Poll - Nuclear plant in your town

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Do a little more background reading. There are quite a few people (hundreds to a thousand or so) who've lived in the exclusion zone since the accident, because they refused to leave. There are also an unknown number of settlers who've moved in because - like the animals - they prefer the wilderness life.

There are also quite a number of places in the world with a higher level of natural radiation than you'd get in most of the exclusion zone. Ramsar, Iran tops the list: Ramsar, Mazandaran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are right, there's no incentive for you to move there. And yes, I did read about people living there before I posted :

Living in Chernobyl: "Radioactivity? That's Nonsense!" - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International - April 2006

Almost 200,000 inhabitants were evacuated from the contaminated parts of Ukraine in May 1986, areas that include the cities of Prypiat, Chernobyl and Poliske. The evacuation period was officially limited to three days, but those three days became weeks, months and finally years. According to Sergei Chernov, once a local reporter in Chernobyl, roughly 200 people secretly returned to their homes in 1987. Six years ago, twelve of the 80 towns were inhabited again. Today, only seven are.

Two elderly people live in Staryye Shepelichi, a town on the Ukraine-Belarus border, roughly ten kilometers from the disaster site. Between 60 and 70 people live in Chernobyl. In theory, all scientists and engineers who work in the area should leave for two weeks after a maximum of 15 days; in practice, no one enforces the rule.

The Aftermath of Chernobyl: A Visit to the Exclusion Zone - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International - April 2006

There are people who live within the exclusion zone. A number of older residents, unwilling to move away from the villages they lived in their entire lives, have returned. They receive food delivered from outside the zone along with regular medical checkups. For many, living inside the zone is a macabre wager -- that old age will do its damage before cancer takes hold.

Today, the town of Chernobyl itself is likewise home to some 4,000 residents. Radiation from reactor No. 4 still leaks in dangerous amounts through substantial cracks in the makeshift cover installed in the months after the disaster. And scientists, geologists and workers are temporarily stationed in the less-irradiated buildings as they construct a new sarcophagus to safely cover the radioactive substances that remain. But the vast majority of those temporarily living in Chernobyl are forestry workers. Should the forests around Chernobyl catch fire, a new radioactive cloud would be set free.

I am trying to google Hanna Semenenko. She would be 83 years old this year.

CarloSW2

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Not at all the same thing. A small town or rural area is far more social than any city. Indeed, if I really wanted to avoid all meaningful human contact, I'd move to Manhattan.

Oh, I see. You don't want to call it reclusion, but you don't want anyone or any entity living next to you. What would you prefer to call it?

I'm just wondering - in your ideal living scenario, how far away from your domicile would you prefer that your nearest neighbor be?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Oh, I see. You don't want to call it reclusion, but you don't want anyone or any entity living next to you. What would you prefer to call it?

I think you've misunderstood something somewhere along the line, since you seem to have translated industrial facilities, shopping malls, crowds, and all the rest of (sub)urban life into "anyone or any entity".

I'm just wondering - in your ideal living scenario, how far away from your domicile would you prefer that your nearest neighbor be?

It's hard to put an exact number on it, because it depends on the neighbors and the nature of the country. But pick a typical (but now, alas, probably a historic memory) English or New England rural area, with villages & small farms. Or perhaps the High Plains or the Mongolian Steppe with wandering bands of horse nomads...

[PaleMelanesian]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The difference is that nuclear plants are only a "disaster" in the very rare cases when they suffer catastrophic failure, so it comes as a surprise. The coal plant is a disaster every day it operates, so you don't notice the ongoing disaster because it has become normal.

+1

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I think you've misunderstood something somewhere along the line, since you seem to have translated industrial facilities, shopping malls, crowds, and all the rest of (sub)urban life into "anyone or any entity".

Since you said in a previous post "I don't want to live near anything (other than trees, mountains, etc)", That sounds like you prefer to live in seclusion.


regarding neighbors:

It's hard to put an exact number on it, because it depends on the neighbors and the nature of the country. But pick a typical (but now, alas, probably a historic memory) English or New England rural area, with villages & small farms. Or perhaps the High Plains or the Mongolian Steppe with wandering bands of horse nomads...

Interesting, because my wife grew up on such a farm in New England, and they still exist. Farms are often active, noisy places; they're often not the epitome of bucolic tranquility. Recent arrivals (new neighbors) are often annoyed by the actual experience of country life, as it is not always the serenity or solitude they desired and expected before moving to a rural environment.

As for the Mongolian Steppes - that's really solitary. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with a preference for seclusion, but that's the essence of reclusion. There really is no other word for it.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

As for the Mongolian Steppes - that's really solitary.

Not if you've got your horde with you :-)

And I did grow up in farming country, in the northeast. Not actually on a farm, but on a couple of acres with cow pastures & woods surrounding.

[NeilBlanchard]

Yucca Mountain had all sorts of technical problems -- some of the ground water studies were faked, is what I heard. Plus, who wants to have nuclear waste transported through their area?

We would have solved this already, if it was as easy.

Never mind the threat of terrorism. Dirty bombs are easy. How quickly can we build in the redundancy we need to our existing nuclear power plants? Can they survive a tsunami?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Can they survive a tsunami?

Sure. Just don't build it near an ocean.

[gone-ot]

...for a "trick" question, I always use a "trick" answer!

...what do your home & health insurance companies have to say about "rates" for locations with/without a nuclear plant near by?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Sure. Just don't build it near an ocean.

So, do we move the ones that are on the shore, or shut them down? What about the plants on or near known active faults or earthquake areas?