Skip to main content

Nuclear Email Virus

By
Watch out for an email coming in from various news sources (some come from “foxnews” or “google news”) that claims there was an issue at the “San Clemente Nucklear Power Station.” This is obviously a fake, especially if you are not signed up to receive email notifications from news sources.

This is what the email said:
Evacuation process has been started due to radiation leaks at San Clemente Nucklear Power Station.

Message CNN, San Clemente, CA - Major Problems have been occured at San Clemente Nucklear Power Station - 20-year old circuit breaker fails to close, creating a 4,000-volt arc and fire. Possible radiation leaks on 100miles area. Evacuation process has been started

See current videoclip:{Video clip link removed}
Do not open the email or the clip. Hope no-one gets this.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Especially because there is no "San Clemente" power station. There is however a "San Onofre" nuclear plant south of San Clemente. I live fairly close by. It's ALWAYS refered to as San Onofre, NEVER as San Clemente plant.
April 8, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Anonymous said…
I got these messages today on my phone and immediately suspected a hoax because of the grammatical errors and misspelling. That stuff about an arc caused by a breaker failing to close is just nonsense. Anyway, was their goal to get you to click on the video link, or is this part of the campaign against "aging nuclear plants?"
April 8, 2008 at 9:45 PM
Anonymous said…
Not to mention that the alarms would have sounded in the surrounding areas and it would have made the national news!
April 8, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Anonymous said…
So far I have received it twice, once from foxnews and once from reuters. Curiously it arrived in an email account which until very recently never received spam.
April 8, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Anonymous said…
So did our "friends" at NIRS create this virus?
April 9, 2008 at 7:20 AM
Anonymous said…
I do received this email today.
It seems like, this email is orginated fron INDIA.

One good thing about this email is it lead me search search on the web and found this forum to read more about this email.
April 9, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Anonymous said…
I also received this email through our spam filter. I clicked on them message but the link did not seem to go through. I hope I did not let the virus in. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN IF YOU CLICK ON THE LINI.
April 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Anonymous said…
This is a follow up comment to my earlier comment timed at 10.56pm.

I have received several emails recently on an account which I thought was free from spam. Two refer to San Clemente Nucklear and one to Barack Obama. On another account one refers to Sizewell B Nucklear. The IP addresses indicate that the senders mostly use ISPs in Poland (one in Ukraine). My own google search led me to blogspot posts which seem to have been placed deliberately to be found in such a search. In all cases the objective seems to be for me to view a video clip, which I have not done. Someone out there seems to be trying harder than usual to get my cooperation. Perhaps he should study English spelling and grammar.

From the experience of others, it would seem that it's all a sophisticated phishing scam.

http://weblog.techdad.net/2008/04/08/warning-watch-out-for-evacuation-processsan-clemente-nucklear-power-station-email/#comment-9577

I would really like to know how he got my email address.
April 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more