2 ms·

Better use your Geiger ;-) it's really significant, it should be one of the main reasons we should phase out coal totally and ASAP.

dredmorbius 4y ago
1. The amounts of radiation emitted by even the dirtiest of coal plants, whilst higher than a well-functioning nuclear power plant, is less than of living in a brick or stone structure, and is orders of magnitude below the lowest levels impacting health. See Randall Munroe's Radiation chart for a graphical view: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 2. There are far more concerning threats from coal. Which is to say, the radiation concern is an absolute red herring. 3. A nuclear plant behaving badly is at the absolute high end of Munroe's chart. Ten minutes next to the Chernobyl core is over five times the lethal does even with treatment. Not only has every nuclear accident I'm aware of come about principally through management failures, personnel misconduct, or both, but the consequences of those events persist for centuries to millennia. Well beyond the lifetimes of any institutions we have to address them. Russia added direct military attack and occupation to that list earlier this year, and there's little reason to expect that this will go away. There's often some confusion that the argument is about nuclear vs. some other terrible energy choice, or that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro-some other specific option, or that those who raise these points are unaware of disasters with much larger immediate impacts. Say, Banqiao Dam, also a combination of errors: design, engineering, operation, weather, disaster preparedness, disaster response. The Banqiao region is now home once again to millions of Chinese, the event is entirely closed, and there is no lingering centuries- or millennia-long threat to deal with. The accident itself is an extreme outlier even amongst dam failures. The book has not yet been closed on Sellafield, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and numerous other smaller mishaps. That said, I'm not dead set against nuclear. But I'm also going to flatly reject that the problems it faces are strictly of engineering, and that they can be papered over with promises and misrepresentations. That is simply not true.

dredmorbius 4y ago

1. The amounts of radiation emitted by even the dirtiest of coal plants, whilst higher than a well-functioning nuclear power plant, is less than of living in a brick or stone structure, and is orders of magnitude below the lowest levels impacting health. See Randall Munroe's Radiation chart for a graphical view: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ 2. There are far more concerning threats from coal. Which is to say, the radiation concern is an absolute red herring. 3. A nuclear plant behaving badly is at the absolute high end of Munroe's chart. Ten minutes next to the Chernobyl core is over five times the lethal does even with treatment. Not only has every nuclear accident I'm aware of come about principally through management failures, personnel misconduct, or both, but the consequences of those events persist for centuries to millennia. Well beyond the lifetimes of any institutions we have to address them. Russia added direct military attack and occupation to that list earlier this year, and there's little reason to expect that this will go away. There's often some confusion that the argument is about nuclear vs. some other terrible energy choice, or that to be anti-nuclear is to be pro-some other specific option, or that those who raise these points are unaware of disasters with much larger immediate impacts. Say, Banqiao Dam, also a combination of errors: design, engineering, operation, weather, disaster preparedness, disaster response. The Banqiao region is now home once again to millions of Chinese, the event is entirely closed, and there is no lingering centuries- or millennia-long threat to deal with. The accident itself is an extreme outlier even amongst dam failures. The book has not yet been closed on Sellafield, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and numerous other smaller mishaps. That said, I'm not dead set against nuclear. But I'm also going to flatly reject that the problems it faces are strictly of engineering, and that they can be papered over with promises and misrepresentations. That is simply not true.