6 ms·
According to this Scientific American article, radiation from coal has a track record of being more harmful than radiation from nuclear: https://www.scientifica
by wallace_f 9y ago
According to this Scientific American article, radiation from coal has a track record of being more harmful than radiation from nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
They, however, certainly downplay the tail risk of nuclear.
- sfifs 9y agoFrom the same article: > McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.
- Zigurd 9y agoCoal, oil, and even gas are dirty and dangerous. But they are investable and insurable, with less (but definitely not zero) government support. I'm all for pricing-in the externalities. And if that makes nuclear a relatively better investment, hurrah! If new technologies turn nuclear into something supportable in normal capital markets, hurrah! But there is no proof-of-concept yet.