3 ms·

There was a reply to this comment, now deleted, which said "Should have cars add something to exhaust so humans can see/smell it--even if just for demo purposes

There was a reply to this comment, now deleted, which said "Should have cars add something to exhaust so humans can see/smell it--even if just for demo purposes. Might help people to understand." And I wanted to reply to that to say that we did used to be able to see exhaust fumes, and things were added so that we can't see them. I have often thought that "the school run" would be different if everyone could see the cars pumping out exhaust outside the school, but history suggests that what would be different is people wouldn't want to see it, rather than being inconvenienced by getting rid of it. And that's a pattern which comes over from elderly care problems, homelessness and mental health problems, poverty problems, where the actions taken are often closer to sweeping under the rug than trying to solve the root causes. > "Millions die prematurely from air pollution every year." Especially including the radiation in the emissions from coal burning power plants, which kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant accident.

MorrisMinor 4y ago
Radiation from coal is probably not a problem: "These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment" https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
legulere 4y ago
> Especially including the radiation in the emissions from coal burning power plants, which kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant accident. I once did the maths, Chernobyl was on the order of 100 times Chinas current yearly nuclear emissions caused by coal burning. Particulate matter and nitrogen oxides are the real issue (and sulphur dioxide where it’s not filtered out yet).
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  There's one particular mine/set of generators in china that basically just burns low-grade uranium ore (the ash is more concentrated than Namibian and Nigerian mines). If you exclude that one 100x is about right. For the rest, yeah. Also La Hague emits about 1/20th of a chernobyl per year. CO2/NOx/SOx/particulates from coal are still worse.

MorrisMinor 4y ago

Radiation from coal is probably not a problem: "These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment" https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html

legulere 4y ago

> Especially including the radiation in the emissions from coal burning power plants, which kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant accident. I once did the maths, Chernobyl was on the order of 100 times Chinas current yearly nuclear emissions caused by coal burning. Particulate matter and nitrogen oxides are the real issue (and sulphur dioxide where it’s not filtered out yet).

Schroedingersat 4y ago
There's one particular mine/set of generators in china that basically just burns low-grade uranium ore (the ash is more concentrated than Namibian and Nigerian mines). If you exclude that one 100x is about right. For the rest, yeah. Also La Hague emits about 1/20th of a chernobyl per year. CO2/NOx/SOx/particulates from coal are still worse.