4 ms·

So, what I'm hearing in this thread is that we should evacuate entire areas around coal burning power plants for decades, but we choose not to.

• notahacker 7y ago
  I'd probably shut them down altogether where possible. But disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that the radiation exposure from living in Pripyat is comparable to that of living somewhere near coal plants.
  • arcticbull 7y ago
    > But disingenuous in the extreme to pretend that the radiation exposure from living in Pripyat is comparable to that of living somewhere near coal plants. Yes and no, in a way it's worse because Pripyat was evacuated, so people were moved to low radiation areas. Coal plants, people don't realize just how much radiation is generated by them. Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste. [1] "Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas." Honestly it sounds much risker to live anywhere near a coal plant than anywhere near a nuclear plant (which for the record have had 30 years of safety upgrades since Chernobyl). Not to mention, the last RBMK reactor at the Chernobyl power plant was left operating until the year 2000. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...