Is it risk to live near a nuclear power plant?

Nuclear power plants can solve the energy crisis in the United States resulting from the last SIS of data centers. However, some have safety concerns. Accidents such as the Cornobel disaster are still new in people’s minds. Could living affect one of these stations negatively on their well -being? How close is it?

The reopening of the Plus factory factory represents a nuclear milestone

In the southwest of Michigan, Holtec International – a company specialized in designing and manufacturing the components of the reactor – returns the Palisades nuclear power plant over the Internet. According to expectations, it can be operated by October 2025.

The Palisades factory was closed in 2022. Since that 800 megawatts capacityThe state wants to reopen it to achieve new clean energy goals. The legislative body in Michigan allocated $ 150 million in the fiscal year budget 2025 to support this effort. Also, the federal government offered a conditional loan of $ 1.5 billion.

While Holtec is optimistic about the deadline in October 2025, various representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) said that the timeline is “very arduous” and “very aggressive”. These comments came after the September 2024 examination 1000 steam generator tubes It was found damaged.

Although NRC staff say the repair and strengthening of pipes with a specialized layer have been used thousands of times in other nuclear installations, some population claimed it was a short -sighted step. They argue by repairing components instead of replacing them to give priority to the short -term savings in the long term.

The residents of Michigan are not strange for nuclear energy. Historically, these plants have Provide 30 % of electricity I was born in the state. While projects that depend on this number decreased to 24.9 % as of 2024, they are still higher than the national average of 19.1 %. Some people are concerned about the meaning of the state’s increasing dependence on this power source for their well -being.

Why do nuclear power plants continue despite the potential risks

Three major nuclear incidents occurred in recent years – three miles island in 1979, Chornobyl in 1986, and Fukushima in 2011. The collapses are very rare – there are hundreds of power stations, almost all suffering from such an accident. Moreover, only one happened on the American soil.

This sector is generally safer than the oil and gas industry, which is why some officials seek to reopen closed plants. Because of the high demand and increased dependence on clean energy, Electricity costs rise Faster than the current energy infrastructure can continue. While renewable energy sources are inexhaustible sources, production is intermittent – much lower than fossil fuels. Al -Nawawi provides a reliable alternative.

However, almost all progress in this sector was stopped after the partial nuclear collapse in Pennsylvania. Today, most of the country’s reactions More than four decades old. While a large number has been closed over the years, including the Palisades factory, the United States still has the most operational reactors in the world.

For years, the facilities that remain sufficient energy have been provided. However, with more online data centers appearing to support the rapidly expanding cloud computing markets and artificial intelligence markets, many countries find that they are no longer enough. They face a difficult decision – they can either build new stations or reopen old.

The Vogtle Factory came online in April 2024. It is the first nuclear reactor to be built in the United States for decades. Although it is working, many consider its construction wrong because it is Seven years later About $ 17 billion ran on the budget. This time and costs of costs indicate that the reopening of closed plants may be the most rational option to move forward.

Should the local population worry about nuclear waste?

Nuclear waste is a radioactive secondary product to generate electricity inside the reactors. The United States was born Nearly 90,000 metric tons yet. It takes years, even decades, for decay, which represents long -term environmental and health problems. While it is usually stored on the site or in specialized underground facilities, cheaper and sometimes dangerous measures are used.

In the twentieth century, the government got rid of nuclear waste by throwing it into the ocean. This practice has since stopped, partially because the regulations are more strict. However, some companies have tried similar methods when turning off plants.

Holtec – the same company responsible for reopening the Palisades Factory – is responsible for the closure of the pilgrim nuclear power plant in Plameouth, Massachusetts. I asked for permission to empty it 1.1 million gallons of radioactive wastewater In Cape Code Bay. Holtik has argued that he would treat water in advance, but studies have shown that radiation would remain for at least one month.

Cape Code Bay is protected by the ocean, so officials refused Holtik’s request. However, the attempt is still angering the locals. They could have been exposed to low levels of pollution when swimming or hunting. Given that there is no safe dose of radiation, it was right to pay attention to the proposal.

Studies indicate that living near the nuclear power plant is risky

One of the biggest concerns of people living next to nuclear reactors is the possibility of collapse. However, these accidents are very rare. Radiation is a more current risk. Nuclear energy harnesses the energy created during nuclear fission. The neutrons launched during this process lead to the reaction of a chain that produces radiation, heat and radioactive waste products.

Although the ICRC has set the limits of the organizational dose, very low exposure to ionized radiation can increase the risk of cancer. The scientific community accepted the absence of a linear threshold, which assumes that there is no safe dose. While professionals discuss accurate effects, they accept risks as a reality.

Evaluation of 47 epidemic studies covering 175 nuclear power plants, 480,623 workers, and 7.5 million people found evidence of the high risk of cancer. Workers exposed to levels within the limits of the organizational dose It was the least likely 0.85 times To develop acute lymph leukemia but more than 5.53 times to develop medium epithelial tumor.

Paining analysis also found that living near a nuclear plant is dangerous. For those 18.5 miles, exposure to less than 1 millimeters annually increases the risk of leukemia by 9 % and thyroid cancer risk by 17 %. It is worth noting that researchers admit that these results may be biased or exaggerated because some studies have not adapted to confusion of the risk of cancer.

However, recent studies have similar results. Research from the International Research Agency on Cancer found that the death rate for leukemiaIt increased by about 250 % For each gray (gy) the radiation dose. While plant workers usually accumulate only 0.016 Gray-and 13,000 deaths in the study are not attributed to radiation over 35 years-these results highlight the risk of living near these facilities.

There is always a non -zero chance of nuclear collapse

Since most of the country’s reactions More than four decades The owners of the ancient interest are pushing to update. However, digitization comes with risks. Electronic attacks are increasing on critical infrastructure, many of which involve state threats sponsored. It targets some nuclear facilities or administrative systems, which increases the risk of collapsing.

This is not default. In March 2022, the US Department of Justice canceled criminal convictions against many Russian government agents. They were I was accused of spear hunting attacks This has led to the danger of the business network of Wolf Creek Nuclear Corp in Kansas. Perhaps they were unable to control the control systems, but their actions have proven that they may enable them to reach these stations.

The only way to prevent electronic attack is to rely on manual methods and systems. However, those that make the stations vulnerable to human error, which can cause equipment breakdowns. In both cases, the nearby population faces the possibility of nuclear collapse. The danger is very low but present. If it is related to passing, they will have to leave their homes or risk a fatal dose of radiation.

The insulating area can protect people from radiation

While the nuclear power plant only needs to get a relatively small space, officials should think about assigning wide insulating areas. Given that studies show that people who live about 18.5 miles from one of these facilities suffer from high cancer rates, it will be wise to give reactions a wide berth.