4 ms·

> 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

by 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.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        We diverged a lot from initial claim of: "total amount is not a relevant measure .." concentration. That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage. The actual management of Fukushima is a rabbithole, but if they spent years containing it, I dont think they will just flush it down a tube and call it a day.
        svara 6y ago
        > That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage. Seems like you somehow misunderstood what I was saying then? You are basically restating my point. The specifics of what's going on at Fukushima have nothing to do with it. Yes, if they can release contaminated water in a way that a maximal safe concentration is never exceeded, that would be safe. I did not comment on whether nuclear plants are better or worse than coal plants or anything like that, I just pointed out that the argument about release of radioactive material by coal plants must be made in a different way (if that is possible) if it is to be effective. NB: Please don't take this personally, but this looks like another example of interpreting a statement based on whether it superficially seems to fit into one's preferred narrative rather than looking at what was actually said. What I actually wrote is simply correct based on basic physics and biology.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        I never took it badly - its hard to convey tone with just short text! I think we were coming from different directions, i see what you are saying.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      We definitely need a name for this. I will suggest "nuclear terraplanism". Nuclear terraplanism is defined as refusing to understand basic biology and scientific knowledge known since much before to put men in the moon to promote a nuclear agenda, so the risks remain hidden or are deliberately left out of the master plan. I'm talking about concepts that each biologist understand like vertical migration or bioaccumulation, or physical properties of water (Warm water ascends to surface... duh, who would suspect that?)
      - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
        Just fill some old ultra large crude oil carriers [1] which aren't needed anymore with that stuff. Strip them of anything reusable, tow them to the Marianas Trench or some other abyss, hang some weights onto them, maybe giant bags of contaminated topsoil. Sink. Kanpai! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories
        pvaldes 6y ago
        This is an incredibly irresponsible plan. Give me real solutions or stop this shit. WILL-NOT-WORK. With this 60's mentality YOU-WILL-END-KILLING-SOMEONE Can people, in the age if internet, learn a single thing about abyssal ecosystems? Do you know where most (if not all) abyssal fishes born? ALL ARE SURFACE FISHES. All are linked directly with fisheries. We could achieve the same, just much cheaper, dumping it directly in the New York port.
        LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
        Nothing lasts forever, even stars die, and in the end the universe itself. Stop crying. Enjoy your time. The 60ies and 70ies mostly had "the right stuff". What remains now are mostly disturbed head-cases, and way too many of them.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        Surely all issues you outlined apply to radioactive particles released by coal power-plants even more? Example of "warm water rises" is silly - global ocean is not a teapot, water on the abyssal plain is not heated from the bottom.
bergoid 6y ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... > 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. > In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. > The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

by svara 6y ago

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.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      We diverged a lot from initial claim of: "total amount is not a relevant measure .." concentration. That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage. The actual management of Fukushima is a rabbithole, but if they spent years containing it, I dont think they will just flush it down a tube and call it a day.
      - svara 6y ago
        > That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage. Seems like you somehow misunderstood what I was saying then? You are basically restating my point. The specifics of what's going on at Fukushima have nothing to do with it. Yes, if they can release contaminated water in a way that a maximal safe concentration is never exceeded, that would be safe. I did not comment on whether nuclear plants are better or worse than coal plants or anything like that, I just pointed out that the argument about release of radioactive material by coal plants must be made in a different way (if that is possible) if it is to be effective. NB: Please don't take this personally, but this looks like another example of interpreting a statement based on whether it superficially seems to fit into one's preferred narrative rather than looking at what was actually said. What I actually wrote is simply correct based on basic physics and biology.
        ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        I never took it badly - its hard to convey tone with just short text! I think we were coming from different directions, i see what you are saying.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    We definitely need a name for this. I will suggest "nuclear terraplanism". Nuclear terraplanism is defined as refusing to understand basic biology and scientific knowledge known since much before to put men in the moon to promote a nuclear agenda, so the risks remain hidden or are deliberately left out of the master plan. I'm talking about concepts that each biologist understand like vertical migration or bioaccumulation, or physical properties of water (Warm water ascends to surface... duh, who would suspect that?)
    - LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
      Just fill some old ultra large crude oil carriers [1] which aren't needed anymore with that stuff. Strip them of anything reusable, tow them to the Marianas Trench or some other abyss, hang some weights onto them, maybe giant bags of contaminated topsoil. Sink. Kanpai! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories
      - pvaldes 6y ago
        This is an incredibly irresponsible plan. Give me real solutions or stop this shit. WILL-NOT-WORK. With this 60's mentality YOU-WILL-END-KILLING-SOMEONE Can people, in the age if internet, learn a single thing about abyssal ecosystems? Do you know where most (if not all) abyssal fishes born? ALL ARE SURFACE FISHES. All are linked directly with fisheries. We could achieve the same, just much cheaper, dumping it directly in the New York port.
        LargoLasskhyfv 6y ago
        Nothing lasts forever, even stars die, and in the end the universe itself. Stop crying. Enjoy your time. The 60ies and 70ies mostly had "the right stuff". What remains now are mostly disturbed head-cases, and way too many of them.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Surely all issues you outlined apply to radioactive particles released by coal power-plants even more? Example of "warm water rises" is silly - global ocean is not a teapot, water on the abyssal plain is not heated from the bottom.

bergoid 6y ago

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... > 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. > In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants. > The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.