of nuclear material in them. One boiling water reactor core the size of the ones at Fukushima can easily hold enough fissionable material to make countless atomic bombs. And with the technology that makes re-using that fuel illegal, it builds up at a rate of 25 tons per gigawatt YEAR. This means that even small facilities like Fort Calhoun have approximately a million pounds of highly radioactive "poisoned" fuel sitting in their pools waiting for the right combination of problems to cause a disaster.

When GE and others designed the nuclear facilities both here and abroad, they had calculated that they would indeed succeed in closing the nuclear loop. So they designed the nuclear facilities with approximately a 20X safety margin in the fuel pools, because they did not have a clear date on when the technology would be perfected. It was my impression from this engineer that they got it sooner than expected. So fortunately the fuel pools were over built. But they were never built to withstand the fuel burdens that would result from a political decision to destroy the technology altogether.

So now, 40 years down the road, we have fuel pools around the country that are so full that they have exceeded even the extremely generous safety margins they were originally designed to have, and even modest pools often have over 400 tons of highly active isotope ridden "spent" fuel in them.

Having functional fuel pool cooling systems was never intended to be necessary. GE and others wanted one or two cores worth of fuel sitting in a pool at any one time. This would make it so that even if all cooling failed, there would be no boiling of the water in the pool, no pending disaster possible from equipment failure no matter how severe. But the way it is now, if there is any sort of attack or disaster which prevents fuel pool maintenance at any of the facilities around the country for a period exceeding three days, all hell will break loose and a nuclear disaster of unimaginable magnitude just like Fukushima will take place. And it never needed to be this way, in fact, the situation is criminal.

Upon recognizing the lunacy of America's Federally mandated nuclear sabotage, countries like France and Germany stepped up to the plate offering to buy our 5% spent fuel for billions of dollars. Heck, they were not held political hostage by a hostile government, and could certainly use a "freebie". But instead our government mandated NO transport of the fuel to foreign nations, NO FURTHER USE WHATSOEVER. Use it 5 percent, leaving 95 percent of the radiological hazard remaining, and please let it build up in a pool that needs maintenance. Shills have said it was the import/export restrictions which caused this, but since those are written by the same government that banned the closing of the "nuclear loop", the restrictions are only a further indictment of the FED for causing this problem.

Simultaneous with the intentional building of the threat from having so much nuclear material sitting around came all the government scandals and lies about needing to put the fuel somewhere. Inside a mountain in the desert. Inside a dry cask. Maybe in the ocean, all the while the general american public was kept oblivious to the obvious answer: If we are not allowed to use it because of a nonsensical piece of legislation, why not let someone else have it, when they are willing to EVEN PAY FOR IT?

Here is what I believe is the answer. And this answer needs to be spread far and wide.

Whatever you think of Kennedy, on the day of his death he was our last hope. No one since has been anything other than an enemy infiltrator, The enemy is not only inside the gates, it was getting a paycheck from you 40 years ago.

Consider this. Our government intentionally put in place policies that de-industrialized America. That's an act of war. Our government put in place policies that intentionally destroyed our schools. That's an act of war. And I consider FORCING VIA MANDATE the buildup of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of nuclear warheads worth of perfectly good reactor fuel just waiting for a disaster around the country to be an act of war as well - Only an enemy would intentionally mandate the creation of such a threat, who on earth would, other than someone who hated this country? Not only did we lose a marvelous clean virtually free energy future, that future got converted into a threat that could very easily destroy us. All it would take to kill America, with our nuclear facilities drastically overloaded with spent fuel, is 150 smart bombs. ONE BOMBING RUN AND IT IS OVER.

Here is something I posted in response to a shill, who is trolling the internet looking for any place my article on Fukushima and talk on this subject is posted, in an effort to back stab it out of the public eye. This was a tasty response, good enough to put here.

Dear Shillery

This is where I am going on this topic,

Our nation, after Kennedy has not had a true representative government, especially starting with Carter. We got over-run by outsiders who hated our guts. Up until 1973, America was going NO WHERE but UP, and anyone who wanted to see us destroyed would NEVER permit us to get virtually free energy.

So once enough legs of the "vampire squid" writhed and squirmed down our hallowed halls and meeting rooms, the death squeeze was on.

The enemy from outside COULD NOT allow us to have a technology such as this, so they HAD TO shut it down. They would lose oil profits. They would potentially lose control of energy, leaving the financial system the only means of forced compliance outside of a hot war they had to use against us, and they wanted options. True clean energy HAD TO GO.

This is a sinister enemy. It weaponizes EVERYTHING. It weaponizes sympathy, victim status, water systems, ANYTHING it can think of, and uses them to destroy. SO the nuclear industry, now blocked from a dream come true technology, could be used as a weapon.

There is plenty of proof. No shill can stop people from checking out the history of other nations, such as Germany, France and Russia offering us BILLIONS for our not so "spent" fuel, which really needs to be gotten rid of after a political decision banning technologies which allow for it's purification. It has been building up now, unnecessarily for years. To the tune of 25 tons of spent fuel per gigawatt year generated. That's a lot of "waste", and it's nasty stuff. It's the equivalent of keeping a 5,000 gallon gas tank in your bedroom. Better hope all is well with it.

I honestly feel that banning this miracle technology; you should have heard the sparkle, the awe in the old man's voice when he said they closed the "nuclear loop", and the sadness, despair and anger expressed at it's being banned; I feel it was an ACT OF WAR AGAINST AMERICA. There were never any accidents associated with this technology. NONE NADA ZIP. you can take that story and stuff it. If a problem occurred it was not related to this, and how can you prove said problem was not a "wag the dog"?

This enemy wanted this fuel building up. 25 tons a gigawatt year. WOW. That means that lowly little Fort Calhoun must have no less than 400 tons of "SPENT" fuel sitting in it's little pool by now. OUCH. Just what an enemy would want; you see -

Now, all it will take is a smart bomb, a societal breakdown, a natural disaster and POOF, fuel pool goes up in smoke and AMERICA IS FINISHED. Multiply that by Browns Ferry, Prairie Island, and over 100 others all across America. Tyranny's dream come true. Just what the enemy would want, and it NEVER NEEDED TO HAPPEN.

The problem was not scientific, IT WAS POLITICAL.

I feel that man opened up and passed me the baton because he knew I would "get it" and believe me pal, SHILL, HATE AMERICA SELLOUT TO BE HUNG FROM A TREE, I will carry that baton, I will not stop with this, I got a solid dose of light from America's great past; Oh what a nation we were. Only after the likes of you are adequately flushed will we ever have hope for a future, I truly hope there is a chance;

I am spreading the word, will do it quickly, and make good and sure that if anything does blow up the blame will land squarely ON YOU.

The following text, which was posted on the Nuclear Engineering web site out at the University of Berkely California, led to the rip from a shill which follows it. They posted the picture Reference with the quote "Jim Stone - STILL STUNNING THE WORLD"

This starts where I stepped into the conversation after finding them in my site stats.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-06-21 08:15.

Hi, I found you in my site stats. Thanks for the support! Btw, 85 year old nuclear engineers with over 100 patents filed for GE does not constitute "teenager" let alone the (several) others in their 50's who have sent me info that is going to blow you away in the next report.

Thanks guys, I really appreciate this post.

Jim Stone
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: domathy, Mrindigo

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 15:18 #3

  • Hexhammer
  • Hexhammer's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1651
  • Thank you received: 1129
  • Karma: 90
A thread worth discussing...

Thanks for Indi for opening this.

The findings in that article are not so surprising I think... Tesla's free energy devices etc. will not be published any time soon.. Those who have swept that sort of stuff under the rug are definitely the same people who benefit the most from oil/nuclear/coal power and SPECIALLY from nuclear disasters!!!!

Building nuclear powerplants is rather cheap and easy, considering how much power=money they produce, and if one of those happen to go sky high, there's gazillions of money to be made of the rescue, people must be relocated, new laws can be passed as people are running scared... And think how much money big pharma will make when people go to hospitals with their radiation related diseases.
The things you leave behind, you find in front of you.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Chloe

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 16:34 #4

  • Chloe
  • Chloe's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 25
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 3
From the Jim Stone article (if true), 95% more energy could be generated by the same material and also made safe to handle.
This just blows my mind.

@Hexhammer, yes, cancer once rare is now what most if us will die from.
You must register to post here.

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 16:41 #5

  • Hexhammer
  • Hexhammer's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Expert Boarder
  • Rank4
  • Posts: 1651
  • Thank you received: 1129
  • Karma: 90
I read somewhere that using stuff like Thorium in nukeplants could result in having the end product in completely inert state.. Meaning that all radiation would be "burned out" in the process... This would create as much power as uranium etc. does but with ending product being not dangerous at all.

Yea, the cancer thing... Hmm, I'm not so sure about cnacer, is it so dangerous on it's own, or is the cancer "treatment" that kills.

For all I know, cancer treatment is not real treatment but poisoning the patient and hoping for the best. (Good friend of mine just survived cancer/is healed now after all the "treatment" shit.)
The things you leave behind, you find in front of you.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mrindigo

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 16:55 #6

  • wake_up_bomb
  • wake_up_bomb's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Gold Boarder
  • Rank5
  • Posts: 5063
  • Thank you received: 4418
  • Karma: 56
Important article to read here about Dr. John W. Gofman:

www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/JWGobitLAT.html

Some extracts from it:
Often called the father of the antinuclear movement, Gofman and his colleague at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Arthur R. Tamplin, developed data in 1969 showing that the risk from low doses of radiation was 20 times higher than stated by the government.

Their publication of the data, despite strong efforts to censor it, led them to lose virtually all of their research funding and, eventually, their positions at the government laboratory.

Most of their conclusions have subsequently been validated, but critics say the risks have been ignored by an electric power industry that sees nuclear energy as a pollution-free alternative to fossil fuels and by a medical industry that continues to use much larger amounts of radiation for medical tests than are required.

Until his death, Gofman's position continued to be that there is no safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation.

"Licensing a nuclear power plant is, in my view, licensing random premeditated murder," Gofman said in the 1982 book "Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out."

"First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you are doing -- so it's premeditated. You can't say, 'I didn't know.' Second, the evidence on radiation producing cancer is beyond doubt. . . . It's not a question anymore: Radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses."

Gofman had aroused a great deal of enmity in Washington, and by the early 1970s he had lost virtually all of his research grants. He retired formally in 1973 and spent the rest of his career writing books about the risks of medical radiation and continuing his research on nuclear hazards.
The true measure of a man is not his intelligence or how high he rises in this freak establishment. The true measure of a man is this: how quickly he can respond to the needs of others and how much of himself he can give - Philip K. Dick.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mrindigo

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 18:59 #7

  • Mrindigo
  • Mrindigo's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Rank0
  • Posts: 787
  • Thank you received: 677
  • Karma: 53
The Jim Stone article seems pretty good, though that's an area I am not well versed in. I'll have to do some further research on that before I make any personal decisions. Until then I'll remain open minded on the notion of closing the nuclear fission loop. What I do agree with is that the waste does not need to be stored in the way it currently is. Brown's Gas has the ability to literally burn out the toxic radioactive isotopes.

I am more partial to the technologies developed by Nikola Tesla, Henry Ford, torsion physics based technology, as well as the work into Helium-3 based 'cold' fusion reactors (which has no radioactive waste, at all). It's true that Tesla's Tech was shelved because it couldn't be metered. Combine that with the fact that his wireless applications didn't have use of copper wire, and he had made some enemies; In particular the Morgan family who had large amounts invested in the copper industry which produced the wires used in wired electric application. They saw to it that Tesla's other investors pull their funding as well, and set out to besmirch his name to boot.

Even if what Jim Stone was talking about is true, there is still some margin for error and contamination. We don't have control over natural disasters as Fukushima has shown. As WUB has pointed out, there isn't any real safe levels of radiation exposure. The idea of closing the loop is excellent in terms of efficiency. I understand that the point of Jim's article is to show that the risks would be minimized by reducing the waste volume and storage facilities, but it's my opinion that something like fission based power does not have room for error. The potential results could still be hazardous even with using up the wastes. I currently still stand by the notion that there is little fault tolerance in mind when it comes to nuclear fission. Further more I don't know who Jim Stone is, or whether or not he himself may be a paid nuclear shill or not at this point. Again I have to do some research.

Edit: After checking out Jim Stone's site I don't think the man is a nuclear industry shill. He does cover some tough material that some similar sites won't cover. I still don't know enough about him, or the man he allegedly interviewed about the closed fission loop. I'm still researching as a result, so this is more of a small update.
Form is merely a momentary manifestation of being, not a fixed reality.

History doesn't repeat itself, uninformed people repeat history.

To all progressive endeavors great or small, come unforeseen benefits on a scale larger than most give pause or contemplation of.
Last Edit: 27 May 2012 20:00 by Mrindigo.
You must register to post here.

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 27 May 2012 19:54 #8

  • domathy
  • domathy's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Voluntarily Inactive
  • Rank0
  • Posts: 272
  • Thank you received: 57
  • Karma: 13
Apparently, the only reason nuclear power is used is because the Queen owns uranium. Otherwise maybe we'd use cold fusion or something.

eyes-wise-open.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/fu...a-uranium-queen.html

“The Queen of England owns all of the uranium in Canada and Australia; she owns much of the mineral rights to those two vast regions. 30% of the uranium produced globally every year is from Canada. But, the Canadians have a law: The Canadian uranium cannot be used for any weapons purposes. It can only be used for instance, for nuclear power plants. The City of London bankers—the Rothschild’s are the Queen’s business manager. And, the City of London actually owns the nuclear power industry, and the Rothschild’s control Uranium prices and supplies, globally. We found this out during the 1973 oil embargo, when there was a surplus of Uranium on the world market. But, Uranium prices started going up, and Westinghouse and G.E., whose designs are used in 85% of civilian reactors around the world; they also guarantee the Uranium fuel prices when they sell the reactors to different countries, or entities. So, they got mad because they had to make up the difference—they had to “eat that increase” in Uranium prices. So, they hired Dr. Jay Gould, a world-class statistician to find out why the prices were going up. And he is the one who unmasked the Queen."
In an article published on Rense.com Moret writes:

“Who is profiting from this global uranium nightmare? Dr. Jay Gould revealed in his book THE ENEMY WITHIN, that the British Royal family privately owns investments in uranium holdings worth over $6 billion through Rio Tinto Mines. The mining company was formed for the British Royal family in the late 1950's by Roland Walter "Tiny" Rowland, the Queen's buccaneer. Born in 1917 through illegitimate German parentage, and before changing his name, Roland Walter Fuhrhop was a passionate member of the Nazi youth movement by 1933, and a classmate described him as "...an ardent supporter of Hitler and an arrogant, nasty piece of work to boot." His meteoric rise and protection by intel agencies and the British Crown are an indication of what an asset he has been for decades to the Queen, as Africa's most powerful Western businessman. Africa and Australia are two of the main sources of uranium in the world.”
Last Edit: 27 May 2012 19:58 by domathy.
You must register to post here.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Mrindigo, Chloe

Re: Risk of contamination from severe nuclear reactor accidents high 29 May 2012 06:25 #9

  • Chloe
  • Chloe's Avatar
  • ZONED OUT
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Rank1
  • Posts: 25
  • Thank you received: 20
  • Karma: 3
Hi domathy,
After reading your post , I clicked and watched the Lauren Moret vids...I've seen most of her stuff ,she's the real whistle blower material. I don't think she a fear monger but tells it how it IS. Radiation had been one of their covert slow death tools for along time.
Little wonder the scum don't want it inert.

!
Last Edit: 29 May 2012 06:31 by Chloe.
You must register to post here.
  • Page:
  • 1
Moderators: psketti, oioioi, batou
Time to create page: 0.215 seconds

Latest Members Blogs

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

What is going on when it comes to 9-11 I…

The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....

Read more

9-11 Eleven Years Later

9-11 Eleven Years Later

With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...

Read more

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass An…

Strange Noises, Possible Link to Mass Animal Deaths

In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...

Read more

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 250 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 192 - Raised
( £ 140 GBP )
donation thermometer
56%
Most Recent Donation:
$122 USD on 4th Jan 2021
Bitcoin Address: bc1q0kazqya0nurfxtunxv807vm0m8852nnrrk8mj8
 
Ethereum Address: 0xe69915c80dd75df19f438d556267e04f932f057d
 
More Info: Donation options for TZ

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.

TradeZone Latest

Visitors

Today29
Yesterday457
Week29
Month985
Total1099409

Your IP Address: 216.73.216.30 Your Browser and OS: Unknown - Unknown Monday, 03 August 2026 01:15

Who Is Online

Guests : 116 guests online Members : No members online
© 2012 – 2021 Sanctum Zone | All rights reserved. This website is a place for people to express and discuss their views on the news and world events. DISCLAIMER: Please Note: Views expressed and submitted by contributors are their own personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions and beliefs of the Sanctum Zone website and its founder(s) , administrators , moderators , and any other website maintenance technicians, personnel and volunteers. Articles and messages posted on this website and forum are solely the opinion of their authors.

Login or Register

LOG IN

Register

User Registration
or Cancel