5 ms·

I agree there are worse types of power plants than nuclear: no SO2, NO2 or PM10, but at the risk of the release of Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Xenon-133

I agree there are worse types of power plants than nuclear: no SO2, NO2 or PM10, but at the risk of the release of Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Xenon-133, strontium-90, plutonium-239. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-isotopes-from-fukushima-meltdown-detected-near-vancouver/ https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet

StavrosK 8y ago
Depending on the rates, I'd take a risk of Cesium than the certainty of SO2, CO2, NO2, etc.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  Aren't coal plants releasing small amounts of heavy metals and radioactivity from burning coal too? I recall some discussion here couple of months ago mentioning oceans pollution (and thus mainly predatory fish) mainly comes down to all coal plants churning all this at slow but steady pace. Somebody also mentioned that old decommissioned plants have their smelter quite radioactive and need to be handled accordingly. Can't find it now though...
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    Coal ash, the waste from burning coal has significant amounts of radioactive heavy metals. It is stored in 'ash ponds' which can leach into the ground water and the ash can be blown into surrounding neighborhoods as they are not capped. Analysis of EPA data found that living around a coal plant can give you up to a 1 in 50 chance of cancer. Clearly a biased source (not necessarily bad though) but the data is likely accurate, make of it what you will. https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-data-show-higher-cancer-risks-for-those-who-live-near-coal-ash-dumps https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-data-show-highe...
    - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
      Does coal ash concentrate valuable metals found in coal? If so the ash could be a valuable source of radioisotopes... Presumably it's not profitable though, cause its not a very original idea
- crdoconnor 8y ago
  I'd rather tariffs were taken off solar panels so they weren't rendered artificially uncompetitive.
astrodust 8y ago
If you're concerned about radioactive elements, coal plants and fracking also release a lot of nuclear contamination.

StavrosK 8y ago

Depending on the rates, I'd take a risk of Cesium than the certainty of SO2, CO2, NO2, etc.

saiya-jin 8y ago
Aren't coal plants releasing small amounts of heavy metals and radioactivity from burning coal too? I recall some discussion here couple of months ago mentioning oceans pollution (and thus mainly predatory fish) mainly comes down to all coal plants churning all this at slow but steady pace. Somebody also mentioned that old decommissioned plants have their smelter quite radioactive and need to be handled accordingly. Can't find it now though...
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  Coal ash, the waste from burning coal has significant amounts of radioactive heavy metals. It is stored in 'ash ponds' which can leach into the ground water and the ash can be blown into surrounding neighborhoods as they are not capped. Analysis of EPA data found that living around a coal plant can give you up to a 1 in 50 chance of cancer. Clearly a biased source (not necessarily bad though) but the data is likely accurate, make of it what you will. https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-data-show-higher-cancer-risks-for-those-who-live-near-coal-ash-dumps https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2009/epa-data-show-highe...
  - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
    Does coal ash concentrate valuable metals found in coal? If so the ash could be a valuable source of radioisotopes... Presumably it's not profitable though, cause its not a very original idea
crdoconnor 8y ago
I'd rather tariffs were taken off solar panels so they weren't rendered artificially uncompetitive.

astrodust 8y ago

If you're concerned about radioactive elements, coal plants and fracking also release a lot of nuclear contamination.