Living in a former nuclear town isn't harmful.

Living in a former nuclear town isn't harmful.
Do you feel former nuclear towns said to be safe are really safe? Would you live in one or near one? Do you feel those afraid to live in and/or near such towns are being cowardly? On the other hand, do you feel governments and industry might be lying to people?




I had to disagree because I didn't really understand what you were asking. Did you mean in an area where a nuclear reactor has blown up? Or just one where there is a nuclear reactor nearby that is active? If it is the latter then it will be pretty much harmless although we just don't know. The government may be lying of course. Personally, I wouldn't take the risk.
Posted by kingcool52 on 10-11-2017



No, just no.

The risk of cancer with all of the plastic and other instigators of cancer are high enough as is. Radiation takes quite a while to leave an area, and even when it does "leave" it still resides in the plant life and other things which are degrading to your health. Me being a LoL player I use the term giving me aids or cancer very freely but I'd much prefer to live somewhere that didn't literally give me cancer.
Posted by AlexHarris on 10-15-2017

I Wouldn't Take Any Chances

If I knew the place had been contaminated, I wouldn't take any chance living there. I wouldn't say the government is lying about saying the place is safe or not harmful. But I will say I don't trust them to tell the truth based on their track record. We (Americans) haven't forgotten a recent incident about the polluted drinking water in one of our major US cities. The people there were told the water was safe to drink. The children suffered the most. I paint a picture of the "worse case scenario" and get as far away from the area as I can.
Posted by cmoneyspinner on 10-11-2017


The aftermaths of the nuclear radiation remains for years. And it's kind of hard to see the natural flora and fauna to be changing that easily. Animals, insects, nature all gets affected with nuclear. And that's why it's harmful to live there. And even worst not recommended.
Posted by overcast on 10-12-2017

If I could avoid it I would.

Sometimes we cannot control even the cleanliness in the air we breath much more to take a chance at a previous nuclear power plant. I wouldn't live close to high tension electricity pylons if I could avoid it. The long and short answer is no. I wouldn't trust my shadow on stained green neon grass ground! Well you get the picture.
Posted by Joteque on 10-11-2017


I think it is harmful, I mean I'm not expert but I really think the goverment should keep people away from that sort of cities. I think they are lying to people just for the fact it is going to be expensive to relocate all people in some other towns.
Posted by Pink_Turtle on 10-14-2017


I wouldn't probably risk such, especially if you are living in North Korea and you are residing in a nuclear town, then there is danger. Because you probably don't know what the fat little mad man, will do next. maybe there will testing a missile and mid air to launch the missile, the missile blow up and yeah you are probably ain't surviving that, if you live there .
Posted by Authord on 10-24-2017

Not wise decision to me

So, if one is looking for a town to stay and of all the options that lay bare staring him or her across the face, one would actually think of the possibility of securing a house to live in a former nuclear town with the conception that it isn't harmful.

Well, in my opinion, this would be the most crazy and dumb decision to ever be taken by anyone who cares for his or her health and well being. I definitely would never bring myself to live in such town. If you really have seen anyone to suffer from radiation poisoning, you should look it up and understand the dangers of living in such town.

Posted by Heatman on 10-11-2017


I am definitely not sure about this. While I do think that it "might" be safe to live nearby one there is definitely no saying for sure. We'd have to wait out to run tests on people that have lived near them for a long time so we could have a certain base. Still let's agree that there are a lot of places to live out there and a former nuclear reactor isn't the best of them
Posted by Marvadaum on 10-11-2017
I have to agree that if there are other places to live then why stay near a nuclear plant. No matter what safety measures they have put in place, if something can go wrong then it will, that’s according to Murphy’s law. We had been to a nuclear plant last month. Unfortunately we were not allowed to enter the compound so we failed to get a selfie. But that nuclear plant was not used. It was completed but unused.
Posted by Corzhens on 07-12-2018
I think it depends if the place is already been clean up and no more nuclear toxic chemicals remain. maybe people could live there and start new life but if the place is just newly abandoned or stop from producing nuclear and they live they i think it's not a good option because the chemical can cause them a harmful sickness which leads to death.
Posted by tophew on 10-11-2017
I wouldn't want to live in a town that has had an event, but I live in an area now that is very close to a nuclear plant. It doesn't worry me at all. I feel quite comfortable with the situation. It is just one of the choices that I have going for me. This is one of the things that I need to consider. I think that it is the choice that you need.
Posted by kgord on 10-11-2017
There are some risks of living in a former nuclear town. If we take the example of Chernobyl nuclear disaster some workers died four months after the explosion as they were exposed to radiation. Many people also died of cancers in the months following the radiation. Due to this nuclear disaster some areas in Chernobyl are uninhabited today.
Posted by Pixie on 10-11-2017
I agree with you, it's not safe at all. You never know if radiations are still there and if they have affected food or yourself. A former nuclear town is not something to joke about, I would never live there.
Posted by Tania997 on 10-11-2017
There are some risks of living in a former nuclear town. If we take the example of Chernobyl nuclear disaster some workers died four months after the explosion as they were exposed to radiation. Many people also died of cancers in the months following the radiation. Due to this nuclear disaster some areas in Chernobyl are uninhabited today.
Posted by Pixie on 10-11-2017
I can specifically say yes or no to this because sometimes we might not really know the present condition of the former nuclear environment. But the toxic has been cleared and an expert certifies it good and fit for habitation.Well and good one can live in there but if there's isn't any certification of the place, Hell no, I wouldn't even go near such dwellings.
Posted by lovely on 10-11-2017
I think that there are always some risks because it takes years and years for everything toxic to go away - it still stays in the air and soil. I don't think that I would feel safe living in an area where there used to be a nuclear factory or something similar. I have heard and read way too many bad stories surrounding it. It has a terrifying effect on the health. Why risk it? Find a clean and safe place to live instead.
Posted by Mehano on 10-11-2017
Myths have been created for that reason. "reduce our reliance on foreign oil". No matter who you talk to, it is always about the cash. Nuclear power is clean and efficient unless done wrong. Don't even get me started on Thorium reactors.
Posted by muaaz.93 on 10-11-2017
Definitely I would not live in former nuclear town I will not take chances my family’s health especially the children. We really don’t know the toxic if still there and could affect the health of all individual that will live there. It might still have nuclear radiation. I think it will take many years to go away the radiation and hazardous chemical in that area.
Posted by honeybabe on 10-11-2017
My answer will always be a big NO. Taking into consideration the long standing harmful effects of nuclear radiations I will prefer to stay away from such a place. Moreover, the deadly mutational changes that can affect my future generations I will always maintain a distance. The place will always be at high risk of damaging the health of its residents. For me, my health is my priority and I will never keep it at stake.
Posted by amitkokiladitya on 10-12-2017
I'm not all that sure about this topic so I don't think I have the ability to decisively make a vote. Personally, I'm not sure how comfortable I would be living in a former nuclear town. I do realize that it is technically not supposed to be harmful in anyway, but somehow I just have my doubts that it is 100% clean. If taken proper precautionary measures, in theory it is supposed to be totally harmless. However I always just think about how we as a species tend to cut corners a lot of the time and you never know if everything was up to regulations.
Posted by Denis_P on 10-12-2017
I think people should avoid living in this type of the region. The places nearby chernobyl are still not good. And it'd be bad for health. Also for soil, animals, birds to be in this region. So not sure how the people are even bothering about this place. So on that context you can see that nuclear town should be avoided for living. Not for like 100 years or so. people should be mindful about what they do with it.
Posted by overcast on 10-12-2017
I will never live anywhere near where there is a nuclear reactor or the place blown up with nuclear. Why would I risk my life living in such places when we have many options to choose from. When the government or businesses say the place is safe to say, I think they are lying. If the place is safe, why don't the politicians or businessmen live in that place?
Posted by vinaya on 10-13-2017
I don't think I will mentally feel fine living in scuh nuclear environments consdiering the dangers that it migh result to. I won't say that the governments are telling lies when they say that it is safe, but I can't take such risk.
Posted by Barida on 10-13-2017
I will not like to live in a former nuclear town because the risk is still very high that the inhabitants can still be affected later on health wise in some years to come.
Posted by babyright on 10-13-2017
What if money was on the table? If you were paid, then would you change your mind? What if it was a lot of money? Well, I do know that people who work with nuclear stuff are paid good salaries. In that case, there is a good financial incentive to ignore doubts they may have about workplace safety.
Posted by jyy on 10-14-2017
Are there any former nuclear plants besides Chernobyl? If they were safe and the waste was moved somewhere else then of course it is safe to live there. If it is about living in a place where a nuclear catastrophe happened (Chernobyl) then of course it isn't safe yet. I think it's okay to go there for a short trip but for living it would still be very risky.
Posted by felabruno on 10-14-2017
Last year, we passed by the unused nuclear plant in Morong, Bataan, a northern province of the Philippines. The residents in that town are against the revival of the mothballed nuclear plant. They said that it can pose danger to the place when it is used as a nuclear plant because a leak is possible to happen. I understand their fear about the nuclear leak but sometimes we have to make sacrifices. And it so happened that their town was chosen for that nuclear plant.
Posted by Corzhens on 02-21-2018
We are talking about nuclear energy, so that generates radiation. The fact that you don't see it, doesn't mean is not hurting at all. Also, what about all the garbage/disposal those plants generate? Those go somewhere, and for sure there's people in contact with it. I don't care about all the things a government says, nuclear is nuclear and it does requires respect and be contained. Personally, I would stay away from there, there's not a 100% warranty that I won't be getting any kind of effect, so it's better to avoid it.
Posted by ballyhara on 04-20-2018