Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Subscription Center
The U.S. has 104 operating nuclear reactors. Most are more than 30 years old; 23 have the same containment design as Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plants that were breached by the March earthquake and tsunami; and a handful are close to intense earthquake zones. Another 22 new reactors have been proposed. Click on a state to find the exact location of the existing (or possibly new) reactor nearest you. —Mark Fischetti
| June 1, 2011 | 6
Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ Dissecting the controversy about early psychological response to disasters and trauma http://t.co/cZm0Gk2Eqz by @hildabast at #SciAmBlogs
sciamblogs Dissecting the controversy about early psychological response to disasters and trauma http://t.co/SZPjGAygRa by @hildabast at #SciAmBlogs
FlyingTrilobite The building thunderstorm pressure is squishing my head. #toronto
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
6 Comments
Add CommentAnd we will not do anything about our old rotting down reactors until the same think happens to us that happened to Japan.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't care because the chances for a 9,0 quake and a tsunami in Grand Gulf, MS is NIL.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the prognication that Chicago will have a climate similar to Baton Rouge, La within the next 50 years;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith our desire to remain comfortable year around;
With demand for power projected to nearly double within the next century:
How are we to power "the grid"?
Although we should all be aware of risk and the correct evaluation within the nuclear industry, we should also keep that risk in perspective. My personal evaluation is the probability of a catastrophic failure of my biomass, ie death. The probability of my death or even disruption of continuity to my regeneration process caused by a habitat in close proximity of a nuclear reactor are insignificantly small, however, rearrangement of my biomass caused by an unscheduled meeting with a transportation system controlled by an inattentive operator with a self induced chemical imbalance is more significant. If the purpose of the map is to deter me from taking habitat in close proximity to a nuclear reactor will you display similar to deter me from crossing the road?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe beast of 6x6 is a large asteroid. I expect the earthquake will exceed 10, in a large area.My guess is may 2016.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisare there no canadian reactors near any states--or does nuclear fallout recognize the border?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this