Could Bill and others that have done research here give an opinion on how to determine the safe distance to live from a nuclear power plant.
As Low As Reasonably Achievable
We live about 80 miles, crosswind from a nuclear power station. Wish we were 250 miles upwind.
Difficult to say for certain. The USA data and research, regarding nuclear reactor releases, and the health sequela, have been unreliable for about 40 years.
GE et al have created a 'black-hole' for nuclear bad news. Therefore one must extrapolate from VERY old data and research.
I'd rather live 100 miles away from a nuclear power plant than 10 meters from an electrical facility... or 10 feet from a run of the mill transformer.
In all honesty, if I could move to a country in the southern hemisphere with no nuclear plants I would move me and my family there (I have two kids).
In reality, though, the farther you are away, and the less likely that you are downind or downstream, the safer you are likely to be in the event of an accident or meltdown. The other reality is that in the US, these plants are emitting and releasing radionculides into the environment daily and there are more than 100 nuclear plants in the US, so the food everywhere and water everywhere may well be contaminated to some extent with those on top of the releases from Fukushima, Chernobyl, nuclear testing, etc.
The bottom line for me is that the only safe future is one that is nuclear free, and that in order to be as safe as possible one must be as far away and not downstream or downwind. I will give you an example: The Connecticut River has or has had a number of leaky plants from Vermont and Connecticut releasing radionculides into that river which flows into Long Island Sound. ANYWHERE on that river south of these plants is going to have some level of potentially harmful contamination and Long Island Sound is completely contaminated, so if you live, work or play on these bodies of water you are getting more exposure (even if you are hundreds of miles from the source.
The Savannah River in Georgia and South Carolina (along their border)has the same problem. And this issue with the water repeats over and over again around the country.
I would suggest you take a look at the Radiation and Public Health Project website and read their articles and studies and reports (including those published in peer reviewed journals). They have lots of info on partivular sites and have studies on the risks near many plants as well as levels of contamiants detected.
Mother Nature is the biggest source of radiation exposure.
Courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:
Your radiation exposure due to nuclear power plants ( "nuclear fuel cycle" in the table ) is LESS than 0.03% of your annual background exposure.
According to the National Cancer Institute, your risk of cancer is no greater near nuclear power plants:
Read what legitimate scientists say about the scare-mongers at radiation.org
Check out www.rense.com to get updates on the Fukushima radiation.
How about Turkey Point in Florida? How far away would one need to be to reduce most of the risk from normal operations? Is 10 miles far enough?
the radiation and public health project has some data on turkey point:
i would google turkey point to get more info. it is not a particularly unleaky plant.
here is one study:
Bill how far are you from the nearest nuclear plant? How come you haven't moved to the Southern Hemisphere?
Even the Southern Hemisphere has its nuclear power plants - look at the Koeberg located in Cape Town, South Africa.
I would move to the southern hemisphere if I could afford to.
Anywhere in the United States, almost (with the exception of some areas in the midwest, Rockies area, I believe Wyoming), is inundated with facilities which are, to me, leaky and dangerous. But I am on the East coast where I am much closer than I want to be, yet as far away as I can afford to get to. I did in fact move my family from a community which had a nuclear facility within five miles in large part due to the risk of harm and meltdown. But i could not get far enough away due to my employment and economic factors, so I would gladly move if the right opportnity came along.
It is all about the finances and economy. I simply cannot afford to move my family to a safer place, as much as I want to. But after Fukushima, a am exploring options still to relocate.
Frankly, I like my relative anonymity (I post my user "name" here simply so people can follow my posts) and do not wish to give more info than that (precisely where I live or near which plants). I will say that I live near NYC in the suburbs.
The moon...Mox plant coming to your nieborhood soon, enjoy.as u know the Japanese have learned nothing and it's been reported there a 86% ehh read this ."''It's a decision made after thinking about people's safety,'' Kan said in announcing the request, referring to the science ministry's prediction of an 87 percent chance of a magnitude-8.0 level quake hitting the Tokai region within 30 years."
This idea was rejected by power company.
Australia is anti nuclear power and has zero nuclear plants.
Australia does have plenty of potential for a mess. An accident at Lucas Heights may not be on the scale of a Chernobyl or Fukashima but it could easily contaminate Sydney and environs. Yes we get some useful short half-life isotopes from it but never forget it has enough fuel in it to make a decent old mess.
Yet they have no problems with Uranium mining to supply the industry.
UC Berkeley • College of Engineering • Contact
Campanile photo courtesy of Andrew P. Keating