4 ms·

Oh, yes, it’s clearly more dangerous than all the pollution from coal…

• brian_herman__ 7y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3744577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3744577/ https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-power-plants https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-wastes-coal-fired-po... https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/ https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-sta... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... (edit:formatting)
• onreact 7y ago
  Explain it to the people in Fukushima.
  • 2StepsOutOfLine 7y ago
    Explain to the greater ~2.1-4.21m deaths annually caused by pollution from fossil fuels https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
    • onreact 7y ago
      So what, just because CO2 is unhealthy now you prefer radiation that will poison the planet for millennia? Try clean energy instead and don't use worse as an alternative for bad.
      • 2StepsOutOfLine 7y ago
        Assuming we will never find a way to safely dispose of spent fuel is quiet pessimistic imo. And regardless of how nuclear will be bad in the future, fossil fuels are bad now and alternative energies like wind and solar simply aren't ready to take over. As far as I'm concerned, nuclear is clean comparatively.
  • aussiegreenie 7y ago
    I despise Nuclear power mainly due to its cost but it is very safe. The most dangerous form of electricity in deaths per 100,000 MW-h is rooftop solar. Hint, it does not generate a large amount of power and if someone is injured, it is dangerous.
    • onreact 7y ago
      Are you kidding me?