nuclear lake=lake Norman (Catawba: house, inspector, living)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess I had the wrong idea I was thinking moving to the charlotte area we would be far away from the chemicals and cancer causing agents of the northeast. We live in philly now.
I just read on another post that this lake has a power plant on it??? how do people swim in it? No one gets sick?
I guess I had the wrong idea I was thinking moving to the charlotte area we would be far away from the chemicals and cancer causing agents of the northeast. We live in philly now.
I just read on another post that this lake has a power plant on it??? how do people swim in it? No one gets sick?
PLEASE, don't be alarmed. There is one poster who doesn't even live in NC who keeps posting this doom and gloom about Lake Norman. We do not have any problems here with "cancer causing agents or chemicals". Do a little more research and you will find out the truth Lake Norman is beautiful and one of the most highly desirable areas to live. Don't take my word for it, and CERTAINLY don't take the word of someone who doesn't even live in this state, look into it yourself and I'm sure you will feel a lot better about this.
So what if I don't live in the state? I have spent plenty of time in the area to know what I am talking about. It's a fact that Lake Norman has a nuclear power plant on it, it was built specifically for that purpose by the damming of the Catawba River. You can swim, but it is not exactly the cleanest lake I have seen. I wouldn't swim in it.
But yes, by all means, go and check it out. Just remember there IS a nuclear plant on the lake, and I personally would not want to live so close to a nuclear plant, in the event of a three mile island/chernobyl type event.
In 12,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only two major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
It was not until the late 1970s that detailed analyses and large-scale testing, followed by the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor, began to make clear that even the worst realistic casualty to a modern nuclear power plant or its fuel could not cause dramatic public harm. The industry still works hard to minimize the probability of a meltdown accident, but it no longer need fear a potential public health catastrophe.
The decades-long test and analysis program showed that less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially assumed, and that this radioactive material quickly clumps, settles out, dissolves in water and steam, reacts chemically with other material, and plates out on cold structural material. Thus, even if the containment structure that surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, it would still be highly effective in preventing escape of radioactivity.
It is the laws of physics and the properties of materials that preclude disaster, not required actions by safety equipment or personnel. In fact, regulations now require that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents.
It should be emphasised that a commercial-type power reactor simply cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up by the United Nations in 1957. One of its functions was to act as an auditor of world nuclear safety. It prescribes safety procedures and the reporting of even minor incidents. Its role has been strengthened in the last decade. Every country which operates nuclear power plants has a nuclear safety inspectorate and all of these work closely with the IAEA.
The use of nuclear energy for electricity generation can be considered extremely safe. Every year several thousand people die in coal mines to provide this widely used fuel for electricity. There are also significant health and environmental effects arising from fossil fuel use.
Nuclear energy has distinct environmental advantages over fossil fuels, in that virtually all its wastes are contained and managed - nuclear power stations do not cause any pollution. The fuel for nuclear power is virtually unlimited, considering both geological and technological aspects. That is to say, there is plenty of uranium in the earth's crust and furthermore, well-proven (but not yet fully economic) technology means that we can extract about 60 times as much energy from it as we do today. The safety record of nuclear energy is better than for any major industrial technology.
Our lake is NOT contaminated in any way by the plant there. People swim in it every day of the week and have for decades. We have no record or even rumor of any "cancer clusters" or ANY health problems in NC related to this plant.
So what if I don't live in the state? I have spent plenty of time in the area to know what I am talking about. It's a fact that Lake Norman has a nuclear power plant on it, it was built specifically for that purpose by the damming of the Catawba River. You can swim, but it is not exactly the cleanest lake I have seen. I wouldn't swim in it.
But yes, by all means, go and check it out. Just remember there IS a nuclear plant on the lake, and I personally would not want to live so close to a nuclear plant, in the event of a three mile island/chernobyl type event.
In 12,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only two major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
It was not until the late 1970s that detailed analyses and large-scale testing, followed by the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor, began to make clear that even the worst realistic casualty to a modern nuclear power plant or its fuel could not cause dramatic public harm.
At first, I was concerned about living so close to the nuclear power plant. But after a little education, I'm more OK with it.
Pennsylvania derives 35% of all of it's electrical power from 9 Nuclear Power plant facilities in the state.
North Carolina derives 30% of all of it's electrical power from 5 Nuclear Power plants.
I live on LI and am this trapped without a boat, if there was ever a problem at Indian Point Nuclear Facility, just a few miles north of Manhattan.
In the US there are over 230 Nuclear Power plants in the US, generally located near populated areas where there is a need for electrical power. I'd venture to guess that as much as half of the population of the US lives within 100 miles of a Nuclear Power plant.
Location: Charlotte,NC, US, North America, Earth, Alpha Quadrant,Milky Way Galaxy
3,770 posts, read 7,544,684 times
Reputation: 2118
I couldn't resist responding since it is somewhat of a science question. Nuclear Power is often thought of in the same context as a nuclear bomb, and they are not the same. The Cherynobl incident was an incident of a poorly designed plant to begin with. It's like building a house on stilts and then wondering why it collapsed after someone kicked one of the legs out.
There's more fear of solar radiation and it's contributions to skin cancer than nuclear power plants. So unless you live at the tip of the north pole during 6 months of darkness and never use a cell phone and turn a radio on again, you'll never escape some form of radiation
However Nuclear plants should be watched, regulated and inspected regularly, just like every other aspect of our energy driven society.
Incidentally, I'm more worried about fast food fries and the oil it's cooked in than about nuclear energy.
I couldn't resist responding since it is somewhat of a science question. Nuclear Power is often thought of in the same context as a nuclear bomb, and they are not the same. The Cherynobl incident was an incident of a poorly designed plant to begin with. It's like building a house on stilts and then wondering why it collapsed after someone kicked one of the legs out.
There's more fear of solar radiation and it's contributions to skin cancer than nuclear power plants. So unless you live at the tip of the north pole during 6 months of darkness and never use a cell phone and turn a radio on again, you'll never escape some form of radiation
However Nuclear plants should be watched, regulated and inspected regularly, just like every other aspect of our energy driven society.
Incidentally, I'm more worried about fast food fries and the oil it's cooked in than about nuclear energy.
Thank you so much for being a voice of reason here As is the case with most things people have prejudice about, when you take time to learn the FACTS you don't have to feel so paranoid
Exactly, lovesmountains! I was getting ready to say the same thing. When you compare probability, you have to use apples to apples. Driving my car to my son's basketball game is astronomically more "dangerous" than living near a nuclear plant. Can an accident happen? Yes, but the odds are so low, it's off the chart. You just have to use common sense. With such flawed logic, I tend to wonder if some people have some axe to grind of some sort. The lakes around here are extemely safe and beautiful, and 98% of the lake views have no sign of the plant. We have to use facts to base our decisions, not emotion. mjpost32, I've lived here all of my life (41 yrs.), and you have absolutely nothing to worry about living here. It's an awesome area and the power planet is a total non-issue here, pure and simple. We'd love to have you!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lake Norman is beautiful and one of the most highly desirable areas to live. Don't take my word for it, and CERTAINLY don't take the word of someone who doesn't even live in this state, look into it yourself and I'm sure you will feel a lot better about this.
