Nuclear power plants? Sewage? Landfills? Oh my!

[tlh1005]

Originally Posted by mfrank2109

I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but before you criticize the Harris Plant, keep in mind that all the employees who work there live in the Triangle and they are not going to allow something to happen that jeopardizes their family.

Agreed on all points but uncontrolled reactions etc. generally aren't caused by the engineers intending to let them happen!

[gerry1]

Originally Posted by southward bound

Hubby used to build power plants (was in charge of quality control) and says he'd not be worried about living close to one. Still, I would be. It's not a rational reaction for me. I won't live next to high voltage power lines, either. I rejected a house that I otherwise loved because of that (the realtor could have saved both of us time by telling me ahead of the visit what the house was next to).

I did research some of these issues that were important to me - power plants, landfills, treatment facilities, active railroads, etc. along with wind patterns as best as I could. I hope we're in a good location. If not, please don't tell me. I have peace of mind.

If you don't mind my asking, What town did you decide to move to?

[southernlady5464]

As for Chernobyl, from what I have read, the plant was poorly designed and it was their own incompetence that led to the disaster.

As someone said of Chernobyl, let's compare apples to apples please. The US has an entirely different set of standards that are used in building nuclear power plants.

As for Three Mile Island, there was a small release of radiation in 1979, but I am not too familiar with the paticulars.

Fact Sheet on the Three Mile Island Accident

Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.

Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area <--------

Now, to address the present day.

More reactors are slated to be built. Simple reason, we need them. We need to cut our dependence on OIL. It is also cleaner than coal plants.

America's Next Nukes Has an interesting slideshow to go with it.

There is also this article: Nuclear Power 2010 Program My husband is with GE developing the ABWR
.

Another good link to learn about nuclear energy: Nuclear Energy Institute.
NMC - Nuclear Facts - Environment - Nuclear energy and the environment

Another tidbit of info: for you animal lovers...
http://my.dteenergy.com/home/pdfs/birds5.pdf
STP nuclear power plant (http://www.stpnoc.com/conservation.htm - broken link)
Endangered Crocs Make A Comeback, A Nuclear Power Plant Is Key To The Reptiles' Resurgence - CBS News