• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
permaculture forums growies critters building homesteading energy monies living kitchen purity ungarbage community wilderness fiber arts art permaculture artisans regional education experiences global resources the cider press projects digital market permies.com all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
master stewards:
  • Nicole Alderman
  • raven ranson
stewards:
  • paul wheaton
  • Jocelyn Campbell
  • Julia Winter
garden masters:
  • Anne Miller
  • Pearl Sutton
  • thomas rubino
  • Bill Crim
  • Kim Goodwin
  • Joylynn Hardesty
gardeners:
  • Amit Enventres
  • Mike Jay
  • Dan Boone

Nuclear and Choosing a Homesteading Location  RSS feed

 
Posts: 40
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Has anyone seen this map before of Nuclear plants? In the next few months I will be finished with college and trying to figure out where I want to live (and where I can find a job), and this map is surely going to be a factor in my consideration.

http://survival.us.com/wp-content/uploads/united-states-nuclear-reactors-map.jpg

It doesn't leave too many safe places in America, huh? It concerns me most because scientists are saying that solar flares in 2013 might disrupt electrical grids for very long periods.

Do you think this map is accurate? If it is, where are the safest places to live?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008500/nasas-2013-solar-flare-warning-how-much-do-we-need-to-worry/
http://survival.us.com/?p=1473
 
Jared Gardener
Posts: 40
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Fracking may also be something to watch for (nuclear map and shale gas plays below). It would be best, in my opinion, if we could halt fracking, but I find that unlikely in most states. Maybe people will start to rise up to defend their communities from fracking spills and freshwater depletion.
HomesteadingMap.jpg
[Thumbnail for HomesteadingMap.jpg]
 
Posts: 24
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well from the whole USA map The only nucke free zone is in the mid west probably because of the Yellowstone factor and the super volcano rising at 2 inches per year it goes off every 600,000 years and last time it went off was 640,000 years ago. SO its over due. COme up here to Canada man we got loads of room. If everyone in Canada played hide and seek each person would have 13 Sq miles each to hide on! Nobody would find anybody

Undeerground housing will stop most nueclear fallout and solar flairs direct gamma and your toast anyways. But if your really worried come to Canada tell them star wackers are trying to get you and your in. Worked for Randy Quaid.
 
Posts: 124
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I prefer to live in the areas with the highest concentration of nuclear. It gives me that atomic boost I need to start my day!
 
pollinator
Posts: 10114
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
278
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Regarding fracking, a friend of mine moved to the middle of nowhere to get away from pollution and other ills of society - her nearest neighbor is a mile away and the population density in her county is 1 person per square mile.  But nearby fracking poisoned her well. 

 
Posts: 700
Location: rainier OR
6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Why so concerned about nuke plants? The actual risks are retardedly low, for example the three mile island meltdown is about the worst that can happen to an American built reactor and caused between 3 and 7 cases of cancer depending on which statistical analysis you read.

Our plants cannot by design cause events like chernoble

I say this as a trained naval nuclear operator who 'borrowed' test gear to learn that average gamma count outside in the woods miles from base was still higher than inside the hull of a nuke ship.

Russian reactors are a bit diferent they used sodium for coolant which gets and stays very 'hot' but you're at more risk from having a freeway or city in the same relative position
 
Jared Gardener
Posts: 40
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Brice Moss wrote:
Why so concerned about nuke plants? The actual risks are retardedly low, for example the three mile island meltdown is about the worst that can happen to an American built reactor and caused between 3 and 7 cases of cancer depending on which statistical analysis you read.

Our plants cannot by design cause events like chernoble

I say this as a trained naval nuclear operator who 'borrowed' test gear to learn that average gamma count outside in the woods miles from base was still higher than inside the hull of a nuke ship.

Russian reactors are a bit diferent they used sodium for coolant which gets and stays very 'hot' but you're at more risk from having a freeway or city in the same relative position



Is it not true that one reason the Fukushima reactor continued to emit radiation was because they did not have electricity to keep it cool? The solar flares may very well shut down electric grids for weeks to months, some are saying even years. Is this not a danger to the surrounding population?
 
Brice Moss
Posts: 700
Location: rainier OR
6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
It's also true that the total radiation level anywhere but right on the secured grounds never did or will  reach dangerous levels. the levels in the quarantined areas are close to double natural background. Enough to raise mutation rates and add 1 or two cases of cancer per 1000 residents if the area were not cleared, but still likely less dangerous than taking an extra shower each week (slipping in the shower is among the leading causes of accidental death)
 
Posts: 25
Location: Portland OR
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Well it looks like they got all the power plants in that map. But the DOE sights are missing. And i would be more concerned about living near some place like Hanford then i would a operating power plant.
 
Brice Moss
Posts: 700
Location: rainier OR
6
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
you have a point there

Hanford is a nasty site, more for the conventional pollutants than the radioisotopes
 
Posts: 211
Location: Pennsylvania
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I think that your map is in arror! I know of a company that has a small reactor used for eradiating medical devices after packaging for biological sanitation that does not show up on your map. Possibly this map only shows power plants or reactors over a certain size threshold.
kent
 
Joe Baker
Posts: 25
Location: Portland OR
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

I think that your map is in arror! I know of a company that has a small reactor used for eradiating medical devices after packaging for biological sanitation that does not show up on your map.



Its more likely there just exposing the medical supplies to a strong beta emitter like Cobalt-60. That's way more simple and way by far way less expensive.
 
Don't sweat petty things, or pet sweaty things. But cuddle this tiny ad:
Food Forest Card Game - Game Forum
https://permies.com/t/61704/Food-Forest-Card-Game-Game
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!