6 ms·

Nuclear power is pretty cool if you don't build the plants in risky areas or ignore safety measures. I'm a radiation safety officer and the completeness of pre

by phre4k 6y ago

Nuclear power is pretty cool if you don't build the plants in risky areas or ignore safety measures. I'm a radiation safety officer and the completeness of precautions taken is inversely proportional to the amount of greediness of the company's CEO. Until that's solved, nuclear power is a double-edged sword, as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima. There's currently no perfect solution to that energy problem. What many people don't know: There's more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants because they burn that stuff and blow it into the air.

dewey 6y ago
> There's more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants because they burn that stuff and blow it into the air. Trying to understand this: "more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants" Is that for the day-to-day operations of a plant? I actually thought nuclear power plants don't emit any radiation in normal operations and only if something bad happens. Or if it's referring to a Fukushima like event how do you compare that? I have a hard time putting these two in relation.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  is that for the day-to-day operations of a plant? I actually thought nuclear power plants don't emit any radiation in normal operations There are naturally occurring particulates of radioactive elements in coal, these are released into the environment in the exhaust. No-one cares about this but they panic over a nuclear power station which actually emits an order of magnitude less radiation.
  - dewey 6y ago
    > but they panic over a nuclear power station I don't think anyone panics over a nuclear power station that's working. What people are afraid of is a Fukushima / Chernobyl in their backyard and the non-existing long term storage options that are more sophisticated than burying it in the holes.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  Is the same kind of radiation?
svara 6y ago
> What many people don't know: There's more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants because they burn that stuff and blow it into the air. That's misleading the way you state it. The total amount is not a relevant measure without also knowing the concentration.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  It absolutely is the relevant measure, as anything can be diluted: at Fukushima Tepco is not allowed to relase tritium water into the ocean because its technically radioactive. It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference. If they released it, there would be public outcry. They are instead storing giant amounts of it on site. Meanwhile coal powerplants throw radiation into air all day and noone raises an eyebrow.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    > It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference. Before it got diluted, would it lead to unwanted contamination of fish in the area?
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Are we talking about a competent proffeshional, or someone who escaped the asylum? You don't just dump it all at once at the local beach, you take it out to sea and do the diluting over several months. You can even release it in the abbysal zone, where hardly anything lives. Half-life of tritium is 12 years, so it would be mostly gone fairly quickly.
      - Tepix 6y ago
        It's not just Tritium. TEPCO, a Japanese power company, estimates that more than 70% of the tanks — that’s 700,000 tons of water — will need secondary treatment before the water is in any state to be released. Also my guess would be that they lay a pipe from these tanks into the water to dump the 1 million tons, meaning there would be some spots with fairly high concentration for a long time.
Tepix 6y ago
We don't know how much radiation is set free by nuclear power plants because the highly radioactive nuclear waste they leave behind will be around for tens of thousands of years and we don't know if and when it will contaminate the planet.
- ryathal 6y ago
  We know that waste is sitting in a pond, it's not set free, it's not capable of magically moving itself. We have no idea where any of those coal emissions ended up, and we still have piles of extremely toxic ash just like the nuclear waste.
iso1631 6y ago
Fukushima killed 0 people. The evacuation has 2,000 deaths attributed to it. In comparison the Earthquake and Tsunami killed 15,000 people. Even setting aside the global effects of climate change, local air polution from coal burning kills 20,000 people a year in Europe alone [0], and 13,000 in the U.S. [1] [0] http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_report_the_unpaid_health_bill_how_coal_power_plants_make_us_sick_final.pdf http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_report_the_unpaid_hea... [1] https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CATF_Pub_TheTollFromCoal.pdf https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CATF_Pub_TheT...
- dewey 6y ago
  > Fukushima killed 0 people. The evacuation has 2,000 deaths attributed to it. Why do you think that distinction is important? It's like saying that bikes don't kill people, only the hard surfaces you fall on when you crash do.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    Because that's not a problem with nuclear power plants per se, more a problem with chaotically evacuating after a massive tsumani has destroyed mass amounts of infrastructure and killed thousands of people That type of evacuation in circumstances without the tsunami would not have lead to 2,000 deaths.
- pvaldes 6y ago
  > Fukushima killed 0 people We could repeat this as many times as we want, but will be still a false statement. If disinformation will continue to be the standard solution for managing all nuclear challenges, we are not ready for an adult discussion about it. Therefore nobody should be allowed to use this technology until we mature as species and we'll be able to focus in the real issues.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    How many people did Fukishima kill then?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by phre4k 6y ago

dewey 6y ago

> There's more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants because they burn that stuff and blow it into the air. Trying to understand this: "more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants" Is that for the day-to-day operations of a plant? I actually thought nuclear power plants don't emit any radiation in normal operations and only if something bad happens. Or if it's referring to a Fukushima like event how do you compare that? I have a hard time putting these two in relation.

goatinaboat 6y ago
is that for the day-to-day operations of a plant? I actually thought nuclear power plants don't emit any radiation in normal operations There are naturally occurring particulates of radioactive elements in coal, these are released into the environment in the exhaust. No-one cares about this but they panic over a nuclear power station which actually emits an order of magnitude less radiation.
- dewey 6y ago
  > but they panic over a nuclear power station I don't think anyone panics over a nuclear power station that's working. What people are afraid of is a Fukushima / Chernobyl in their backyard and the non-existing long term storage options that are more sophisticated than burying it in the holes.
pvaldes 6y ago
Is the same kind of radiation?

svara 6y ago

> What many people don't know: There's more radiation set free by coal power plants than nuclear power plants because they burn that stuff and blow it into the air. That's misleading the way you state it. The total amount is not a relevant measure without also knowing the concentration.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
It absolutely is the relevant measure, as anything can be diluted: at Fukushima Tepco is not allowed to relase tritium water into the ocean because its technically radioactive. It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference. If they released it, there would be public outcry. They are instead storing giant amounts of it on site. Meanwhile coal powerplants throw radiation into air all day and noone raises an eyebrow.
- Tepix 6y ago
  > It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference. Before it got diluted, would it lead to unwanted contamination of fish in the area?
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Are we talking about a competent proffeshional, or someone who escaped the asylum? You don't just dump it all at once at the local beach, you take it out to sea and do the diluting over several months. You can even release it in the abbysal zone, where hardly anything lives. Half-life of tritium is 12 years, so it would be mostly gone fairly quickly.
    - Tepix 6y ago
      It's not just Tritium. TEPCO, a Japanese power company, estimates that more than 70% of the tanks — that’s 700,000 tons of water — will need secondary treatment before the water is in any state to be released. Also my guess would be that they lay a pipe from these tanks into the water to dump the 1 million tons, meaning there would be some spots with fairly high concentration for a long time.

Tepix 6y ago

We don't know how much radiation is set free by nuclear power plants because the highly radioactive nuclear waste they leave behind will be around for tens of thousands of years and we don't know if and when it will contaminate the planet.

ryathal 6y ago
We know that waste is sitting in a pond, it's not set free, it's not capable of magically moving itself. We have no idea where any of those coal emissions ended up, and we still have piles of extremely toxic ash just like the nuclear waste.

iso1631 6y ago

Fukushima killed 0 people. The evacuation has 2,000 deaths attributed to it. In comparison the Earthquake and Tsunami killed 15,000 people. Even setting aside the global effects of climate change, local air polution from coal burning kills 20,000 people a year in Europe alone [0], and 13,000 in the U.S. [1] [0] http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_report_the_unpaid_health_bill_how_coal_power_plants_make_us_sick_final.pdf http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/heal_report_the_unpaid_hea... [1] https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CATF_Pub_TheTollFromCoal.pdf https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/CATF_Pub_TheT...

dewey 6y ago
> Fukushima killed 0 people. The evacuation has 2,000 deaths attributed to it. Why do you think that distinction is important? It's like saying that bikes don't kill people, only the hard surfaces you fall on when you crash do.
- iso1631 6y ago
  Because that's not a problem with nuclear power plants per se, more a problem with chaotically evacuating after a massive tsumani has destroyed mass amounts of infrastructure and killed thousands of people That type of evacuation in circumstances without the tsunami would not have lead to 2,000 deaths.
pvaldes 6y ago
> Fukushima killed 0 people We could repeat this as many times as we want, but will be still a false statement. If disinformation will continue to be the standard solution for managing all nuclear challenges, we are not ready for an adult discussion about it. Therefore nobody should be allowed to use this technology until we mature as species and we'll be able to focus in the real issues.
- iso1631 6y ago
  How many people did Fukishima kill then?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]