3 ms·

Nuclear plants in normal use release less radionuclides into the environment than coal. But is this still the case with malfunction? It is fairly common that h

Nuclear plants in normal use release less radionuclides into the environment than coal. But is this still the case with malfunction? It is fairly common that huge amounts get released. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascó_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascó_Nuclear_Power_Plant How about Fukushima and Chernobyl. Do you have numbers to back up your claim?

rimliu 10y ago
"Huge amount" which is not even considered a serious incident?
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
As a sibling comment pointed out, you may have selected a poor example there. However, you raise a good point with the Fukushima and Chernobyl examples. It's not hard to imagine that if we had, globally, built nuclear power plants as enthusiastically as we have coal power plants, there would likely have been a lot more serious incidents. It's a sobering thought for my usually rose-tinted view of nuclear. While I could probably have found a more dramatic reference, this one[1] is a bit more calm saying that the risks of adverse health affects from radiation exposure from coal vs nuclear are, in both cases, very slim. It would seem, then, that coal would have other negative health affects before the radiation exposure aspect became a problem. You have to live extraordinarily close to either a coal or nuclear plant to have higher than background radiation exposure from either, under normal operating conditions. 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
- ageofwant 10y ago
  Coal have unavoidable casualties in human health and environmental degradation built into normal operations. Nuclear much less so, so while I also wear those specs, I still believe the argument for Nuclear is sound. Another thing I like to point out is how much of a wildlife haven Chernobyl is compared to any moderate city. The fear that keeps the humans away, has transformed a "safe" dump into a paradise.

rimliu 10y ago

"Huge amount" which is not even considered a serious incident?

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

As a sibling comment pointed out, you may have selected a poor example there. However, you raise a good point with the Fukushima and Chernobyl examples. It's not hard to imagine that if we had, globally, built nuclear power plants as enthusiastically as we have coal power plants, there would likely have been a lot more serious incidents. It's a sobering thought for my usually rose-tinted view of nuclear. While I could probably have found a more dramatic reference, this one[1] is a bit more calm saying that the risks of adverse health affects from radiation exposure from coal vs nuclear are, in both cases, very slim. It would seem, then, that coal would have other negative health affects before the radiation exposure aspect became a problem. You have to live extraordinarily close to either a coal or nuclear plant to have higher than background radiation exposure from either, under normal operating conditions. 1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

ageofwant 10y ago
Coal have unavoidable casualties in human health and environmental degradation built into normal operations. Nuclear much less so, so while I also wear those specs, I still believe the argument for Nuclear is sound. Another thing I like to point out is how much of a wildlife haven Chernobyl is compared to any moderate city. The fear that keeps the humans away, has transformed a "safe" dump into a paradise.