# How far to live away from a nuclear power plant?



## Freya (Dec 3, 2005)

Realistically what is the minimum distance to live from one?

I have been looking at a map listing where they are and it's a decent spread, but ofcourse all the states and places I like are within 200 miles of one it seems.


I don't know enough about it and I keep reading conflicting info online. :stars:


----------



## Explorer (Dec 2, 2003)

The nuclear power plant that I mainly worry about is 93 million miles away.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Many more people have been killed by lightning striking a tree that they are standing near than have ever been killed by nuclear energy. What is the safest distance to live from trees?


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

Consider whether you location is downwind or not.


----------



## Ross (May 9, 2002)

Mars might do for a while!  I'm not anti nuke even but by geez there are some seriously crazy operations out there!


----------



## Bruenor (Oct 2, 2008)

anniew said:


> Consider whether you location is downwind or not.


What does the terrain look like? 30 miles away on a flat plain is different than 30 miles over the mountain.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Freya said:


> Realistically what is the minimum distance to live from one?
> 
> I have been looking at a map listing where they are and it's a decent spread, but ofcourse all the states and places I like are within 200 miles of one it seems.
> 
> ...



.....................at work I'm about 25 miles , at home maybe 38 or so . but , if necessary , I can hookup too my 5'ver and hit the road in a day or so . , fordy


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

15 miles for me.....I'm not moving any closer.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

93 million miles,only nuke I want around is the Sun,GODS Nuclear plant.


----------



## Del Gue (Apr 5, 2010)

20 miles.
I try not to think about it.


----------



## Freya (Dec 3, 2005)

I need to stop reading some of the doomer sites! ound:


----------



## sticky_burr (Dec 10, 2010)

well if THE worse happens there is fall out over thousands of miles and minor particles around the globe so on this planet there are no safe places


----------



## brosil (Dec 15, 2003)

One mile more or less from the containment building. Do I win?


----------



## kirkmcquest (Oct 21, 2010)

Freya said:


> I need to stop reading some of the doomer sites! ound:


No, it is a valid concern. Some people are just too political to think clearly sometimes. They think Nute Gingridge will ride in on a white horse and save them if they defend the energy industry. LOL
These are valid concerns, especially in today's volatile political and economic climate. We have seen the devastation caused by nuclear events, no one can argue the danger so..
If the best you can hope for is 200 miles, then that will have to do. The fallout can go for hundreds, even thousands of miles but the real danger seems to be within around 100 miles...at least thats what they were saying about fukashima, my guess would be that it's bigger than that. I'm around 160 miles, I wish it were more.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Freya said:


> Realistically what is the minimum distance to live from one?
> 
> I have been looking at a map listing where they are and it's a decent spread, but ofcourse all the states and places I like are within 200 miles of one it seems.
> 
> ...


I have seen a few maps posted online. So far I have not seen any of them actually show all U.S. nuclear power plants / facilities.

Every now and then someone posts the aerial photos of the INF facility in Idaho. Hundreds of reactor cores stored in the open air, visible from space, laid out in rows.


----------



## Ohio dreamer (Apr 6, 2006)

Nuclear is one of the things I've gone Sheeple with. I have to many other things that are a higher priority to "deal" with. Nuclear is a bad problem....but I was raised if nuclear goes off...go outside and be done with it, some things aren't worth surviving (I grew up in a "big city"...so we were a likely "target"). To this day I just don't think about it. I'm now 50+ miles from a plant, I think, so it's less of an "issue".


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

According to what I have read 100 miles is pretty safe. You're only going to be able to get that far (in the U.S.) in a few area's these days


----------



## anniew (Dec 12, 2002)

check out the KI4U site...he gives information on how to survive, not panic.


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

Never paid much attention either until the Fukishima meltdowns and the continuing release going on there,and that its made it to the West coast.Now They have a LOT of land contamination there,so no such thing as survival tactics when your home is uninhabitable.

I cant see any safe distance on em.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

tinknal said:


> Many more people have been killed by lightning striking a tree that they are standing near than have ever been killed by nuclear energy. What is the safest distance to live from trees?


Of course, that is the same argument the builders of the Titanic used to avoid putting enough lifeboats aboard for everybody. Just because something hasn't happened to US before doesn't mean it can't happen. Ask the Ukrainians around Chernobyl how safe they think nuclear power is, or maybe the people who USED to live around Three Mile Island or even the Japanese who live near Fukushima.:hrm:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

FourDeuce said:


> Of course, that is the same argument the builders of the Titanic used to avoid putting enough lifeboats aboard for everybody. Just because something hasn't happened to US before doesn't mean it can't happen. Ask the Ukrainians around Chernobyl how safe they think nuclear power is, or maybe the people who USED to live around Three Mile Island or even the Japanese who live near Fukushima.:hrm:



..............If one drops the 'hima' off of fukushima , it was named appropriately , lol ! , fordy:gaptooth:


----------



## mightybooboo (Feb 10, 2004)

fordy said:


> ..............If one drops the 'hima' off of fukushima , it was named appropriately , lol ! , fordy:gaptooth:


LOL,I was JUST thinking that!!!!


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't worry too much about the nuke plants. All the ones in MN are SE of me (downwind). I do worry about all the missles that are NW of me in ND (upwind). They are good targets for the terrorists and a first strike by another nucular power.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I realize some people will always worry about nuclear power plants. Yet they willingly let doctors inject radioactive substances into them for medical diagnostics. The real danger in this life is the other facilities that might have hazardous materials. To me those are much more of a concern. A plant in WV had an accident recently involving the same chemical, methyl isocyanate, that killed the people in Bhopal. Fortunately only one person died. I can see somone moving to WV because there are no nuclear power plants here and then dying from a methyl isocyanate release. How ironic would that be? :doh:

For the truely paranoid get a copy of the DOT handbook which details the placard markings on trucks. As you travel, you'd be amazed at the nasty stuff you're passing or that is passing you. The general guideline is if you can't put your thumb up and block the view of the accident you're too close. If explosives are involved you don't want to be within sight distance of the accident.

I'd spend the time looking for facilities with truly hazardous materials rather than a nuclear power plant. There are far more facilities with hazardous materials than there are nuclear power plants. I'd worry about stuff like chlorine, railroad yards, rail crossings, etc. where an industrial accident can kill you faster than any power plant could in this country.

As I traveled I'd keep my trusty DOT handbook in the car so the family could interpret the placards. When I spotted something really deadly in a traffic situation, I'd stay away from it. Of course that's for the truly paranoid or those who want to worry about something that really could kill lots of people.

We're all going to die some day. Some risks are blown completely out of proportion compared to others that are literally lurking at your door step or not far from you when you pass them on your daily commute.

I think about things like that. I also wonder how many folks who are worried about nuclear power plants either smoke or live with someone that does.

I'd live next door to a nuclear power plant in a heart beat. I'd think twice about living near a mainline railroad or many industrial plants.


----------



## Freya (Dec 3, 2005)

I am not super worried, but since my life was tossed up the last year I have been looking for a new "forever" place to live. And well I figured I would try to take the biggie variables into thought and see if there was a decent distance to hunker down away from them.

It's not that I think it could happen... just that I know anything could happen. And while I assume the more likely scenerio is a more "minor" issue (as the major ones most people wont live through), I figured I could take it into account. In the end it may not matter either way. 



*Looks like 100+ miles away is a good start then. *


----------



## soulsurvivor (Jul 4, 2004)

Maybe as a human I should be self-sufficient enough to move myself out of the way if/when I discover that it's dangerous to stay in place. Sure, I'd like to be able to do that. I'd like for everyone I know to have that inherent talent of knowing when and where to move out of the way. 

[YOUTUBE]6k84TiMa_C0[/YOUTUBE]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k84TiMa_C0&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

I do think there is a technology available that could reverse much of the radioactive danger to humans. I think the world gov already knows about it and has for much longer than most of us have lived. But the tech is associated with one man that's nuttier than a fruitcake which is why he's even still around. Warning: the following video will probably offend you:

[YOUTUBE]3xf_JBnDOBw[/YOUTUBE]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xf_JBnDOBw[/ame]
I need to explain why I think the above tech is associated with Fukushima. On the webcam at Fukushima, sound is available. In the background I can hear a generator running 24/7. It's always going and it sounds exactly like the generator profiled in the Hutchison's video that's heard backing up the song being played. I think a Hutchison's type of fuel cell generator is being used at Fukushima. I've read that this generator can be used for both good and bad reasons; good being reversing harmful radiation; bad by using the generator for weapons enhancement of used fuel cells. Here's the live webcam link:
http://lucaswhitefieldhixson.com/lucaswebcamwatch.html
Expand to full page, click the arrow on the right screen and the webcam on the right listed as TBS/JNN. This is the webcam that has live sound. It will be difficult to hear the generator in the background if there are other sounds such as wind, rain, surf, birds singing, but the generator can be heard when these sounds abate. The webcam on the left is TEPCO's webcam and does not provide sound. I use earphones to pick up the sounds more clearly. The webcam is best viewed at night for us as that's daylight hours for them.

So, would I live close to a nuclear power plant? I don't think any of us have ever been given that choice. Any "accident" is reason to think we're all exposed on a daily basis to harmful radiation, other than what comes in naturally via sunlight and other cosmic sources.


----------



## freegal (Mar 4, 2005)

We live just outside of the 10 mile radius of one. I don't worry about it. We receive a booklet in the mail once a year with info and evacuation routes for an emergency. I actually read it and am prepared for an emergency.


----------

