In the aftermath of all the problems at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, you may be wondering, “Do I live near a nuclear power plant?”
Check the map below to find your answer.
Keep in mind, though, nuclear power plants have different designs and different safety systems. Also, not everyone lives near a fault line or sea coast.
For the latest on Japan’s nuclear crisis tune in to John King, USA tonight at 7pm EST.
Keep in mind also that there are a fair number of mothballed nuclear power plants that can in fact pose a more serious danger than the live plants. And example in California is the one that was near Humboldt State University just south of Crescent City (see Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant ).
Just a silly question: could the fuel rods, somehow, be quickly dragged into the ocean?
This is really a selfish improper question. No one should have an opinion on nuclear safety based on where he/she lives. The bottom line is nuclear energy is very safe if you don't cut corners. Just a few days ago Southern California Edison proudly declared on the Los Angeles Times that it's San Onofre plant can withstand an earth quake of magnitude 7.0 while no earth quake of above 6.5 magnitude is expected in the area. This looks all good until you start digging in to the accuracy of longterm magnitude predictions. Then you see that the error between the predicted and actually observed magnitudes of past earthquakes is less than 10% only 80% of the time. So they are definitely cutting corners rather blatantly. The US navy safely operates nuclear plants on it's ships without incidence at sea despite all sorts of storms, tidal waves, huge rolling and pitching, much worse shaking and tumbling than any earthquake. I think the reason is clear; unlimited budget, generous specifications and military discipline.
If you want to monitor radiation levels in US and see ALL of Nuclear reactors in US try web site radiationnetwork.com/
Do some due diligence – do not rely on MSM.
Yes! That's right! Ratchet up that fear! Suddenly, nuclear power is the enemy! BOY, you guys have taken your eye far off the ball. You're not even playing in the same ballpark anymore! This situation has a VERY small potential of being dangerous, yet you keep the fear quotient up just to get hits to the site and viewers to continue to tune in. And another thing: STOP CALLING A "NUCLEAR BLAST/EXPLOSION"! You guys have done at least ONCE each day and it's HIGHLY irresponsible. You know full well there's a difference between a conventional explosion and a nuclear blast and you keep trying to sell it as the latter. Report the FACTS and stop sensationalizing this. The quake and resulting tsunami killed THOUSANDS of people. I have family in Tokyo and they're frightened when they see American news headlines blowing this up to 72+ font with headlines like "NUCLEAR DISASTER" and "TOTAL MELTDOWN IMMINENT"! Report the NEWS and stop scaring people. I'm sick of this!
Wow! that's amazing so many people I bet I have know idea there are so many nuclear power plants in the U.S. , the only thing is local governments have not done a very good job on educating the public on what to do in case of an emergency with these plants.
A good many vlabulaes you\'ve given me.
Full disclosure; I am at one of those nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe and reliable. In the history of nuclear power versus other forms of power production (coal, gas, oil), the records of incidents and fatalities are far fewer in nuclear. Not to mention the health and environmental issues created every second of every day as a result of the pollution generated by smoke spewing coal, gas and oil burning plants. By contrast, a nuclear power plant emits into the air only steam. However, the media and general public like to focus negatively on nuclear because the potential (as seen with Chernobyl) can be catastrophic even though the US doesn't have anything as inefficient, dangerous or as safety negligent as what the Soviet Union built in Ukraine.
Nuclear facilities are great way to generate energy or power vehicles.
One safety thing they forgot about was the 'Lead Lined Bunkers' required for the people when there is a Nuclear crisis.
LIquid nitrogen Liquid nitrogen Liquid nitrogen!!! If the power plant core and all are nevre to be used again then why not freeze the entire thing with Liquid Nitrogen??? Sure it may crack this and crack that and maybe let off a little obnoxious gases but it'll be better than the worst case scenario. I know for a fact that there are tons of Liquid Nitrogen available. To hell with the (sea) water idea. It's not going to work. Liquid nitrogen may have to adapt to certain temps but in the end it should do the job.
I am a Union local 597 pipfitter and the questions i am asking are as followes.
1. What is cause of lack of cooling water?
2.Is there a problem with the supply/return lines for the pumps?
3.Is there a problem with power feeds to pumps?
4.are the vessel's leaking and they are not able to recover fast enough?
5.Why are we not seeing helos hauling in xtra generators/fuel/and or pumps if needed?
6.is there a problem with remotely operated valves?
Also realize nuclear reactors have improved a great deal over the last 40 years. What has happened to phones in the last 40 years? What has happened to computers? 40 year old reactors are not even in the same ballpark as the modern ones. There is no way to judge future nuclear power by looking at this obsolete facilities.
I'm new here, but I'm really into this sort of thing, and I like to help people understand what is truly going on,l and how you can prepare for it.
I came across this site last week, and I think you could all benefit from it.
Anyway, mods, if this in in the wrong section, please move it, or, if you must, delete it. I think that this info needs to be out there though.
I hope some of you find this helpful. Good luck, and god bless you