Which is more harmful? To live near a chemical plant or a nuclear plant?

Question

I know that neither are good. But I can't seem to find info detailing which is actually more harmful. Anyone know???

Answer 1

Chemical plants are far more dangerous. Nuclear power has bad PR, but in reality, it's one of the safer and cleaner energy sources.

Answer 2

As long as nothing goes wrong... A nuclear plant emits virtually 0 pollution in the area near it's operation.. 90% of the electric power in France is nuclear and all of the plants are built near the small cities where the workers live with their families.. This is why France is no help when other countries are fighting over oil..

Answer 3

Living near a chemical plant is way more harmful. Chemical plants emit polluntants (Look at Union Carbide in Bhopal, India)
The only waste emitted by a nuclear plant is heat, in the form of hot water and/or water vapor.
The only down side to nuclear power is Mr Burns. That guy is pure evil.

Answer 4

a chemical plant is more dangerous. The nukes all have so many safegaurds from over planning for an unsafe event that it is unlikely there will ever be one. Chemical plants on the other hand are grosely over looked: and poorly watched by the under manned EPA. There are different regions of regulations across the USA. California is the safest. Oklahoma/Arkansas are the worst.

I have worked as a Union Electrician on many industrial job sites. Mobay Chemical is so close to the Missouri River that it's scarry. I reported a leak there one time that was so strong that it was eating the sidewalk as it dripped, smoke was rolling up from where it hit.
The reply I got from management was,
" Oh it does that all the time."
They never sent anyone to look at it. The tops of some of their storage tanks were rusted through and all they said was,
"Don't fall in."
I had to suit up once in Muskogee and go down a fiberglass ladder to replace a caustic soda tank heater while it still had liquid in it, as it was winter and the stuff solidifies at 50 degrees farinheit. The bottom of the ladder looked like chicken boiling up in a deep fat fryer when I put it inside the tank, but it was fiberglass so the ladder wasn't hurt, just the stuff on it, like all the paint that was eaten off.

In Haskell I worked where they were desposing of hazardous waste by putting a trolling motor into a tank to stir the contents so it would evaporate into the atmosphere more rapidly. As I was walking around the plant I saw that the holding dikes around the tanks had tin horns buried in them so the water could drain. I followed the drain line and saw that it went down a dirt road and into a small tributary that led to a pond that was in a pasture full of cows. The Company owned the cows.

I got something on my clothes in Pennsylvania that immedeatly ate through them and I went to the office.
" Don't worry" they said, "We have stuff that eats that stuff for breakfast. Be glad you didn't get into that instead."
Once I was sent to Haskell to wire lights inside a metal building that was full of barrels marked (Cianide) They just said
" Don't get any of that **** on you."
The building was made of barn tin and 2X4s a tornado would spread this stuff all across the county, but no one looks into these things and big money will make a working man disappear. It's scarry when you know that you are the only person who knows where they are hiding this stuff and the link leads right back your house.
" Careful Sparky, **** happens."
Will put the fear of God in you about reporting these things after about the first three times no one shows up to check it out.

I would choose the Nuke every time.

Answer 5

A chemical plant. There is a fuel development lab a few miles from where I live. A few years ago, about 10 people working there developed brain cancer. See also Erin Brokovich (sp?)

The Union Carbide Plant is an excellent example. The death toll from that incident is still rising to this day. It happened in 1984 I believe.

Answer 6

well, both are harmful in there own ways so i cant make an exact prediction, i believe that the chemical plant would be less dangerous due to the fact that scientist are extremely careful when mixing dangerous chemicals together, but the nuclear plant would have a higher rate of exploding and it can do more damage, because one sneeze in a nuclear plant could possibly self destruct the whole city and surrounding areas.

Answer 7

Chem plant are dirtier. Nuclear plants are clean, and you only have to worry about a meltdown or waste leak.

Answer 8

Sea pollution is like totally horrible because all the oil spills and whatnot are affecting the waterlife which in turn affects us. For instance, levels of mercury in fish which we eat.

Answer 9

chemical plant.

Answer 10

Neither
(as long as there are no accidents)