5 ms·

More radioactive material is emitted/released from coal plants than from nuclear plants, even when adjusted for the difference in power production between those

More radioactive material is emitted/released from coal plants than from nuclear plants, even when adjusted for the difference in power production between those two types of plants. It's not irrational to be wary about radiation, it is irrational to respond to that wariness by going all NIMBY on new nuclear plants.

ahelwer 8y ago
I'm pro nuclear power, but this is the difference between drinking a glass of water and drowning with your head in a bucket. It's weird to apply averages to situations where nuclear disasters release massive amounts of radiation all at once.
- delecti 8y ago
  That's true, but what I said factors in all of those historic nuclear disasters. Even with all of those, nuclear power still averages out at releasing less radiation per unit of power generated than coal.
  - ahelwer 8y ago
    Yeah, and perhaps radiation per unit of power isn't a good metric. Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable is qualitatively different than slightly increasing cancer risk over a long period of time. Anything that conflates the first with the second isn't a very good analysis. It's like how more oil seeps out of the floor of the Atlantic each year than was released during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Doesn't make it not a disaster.
    - delecti 8y ago
      It might not be a good metric, but it's still overly generous to coal, because we're already rushing headlong towards huge areas of coastline being uninhabitable because they'll be underwater.
    - thatcat 8y ago
      >Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable Coal has the that risk as well, it could actually be worse because of the lax regulation. See fly ash spills for reference.
- smsm42 8y ago
  No, it's not weird - that's exactly where the fallacy is. Getting millions of people slowly poisoned by pollution gets less weight than a dozen of people directly hurt by radiation. For example, Three Mile Island incidents had essentially zero casualties (yes, including study of cancer incidence increase, which did not find any significant increase) but everybody has heard about it (and it essentially killed new nuclear development in the US). Try to find out how much morbidity random coal plant is causing, and pretty much nobody knows or cares.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    This[1] site claims over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This[2] site claims Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses. In China alone, around 670,000 people die prematurely per year as a result of coal-related air pollution. The ‘Coal Kills’ report estimates that in India coal contributes to between 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths annually. In the United States coal kills around 13,000 people annually, and 23,300 in Europe. The economic costs of the health impacts from coal combustion in Europe are valued at about US$70 billion per year, with 250,600 life years lost. 1. http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ 2. https://endcoal.org/health/ https://endcoal.org/health/
    - smsm42 8y ago
      Right. So we are comparing (in US) 13000 deaths annually and one major incident with no casualties - and in the coal case, it's "yeah we know it's not ideal, so we are slowly moving away, but really slow because you have to be realistic here" and in the nuclear case it's "OMG OMG OMG radiation no more new stations ever we have to forget the whole thing now, it's too unsafe did I say RADIATION?!".
      - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
        Oh, right, sorry. Yeah, coming back to this a day later I see that were you wrote "pretty much nobody knows or cares" it was meant in the general sense of stop someone in the street and ask them about coal and their eyes will glaze over vs ask them about nuclear power and radiation-three-eyed-fish-godzilla and they're way more likely to have a seizure right there on the street.
mbrameld 8y ago
That's under normal operation, though. As Fukushima has shown us recently, sometimes they break.
- yongjik 8y ago
  ...and still kills less people than coal kills during its normal operation. Also (considering the amount of land that will be submerged underwater by 2100) probably makes less amount of land uninhabitable than coal does.
- smsm42 8y ago
  A lot of technology sometimes break. We still use it. We routinely travel in steel boxes whizzing around at breakneck speeds where any serious mechanical malfunction or error leads to a quick death or very painful long term injury - and millions get hurt this way every year - but we take this risk because the rewards are higher. But with radiation somehow no reward is worth the risk - its radiation, how could you dare to rationally calculate risk/rewards if people can die!!!!11one1oen That's what I call "irrational".
Gibbon1 8y ago
Stop repeating this, it's propaganda.
- delecti 8y ago
  Which part, and do you have a source arguing otherwise?
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    The whole thing relies on emission of fly ash which contains a few ppm of thorium and uranium. However a few things never mentioned. 1. Modern coal fired plants collect fly ash and bury it in landfill. So coal fired power plants since the 1970's don't emit fly ash or it's radio-isotopes. 2. As radio-isotopes go neither thorium or uranium are particularly bio-available or subject to bio-magnification. 3. Common dirt contains a few ppm of thorium and uranium. So contamination with fly ash doesn't change anything radio-logically.

ahelwer 8y ago

I'm pro nuclear power, but this is the difference between drinking a glass of water and drowning with your head in a bucket. It's weird to apply averages to situations where nuclear disasters release massive amounts of radiation all at once.

delecti 8y ago
That's true, but what I said factors in all of those historic nuclear disasters. Even with all of those, nuclear power still averages out at releasing less radiation per unit of power generated than coal.
- ahelwer 8y ago
  Yeah, and perhaps radiation per unit of power isn't a good metric. Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable is qualitatively different than slightly increasing cancer risk over a long period of time. Anything that conflates the first with the second isn't a very good analysis. It's like how more oil seeps out of the floor of the Atlantic each year than was released during the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Doesn't make it not a disaster.
  - delecti 8y ago
    It might not be a good metric, but it's still overly generous to coal, because we're already rushing headlong towards huge areas of coastline being uninhabitable because they'll be underwater.
  - thatcat 8y ago
    >Suddenly rendering huge areas uninhabitable Coal has the that risk as well, it could actually be worse because of the lax regulation. See fly ash spills for reference.
smsm42 8y ago
No, it's not weird - that's exactly where the fallacy is. Getting millions of people slowly poisoned by pollution gets less weight than a dozen of people directly hurt by radiation. For example, Three Mile Island incidents had essentially zero casualties (yes, including study of cancer incidence increase, which did not find any significant increase) but everybody has heard about it (and it essentially killed new nuclear development in the US). Try to find out how much morbidity random coal plant is causing, and pretty much nobody knows or cares.
- TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
  This[1] site claims over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This[2] site claims Coal is responsible for over 800,000 premature deaths per year globally and many millions more serious and minor illnesses. In China alone, around 670,000 people die prematurely per year as a result of coal-related air pollution. The ‘Coal Kills’ report estimates that in India coal contributes to between 80,000 to 115,000 premature deaths annually. In the United States coal kills around 13,000 people annually, and 23,300 in Europe. The economic costs of the health impacts from coal combustion in Europe are valued at about US$70 billion per year, with 250,600 life years lost. 1. http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ 2. https://endcoal.org/health/ https://endcoal.org/health/
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Right. So we are comparing (in US) 13000 deaths annually and one major incident with no casualties - and in the coal case, it's "yeah we know it's not ideal, so we are slowly moving away, but really slow because you have to be realistic here" and in the nuclear case it's "OMG OMG OMG radiation no more new stations ever we have to forget the whole thing now, it's too unsafe did I say RADIATION?!".
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      Oh, right, sorry. Yeah, coming back to this a day later I see that were you wrote "pretty much nobody knows or cares" it was meant in the general sense of stop someone in the street and ask them about coal and their eyes will glaze over vs ask them about nuclear power and radiation-three-eyed-fish-godzilla and they're way more likely to have a seizure right there on the street.

mbrameld 8y ago

That's under normal operation, though. As Fukushima has shown us recently, sometimes they break.

yongjik 8y ago
...and still kills less people than coal kills during its normal operation. Also (considering the amount of land that will be submerged underwater by 2100) probably makes less amount of land uninhabitable than coal does.
smsm42 8y ago
A lot of technology sometimes break. We still use it. We routinely travel in steel boxes whizzing around at breakneck speeds where any serious mechanical malfunction or error leads to a quick death or very painful long term injury - and millions get hurt this way every year - but we take this risk because the rewards are higher. But with radiation somehow no reward is worth the risk - its radiation, how could you dare to rationally calculate risk/rewards if people can die!!!!11one1oen That's what I call "irrational".

Gibbon1 8y ago

Stop repeating this, it's propaganda.

delecti 8y ago
Which part, and do you have a source arguing otherwise?
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  The whole thing relies on emission of fly ash which contains a few ppm of thorium and uranium. However a few things never mentioned. 1. Modern coal fired plants collect fly ash and bury it in landfill. So coal fired power plants since the 1970's don't emit fly ash or it's radio-isotopes. 2. As radio-isotopes go neither thorium or uranium are particularly bio-available or subject to bio-magnification. 3. Common dirt contains a few ppm of thorium and uranium. So contamination with fly ash doesn't change anything radio-logically.