Help me out, Dear Reader: Here is the English language site of the Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (FAEE), the press site. Can you find any statement at this site relating to the power plants in Nebraska along the flooding Missouri River?
What some reports appear to paint as the Nebraska nuclear generating stations (However, please note: In this photo, no nuclear power plants appear)
What you really see: Cooper Nuclear Generating Station in Nebraska -- still there (from a 1993 photo)
I have found no mention of any U.S. incident. This suggests the Pakistani news report of a Russian agency report of disaster is hoax, too.
Claims of a crisis in Nebraska are hoaxes, I think. The Russian agency from which the report is claimed to have come, does not show such a report.
This is more evidence that the whole flap is a hoax.
True to form, several birther and other conspiracy paranoiac sites claim that these plants in Nebraska are gone, in flames, or leaking water that nearly glows.
Can’t Sarah Palin point her bus to Nebraska and let her press entourage get the real story?
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
[…] “Hoaxed Nebraska nuclear plant crisis update” […]
LikeLike
[…] Hoax claims died down a bit across the blogosphere, but the Missouri River still floods, and the two Nebraska nuclear power plants on the Missouri still face threats from the flood. […]
LikeLike
By the way, I am unaware of any legal basis for declaring a “restricted area” or “temporary flight restriction” in order “to hide” anything. FAA is not in the business of hiding anything. They are charged with making aviation safe and secure.
The president of the United States does not have authority to order a restriction of flights to hide anything at any time. FAA doesn’t have that authority, either.
Besides, what could be hidden from an overflight that couldn’t be found out through publicly available satellite photos? How could a no-fly zone help keep secret a problem at a nuclear power plant — or more appropriately, how could a picture from an airplane directly over a site reveal anything not available through other, perfectly-legal means? There are easily a dozen photos of the flooded fort Calhoun site. An Omaha television station put a boat on the river, and got a lot of footage of the flooded sites. Nuclear containment vessels are out of site, covered over by entire buildings.
(I well remember the complaints of especially television news editors during the Three Mile Island incident. What could they show on film to show a problem? A nuclear power plant in distress looks like a perfectly running, non-distressed nuclear power plant, unless a hydrogen bubble somewhere in the system explodes.
No hydrogen bubbles from cold stop nuclear stations, you know?)
LikeLike
Colm said, “If there was a no-fly zone (as is said to be the case), then what is to hide?”
They are to prevent news helicopters and even small planes from flocking to the site to film and gawp. Increased congestion raises the risk of a collision between the media’s various crews.
LikeLike
Cite for no-fly zones: See the post at Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes, a blog by Dan Yurman, who generally knows what he’s talking about.
Here: http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2011/06/spiking-conspiracy-theories-about-ft.html
By the way, a helicopter crashed at one of the sites since the issuing of this alert. Ironically, it was a helicopter hired by the utility to survey the situation from the air.
LikeLike
No-fly zones have been imposed around all U.s. nuclear plants since September of 2001.
Do you have a cite for that? I commented elsewhere that I was surprised there weren’t permanent NFZs over Nuke Plants, so if there are that would really help me.
LikeLike
The dates are later, yes — which means they are based on the hoax reports out of Pakistan claiming the Russians reported a problem (can you find that report from the Russians?)
No-fly zones aren’t intended to hide anything — they’re intended to keep airplanes from crashing into the plant. No-fly zones have been imposed around all U.s. nuclear plants since September of 2001.
I’m disappointed that Hartmann has been so suckered by the hoax. He needs to read my posts here.
LikeLike
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGotXbi8ITI&feature=share
The dates are later than your Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency site; it is a puzzling situation. If there was a no-fly zone (as is said to be the case), then what is to hide?
LikeLike