Nuclear Reactor Fallout: Where's you shack?

[cockpitbob]

Remember the Fukushima reactor diaster?  Radioactive fallout spread hundreds of miles by the wind.
When I lived in CA I felt pretty safe.  The prevailing winds were from the NW and the closest reactor to the N was over 600 miles away, and there was only that one.  Now I'm in eastern MA, surrounded by reactors and with prevailing winds from the W, but the wind can come from anywhere.  :P


The typical advice for a widespread release of radioactive material is to stay put and seal off a small living area and wait for the dust to settle.  In addition to enough potassium iodide and dust masks for the family, I have several large rolls of 2mill plastic sheet and lots of duct tape in my prep kit.  My plan is to seal off an area enclosing a bathroom, the kitchen and family room (need to seal the fireplace's chimney).  However I just realized I have a comm problem.  My shack is in the basement where the feed lines enter the house  ??? .    The basement is actually pretty well sealed so it may be OK, but I'm thinking I need to have enough spare coax to extend the feed lines into the kitchen and I'll just relocate the shack there while we are hunkered down for a few weeks.
Anyone else have a fallout plan?

[Geek]

I share your problem of reactors in every direction.  I have a plan, possibly inadequate, for sealing the house and retreating to the basement.  It's the best I can do short of a underground shelter.  I don't expect to be communicating until the radiation drops to a level where I can move about a bit.

[KK0G]

WOW!!! That's a LOT of reactors in a relatively small area! I had no idea there were that many. Now I'm interested how many are in the midwest, where did you get that info?

[cockpitbob]

Click on the "surrounded by reactors" link in my post.  You've got a nasty cluster a couple hundred miles east of you  ???

[RichardSinFWTX]

I've got two units within easy driving distance of my place... :'(

[KC3AOL]

Interesting...the map is missing the reactor that's closest to me.

When it comes to nuclear, I would really like a whole lot of small reactors. Build them in factories, small enough to be transported by truck, buried so they are inaccessible for security reasons and then they just run for a decade before they need to be replaced. When they are small, it's pretty easy to make them practically indestructible. And if something does go wrong with it, there isn't enough material to do widespread damage.

If we could get the pebble bed design working, they'd actually be inherently safe and self-regulating. Our maybe get a working thorium reactor going. The problem is that people are so scared they won't let anybody try to advance the science.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Tapatalk 4

[IT Tech]

Our local church had a fallout shelter in the church basement.  Fully stocked and maintained.
I could only imagine that the neighbors would have killed each other in about a week.

The reason why there has not been a lot of development of new nuclear reactors is because the ones designed in the 1950's and 60's were not designed to produce electricity.
Those reactors were designed to convert uranium to weapons grade plutonium, and do it right underneath the noses of the Russians.
The old story about us storing the rods in the mountains were purely bunk.
This is how we got our weapons grade munitions.
The rods were only used just long enough to do the conversion, the electricity sold was just a byproduct.

After the disaster at 3 Mile Island no new power plants were constructed.

There is 5 new power plants on the drawing board, but none of them shares the similarities to the ones built previously.   The new ones will be designed to be electricity producers, not electricity users.