3 ms·

Any of them? Coal is far more dangerous to human health and life than nuclear. Pick your quasi-legitimate source, but they all agree that coal is ~10X more dea

Any of them? Coal is far more dangerous to human health and life than nuclear. Pick your quasi-legitimate source, but they all agree that coal is ~10X more deadly than nuclear. > Coal-fired energy chains are estimated to cause 12 times more deaths per gigawatt-ampere-year than nuclear energy chains, and coal is estimated to cause 820% more deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced than nuclear

croes 2y ago
Who said the choice is between coal and nuclear? I prefer solutions that don't emit poisonous substances into the atmosphere nor make areas dangerous for thousands of years in case of accidents.
- throw0101c 2y ago
  > […] nor make areas dangerous for thousands of years in case of accidents. After ~250 years spent nuclear fuel is only dangerous if you (a) eat it, or (b) grind it up and snort it like cocaine. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0p6QLMpg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0p6QLMpg4 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2t2tYQsK94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2t2tYQsK94 The long-lived stuff throws off mostly alpha particles (blocked by a sheet of paper) or beta particles (thin aluminium). The first few years (6-10) of spent fuel throws off the riskiest particles (gamma), and so the fuel sits in cooling pools for that period. The co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Geraldine Thomas, has no problem with nuclear power: "Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation": * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-smoking-more-dangerous-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas
- abenga 2y ago
  > Who said the choice is between coal and nuclear? If an existing nuclear plant was shuttered while a coal plant was still running, that was the choice.

croes 2y ago

Who said the choice is between coal and nuclear? I prefer solutions that don't emit poisonous substances into the atmosphere nor make areas dangerous for thousands of years in case of accidents.

throw0101c 2y ago
> […] nor make areas dangerous for thousands of years in case of accidents. After ~250 years spent nuclear fuel is only dangerous if you (a) eat it, or (b) grind it up and snort it like cocaine. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0p6QLMpg4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx0p6QLMpg4 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2t2tYQsK94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2t2tYQsK94 The long-lived stuff throws off mostly alpha particles (blocked by a sheet of paper) or beta particles (thin aluminium). The first few years (6-10) of spent fuel throws off the riskiest particles (gamma), and so the fuel sits in cooling pools for that period. The co-founder of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, Geraldine Thomas, has no problem with nuclear power: "Look at the science – smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation": * https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-smoking-more-dangerous-radiation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/26/obesity-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldine_Thomas
abenga 2y ago
> Who said the choice is between coal and nuclear? If an existing nuclear plant was shuttered while a coal plant was still running, that was the choice.