Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Banned by Linkedin Nuclear Safety Group for caring about the safety of our nation

 
June 1

Madalina,

That is just great. Now i am going to have to look up another difficult word in a dictionary (divagate).  I spend half my time here looking up new words. Just because I am stupider than you, it shouldn’t give you the right to hold me up to higher standards than all the rest of you smarter people.  This is the bane of existence to the poor and disenfranchised all over the world.
I never really you understood why educated people have a penchant to put issues in any old artificial category or order. I am sorry I just don’t get it. You’d rather debate what category to put an issue in, than fix it or acknowledge it is a problem.
A person here brought up environmental issues with coal and many and many other issues unrelated to the category at hand. Some even admitted than their entries really aren’t related to the title. We all draw outside the lines here at one time or another.  I do respect your enforcement of order on this discussion site and have great respect, more than you than you realize with a central authority or even in government. Certainly I don’t think many people respect their government here, and the antis are worse than you!
Yes, I do have less education than you and have difficulty with writing...why do you openly have to humiliate me over it.
In the whistleblower businesses we call this rules-ies. It when a person has a disagreement over a safety or corruption issue...then management holds the troublemaker to a different set of standard or rules enforcement then their friends. If you aren’t in my group, then we will hold accountable to a different set of rules. If I am a national regulator and worst my vaulted rules and policies... but I can subvert the reputation of a regulator...undermine government itself... by protecting the agency and a troubled plant through the selective releasing of information at a public annual public meeting. Many times the game of rule-sies leads to both sides tattling to higher manager or the regulator over any perception of rules violations. It is a war of the rules. ..the first causality in war is truth.
What I find so despicable here is the anonymous managers assuming they understand what my comment meant (in my head) without a chance to explain.  This is so very cowardly. So you have anonymous managers and unknown infractions...or secret infractions. These are all ingredients of the McCarthy era, Guantanamo Bay or the Ceausescu era. It is a rule or law is applied one way for your friends, then another way for someone who sees the world differently than you.
I won’t even go there in you game of painting me as a fallacy maker...you haven’t even had the courage to identify my fallacy making.  I think it was unprofessional to paint me with the word rant. If I called you or one of your managers as ranting, I’d be banned for life. I wonder what kind of environment it be if you had anti-nuclear managers...how many of you pro nuke guys would be moderated.
Continued
I was at the last Vermont Yankee annual ( 2013) conduct of plant operations meeting  with the NRC last week. We put on a pretty sophisticated presentation to the NRC. They wanted public feedback and we gave it to them. My job was to talk about the problems with their new diesel generator...it is the last ditch power source to the plant. Course it is my diesel generator...I forced them to get it. I talked about regional infrastructure problems to the top NRC’s regional administrator. The Millstone recent LOOP, Pilgrims issue with their switchyards and their repetitive LOOPs, and the whole thing not designed for the climate. As far as Dave C, don’t forget about Millstone’s power excursion accident in late 2011 and another special inspection of this year over the repetitive failures of the turbine feed pump. These guys are sicker than the NRC makes them out to be. Overt capture behavior!
So the NRC is playing rules-ies here in the annual meeting. It is the selective release of information saying its one kind of meeting and then doing another kind of meeting...they didn’t want to get the violations into the newspaper. Basically, everyone is given 3 minutes to speak or ask questions...hardly enough to even get a response. It is common knowledge the NRC security guy with the microphone gives 2 minutes to some people and 6 minutes or more to other people.  If we can’t trust the NRC not to play rules-ies, the selective release of information to make a plant look better than they are...to be ethical and moral...why would you expect the owners on managers on linkedin to play fair and be moral? Our whole political system was invented to prevent the tyranny  of the majority over the minority. This is a huge symptom of the NRC being captured. This below story was carried all over the state. 
“We feel the public was shortchanged by NRC's shifting the emphasis of the meeting to general information on decommissioning at the expense of focused discussion about significant deficiencies in management and operations at Entergy Vermont Yankee," said Clay Turnbull, a trustee and spokesman with the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition.
Turnbull, who attended the meeting, said in an email, "Nowhere in print, on a screen or verbally did NRC present the ten violations of 2013 to the public. The violations repeatedly point to management making poor decisions, poor project planning, and cutting costs at the expense of safety."
I afraid my reputation will be sullied if I continue to participating in such an unfair and unjust site. If the moderation ever clears, I’ll still have the sword of Damocles hanging over my head within a secretive Ceausescu era star camber. I will never be completely free to express my thoughts and concerns. I do think the atmosphere has been permanently changed over these events. I am going to miss this place and the awfully smart people I’d seen here. I honestly don’t know what you could say to make me stay and you never rescinded the moderation.
I had 759 visits to my Palisades RCP problem.

...Romania saw one of the biggest increases in household electricity and gas prices between 2012 and 2013, figures from Eurostat
show.

Although its average household electricity price per 100kwh is technically one Europe’s lowest at EUR 12.8, Romania saw one of the steepest price increases between the second half of 2012 and the second half of last year, with a 16.8 percent rise. This is compared to a 4.4 percent increase between 2011 and 2012.

After Germany (21.7 percent) and Greece (19.7 percent), the 2012-2013 jump was the biggest hike in Europe.

Although it appears low, when expressed in purchasing power standards (PPS), it can be seen that, relative to the cost of other goods and services, Romania’s electricity prices are among the highest with a PPS of 25.9

Hmm, the energy markets and dependance on Russia?
Energy in Romania describes energy and electricity production, consumption and import in Romania.
Romania has significant oil and gas reserves, substantial coal deposits and it has substantial hydroelectric power installed. However, Romania imports oil and gas from Russia and other countries. To ease this dependency Romania seeks to use nuclear power as an alternative to electricity generation. So far, the country has two nuclear reactors, located at Cernavodă, accounting for about 18-20% of the country's electricity production, with the second one online in 2007. Nuclear waste is stored on site at reprocessing facilities.
Electric power in Romania is dominated by government enterprises, although privately operated coal mines and oil refineries also existed. Accordingly, Romania placed an increasingly heavy emphasis on developing nuclear power generation. Electric power was provided by the Romanian Electric Power Corporation (CONEL). Energy used in electric power generation consisted primarily of nuclear, coal, oil, and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Of the electricity generated in 2007, 13.1 percent came from nuclear plants then in operation, 41.69 percent from thermal plants (oil and coal), and 25.8 percent from hydroelectric sites.[1] It was predicted in 2007 that the generation structure by the year 2010 would be 10.2 percent hydroelectric, 12.2 percent oil, 22.9 percent coal, 10.2 percent LNG, and 44.5 percent nuclear.
So a government owned nuclear utility with two Candu units...overseen by government employees...embedded in a nascent energy market.
...May 14: Nuclearelectrica is a state-ownedcompany, its shares being held by the Ministry of Economy andCommerce, which has as main objective power generation with the only nuclear power plant in Romania. 
...Romanian power producer Nuclearelectrica posts 30% lower profit for first quarter
Romanian energy producer Nuclearelectrica (BVB ticker: SNN), which operates Romania’s only nuclear power plant at Cernavoda, posted a net profit of RON 102 million (EUR 23 million) for the first quarter of 2014, 30 percent lower compared to the same period last year.
The company’s electricity sales were down 11 percent, to RON 433 million (EUR 97 million), although the amount of energy sold was unchanged compared to the first three months in 2013 at 2.8 TWh. However, energy sales prices on the free market were 13 percent lower this year.
Nuclearelectrica’s operational profit before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) declined by 28 percent due to lower revenues. It was also impacted by the tax on special constructions introduced by the Romanian government at the beginning of this year, which increased the company’s expenses with taxes and fees by RON 22 million (EUR 4.94 million) in the first quarter.
Nuclearelectrica has been listed on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB) since September 2013 and has a market capitalization of RON 2.36 billion (EUR 530 million). The company is 81 percent owned by the state while investment fund Fondul Proprietatea holds a 9.7 percent stake.
Nuclearelectrica’s share price lost 12.9 percent on Wednesday, May 14, on the ex-dividend day. The company pays a gross dividend of RON 1.21 per share which is 12.6 percent of the price at which the shares traded the day before.

Why are my posts going through moderation in all of my groups?

Last Reviewed: 04/02/2014
 
While we rely on group management to determine the appropriate level of moderation for discussions in their groups, we also support a moderation feature that helps group members and managers minimize unwanted content such as self-promotion in their own and other groups. By monitoring how people respond to contributions, we can gauge the likelihood of unwanted content being repeated from group to group.
Based on the feedback trends, some members may become subject to moderation in all their groups for a period of time. If your posts are being moderated, here are some things to know:
  • You'll be subject to moderation for up to a week or two per occurrence. This can vary depending on the number of occurrences.
  • During the moderation period, your posts won't display immediately and must pass through your group's management team before they appear publicly.
  • During the moderation period, your posts won't display immediately and must pass through your group's management team before they appear publicly.
  • You can ask the group's management to approve your specific post or remove you from moderation for their group if you need to post. We suggest you share the instructions for changing a member's posting permissions when you contact them.
  • If a group's management doesn't think you require moderation, they can update your permissions for their group at any time.
  • Check with your group managers if you have questions about the relevance of your content and read more about best practices for contributing in groups.
Learn more about this moderation feature and how it works. To learn ways to avoid being subject to moderation in the future, check out our best practices for contributing in groups.
Notes:
  • The mechanism that changes a member's posting permissions is automated and cannot be reversed by LinkedIn Customer Support.
  • Changes to posting permission are driven by a combination of factors, so it's not specific actions of any individual that places you in a moderation status.
  • We're committed to protecting all our members' privacy, so we're unable to share specifically who flagged your posts

Doctor Tronea to me: 
"Mike Mulligan, I am not the only manager of this forum, but I am surely not the one who put you on moderation. Your posts may be moderated also because a manager in other forums that these I run blocked you for some reason. For your information, this happened to other members of this forum and I have checked and the settings for their posts are the default ones, which means that comments in existing threads are not moderated, but opening new threads is. This may be a linkedin bug, I don't know.

You frequently use the threads on this forum to rant about issues unrelated to the respective discussion, i.e. you use to divagate, and yet I have not done anything against this except for reminding you from time to time to either stick with the topic or to open a separate discussion on whatever you want, as long as it is relevant for nuclear safety.

Don't you realize that if I wanted to ban you I would have done it? As long as I continue to consider that some of the issues you bring up in the discussions are worth of noting and exceed the discomfort you cause with your divagations, you are as welcome to this forum as anybody else.

As for human freedom in Romania, what is the relevance?! If I would be a tyrant, would that necessarily make me representative of the whole country and every body else similar to myself? 
This is for you and for everybody else and it is an unwritten rule of this forum: I may tolerate occasional personal attacks, within certain limits, but I will not tolerate fallacies used in arguments and misleading information posted for the purpose of manipulation. With this being said, I would appreciate if you would tone down your posts a bit in terms of language, so that you don't provoke the "pro-nuke guys" to gang up on you.

I apologize to the others for this digression in a thread about regulatory capture. Please continue on the subject.
Believe me, they don't do this because you are laughing stock...they do this beause they fear and know you are right.
 

I read the announcement as one extremist pro-nuker could flag me into moderation. 
“one of your recent contributions was marked as spam or flagged for not being relevant






































Yep...the the extremist pro nukies ganged up on me and got me kicked off. I won't participate being moderated.  

Note: It sure looks like Madalina has shifted me to a approving comment mode or worst. Or it could be issues with my computer or with Linkedin itself slowing down. But this has been going on for days so I find that unlikely.

Your group posting status

Your posts across groups are being moderated temporarily because one of your recent contributions was marked as spam or flagged for not being relevant. Learn more.

She is the owner of the Linkedin site: Dr Madalina Tronea. Isn't 'Madalina' a pretty first name.  

She is a expert in nuclear technology...not on public involvement in the nuclear industry, public acceptance and participation of the technology.  
She is the head or a safety advisor to Romania’s NRC or something.

Being in a tiny country with only two troublesome reactor designs...I think she has big troubles with being too controversial.  

A CANDU heavy water reactor...
Romania currently has 1,400 MW of nuclear power capacity by means of one active nuclear power plant with 2 reactors, which constitutes around 18% of the national power generation capacity of the country. This makes Romania the 23rd largest user of nuclear power in the world.


April 2004 – Present (10 years 2 months)

-Review and assessment of licensing submissions and of the documentations submitted periodically by the licensees for regulatory approval
-Review and assessment of the integrated management manual (former quality management manual) of the licensee;
-Inspections and audits of licensee’s arrangements under the integrated management system, including aspects related to: decision-making process on matters important to safety, use of operating experience and of probabilistic safety assessments for improving procedures and practices, training programmes for the personnel with duties important to safety, management of organisational changes, the development of the processes of the management system
-Examinations (theoretical and practical - on the full-scope simulator) of control room operators, shift supervisors in view of licensing or licence renewal;
-Elaboration of nuclear safety regulations (in the areas of siting, design, operation) and management of the consultation process with the stakeholders prior to formally issuing the new regulations;
-Participation in the periodic licensing meetings and in the integrated inspections held on the occasion of major licensing milestones during the commissioning and operation phases of a nuclear power plant;
-Involvement in international activities: review meetings under the Convention on Nuclear Safety, technical meetings and workshops organised by the IAEA, meetings of the Working Party on Atomic Questions (WPAQ) of the Council of the European Union, meetings of WENRA members and the work of the RHWG, work on the development of topical question sets (regulation of nuclear installations) to be used in the IAEA Self-Assessment Tool to aid in the preparation of IRRS (Integrated Regulatory Review Service) missions




 

No comments: