4 ms·
>But it’s brimming with radioactivity that will be a health threat for millennia Millennia is a stretch to say the least... I figure we'll have a solution lon
by oneepic 7y ago
>But it’s brimming with radioactivity that will be a health threat for millennia
Millennia is a stretch to say the least... I figure we'll have a solution long before then, as long as science is being done.
- mrob 7y agoMeanwhile, coal-burning plants are still pumping toxic heavy metals into the atmosphere (to say nothing of the CO2), which will be a health threat for eternity. But for some reason nobody mentions how long chemical waste lasts for.
- xenophonf 7y agoCoal generates appreciable amounts of radioactive waste as well: In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy... (As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.) https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... I'm not a huge proponent of nuclear power generation—I'd much rather we focus on renewables (especially solar) and storage technology—but if we're going to have radioactive pollution from power generation, I'd much rather it also be carbon neutral. That's ignoring coal's many other environmental deficiencies (mountaintop removal comes immediately to mind).