Cesium-137 emits high energy gamma radiation which can travel great distances and penetrate right through many materials. It must be remotely handled or adequately shielded to provide protection. Thick layers of concrete, lead, steel and other comparable shielding materials are necessary to stop the penetration of gamma rays.
After entering the body, caesium gets more or less uniformly distributed through the body, with higher concentration in muscle tissues and lower in bones. The biological half-life of caesium is rather short at about 70 days. Experiments with dogs showed that a single dose of 3800 μCi/kg (approx. 44 μg/kg of caesium-137) is lethal within three weeks.
In the Goiânia accident i in which an improperly-disposed-of radiation therapy system from an abandoned clinic in the city of Goiânia, Brazil, was scavenged from a junkyard, and the glowing caesium salt sold to curious, uneducated buyers. This led to multiple serious injuries from radiation exposure.
In 2009, a Chinese cement company in China (the Shaanxi Province) was demolishing an old, unused cement plant and it did not follow the standards for handling radioactive materials. This caused some caesium-137 from a measuring instrument to be melted down along with eight truckloads scrap metal on its way to a steel mill. Hence, the radioactive caesium was melted down into the steel.

I said "Your map doesn't include Duke Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear plant near Apex, NC."

Oops, I was incorrect, the Google map placed it too far to the west originally, refreshing fixed it.

Your map doesn't include Duke Energy's Shearon Harris Nuclear plant near Apex, NC.

Here is a world map I got from a friend:

nuclear power plants are blue dots. heatmap is of earthquakes 4.5 or greater since 1973.

http://maptd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/global-earthquake-activity-vs-nuclear-power-plant-locations.jpg

I fairly shocked and impressed by the ignorance of some of the comments posted here. I am for nuclear power, I am also for healthy debate fueled by intelligent conversation. So far every negative comment about nuclear power I have read here has been void of any fact and only uses shock words like "chernobyl" and "3 mile island" or nuclear waste, and mutation. Please somebody read a book, or at least do a minimal amount of research before commenting. In this last post a gentleman speaks of the hundreds of years it takes for the decay of radioactive waste. Can you even name one radioactive by product from a reactor, let alone it's half life, or better yet how many half lives an isotope must decay before it is considered safe?
Since a lot of you seem to like shock value facts you should look at the statistics comparing the increase of cancer cases amongst radiation workers vs smokers, you have a far higher chance of getting cancer as a smoker, or just someone who goes to the beach everyday than you do being a worker in a nuclear power plant. I encourage anyone who actually knows anything about nuclear power and is against it to make an intelligent post stating a reasonable argument. My mind weeps for the lack of understanding so many people have on the topic.

I fairly shocked and impressed by the ignorance of some of the comments posted here. I am for nuclear power, I am also for healthy debate fueled by intelligent conversation. So far every negative comment about nuclear power I have read here has been void of any fact and only uses shock words like "chernobyl" and "3 mile island" or nuclear waste, and mutation. Please somebody read a book, or at least do a minimal amount of research before commenting. In this last post a gentleman speaks of the hundreds of years it takes for the decay of radioactive waste. Can you even name one radioactive by product from a reactor, let alone it's half life, or better yet how many half lives an isotope must decay before it is considered safe?
Since a lot of you seem to like shock value facts you should look at the statistics comparing the increase of cancer cases amongst radiation workers vs smokers, you have a far higher chance of getting cancer as a smoker, or just someone who goes to the beach everyday than you do being a worker in a nuclear power plant. I encourage anyone who actually knows anything about nuclear power and is against it to make an intelligent post stating a reasonable argument. My mind weeps for the lack of understanding so many people have on the topic.

If Japan, years ago, had shunned nuclear and carbon based energy and had embraced wind, solar and hydro power, we would not be hearing about their disastrous earthquake today.

Mainly because NHK wouldn't have had enough electricity to run any of their equipment.

Fully exploited, wind energy would supply only 20% of America's electrical demand. And wind energy packs a lot more punch than solar. Like it or not, nuclear energy is necessary to achieve a post-carbon fuel era.

The alternative is a return to agrarian society, which sounds nice, until we realize we can't support our huge population that way, and mass starvation ensues.

I feel this is our future, because we refuse to pull our heads out of the sand. I give us 150-200 years before civilization collapses because the energy runs out. With it will go the modern western liberal democracy. Enjoy this time while it lasts.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

We're all better off finding out if we live near a gas station, fuel refinery or natural gas line.

Go read this post.

http://plainenglishnuclear.blogspot.com/2011/03/yet-another-japan-reactor-post.html

Inhabitants of Denver, CO are under more danger of radiation exposure than inhabitants of Fukushima, Japan.

Don't give in to panic, just because people don't understand nuclear power doesn't make it insidious.

I see we're within 30 miles of 3 different reactors, one of which, Indian Point, lies on a fault line. Yes, I AM concerned, and I would much prefer for the government to focus on renewable, sustainable sources of energy with much less risk.

I live in ATL metro and thankfully there aren't any reactors around this area however, I was very disturbed to see just how many are in other states like SC, Alabama, all up the east coast of the U.S.They're all over the place. I had no idea because there have not been any problems like 3 Mile Island in years. The earthquake and tsunami put the specture of nuclear power back on the map. Why haven't we learned our lessons? Wasn't the 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl disasterous enough? Now we have to worry about a meltdown in Japan? I don't understand this logic. We should not be using nuclear power anything. How many more accidents is it going to take for us to leave this crap alone forever?

The Fermi II nuclear power plant in Monroe, MI is not on the map.

You are missing McGuire Nuclear Station operated by Duke Energy near Charlotte, NC.

I am supportive of nuclear power usage in the US, but want it accompanied by a strong regulatory organizations like the NRC. The disposal of nuclear waste is a tremendous problem that needs to be resolved on a continental basis meaning the US, Canada and Mexico should collaborate to develop a nuclear waste disposal system. Nuclear power should be a part of a portfolio to the US's energy solution.

I used to live in Fukui, Japan and then Tokyo, Japan. I was always nervous about the nuclear plants but understood that it is the ideal way to provide electricity for so many people in such a land-challenged country. I weep for my former home and the havoc it faced with the 8.9 earthquake and the enormous tsunami that wiped out Sendai. I pray that the brave Fukushima plant workers will prevent yet a third blow to the people of Japan (and the world), through leaks of radioactive material. Hang in there!

One would think that a few nuclear disasters are a good start on reducing our population problem, but Chernobyl accomplished only several thousand by some estimates. The earthquake and tsunami will have killed many more in Japan.

I live near the Florida Power and Light Turkey Point nuclear power plant in South Florida. This power plant is only 25 miles from densely populated Miami and sits right next to Biscayne National Park. Not only is this story disturbing to me because Turkey Point is in Miami-Dade county which is an active Hurricane zone, and not only because they have received a number of safety violations in the past, and not only because levels of tritium are being found in ground water outside the plant, but also because they are currently planning to double the size of the nuclear power plant by adding two new reactors!

Poisoning the earth and risking extreme damage in these times of shifting tectonic plates, and earthquake activity in unlikely places-- is a colossally stupid way to "boil water". Ask yourself? who benefits.

the Japanese have a reputation of being fanatically un-sloppy, unlike the USA. Where I used to live, in south Jersey, people were filing complaints for a decade against the reactor there. There is documentation that the regulators of the industry are in bed, as usual, with the industry. Why should a citizenry gamble blindly on the competence and profit motive of an industry?

// College reactors, such as MIT's in Cambridge, Ma are not on the NRC map.// Didn't the FBI just nab someone planning on flying into a reactor?
That always seemed a possible problem, esp for college reactors. I've driven fairly near Indian Pt in NY and the reactor near Amesbury, MA--
neither have protected air space or tight security.

I also lived near 3 mile island and also
knew workers who went in to complete
the clean up. News was limited to the
rich who could afford to have a plane ready
with their children to leave the area.
years later a coworker told me how many
times the workers reset their monitors
to get paid extra time. Unfortunately she
now has a mole the size of a plate
on her skin - hopefully unlike chernobul who had a parade and people where outside being exposed, most people kept inside from the "little steam" that was released. God help you if you were downwind. Any cancer studies available?

Years ago, must be like 30, there was a test of reactor in Germany that had a design that would not allow it to over heat in the case of total loss of power. It was tested shutting off the cooling and it got warm and then started the designed cycle. So it worked. Why are not all power plants made this way?

Look up the New Madrid Fault Line and see how warm and fuzzy you feel about all those plants on the east side of the country.

There is also a nuclear reactor near Winnsboro, SC, which did not show up on this map.

There goes the "safe" nuclear energy argument. It seems like the most populated areas and the largest cities do have nuclear reactors near them, presumably to fuel those huge cities.

BP spill told us that oil was not only threatening our interests in the Middle East, and making us dependent on an unsustainable energy source, but it also had the ability to destroy our environment and threaten our livelihoods.

We are already learning that nuclear reactors are not as "safe" as many have argued they are. What else will we learn?

And when will we move on to more sustainable, truly clean energy sources and try to live with this planet that is taking a beating from us?

I do live close to a reactor, but I am not concerned as there haven't been any major natural disasters in my area for years.

Indian Point puts the NYC Metro Area at risk. Should there be an emergency, we will not be able to physically evacuate the city or Long Island. We're sitting ducks. Beyond that, there is no such thing as "clean" nuclear energy. The process of mining radioactive material and it's incredibly long half life make it a deadly risk for people and the planet. America need to be smarter about our energy future. Wind. Hydro. Solar. Obama needs to get it together.

I live in NYC, near enough or downwind of many.

Yes, I'm concerned, because unlike other materials, nuclear material's toxicity doesn't simply dilute away over time. Its toxicity reaches into the future, because it messes with the genetic information of any organism near it, causing mutations and problems possibly for centuries, even if affected organisms and their offspring get away from the toxin geographically.

Also unlike other toxins, it doesn't either simply dilute in volume of surrounding materials. Rather, it stays toxic for hundreds of years.

It is evil stuff and we shouldn't be using it. Carbon might be bad, but we can at least develop ways of limiting its unintended release. A release of nuclear material, however, is necessarily a disaster.