4 ms·

I've always found xkcd's radiation chart interesting: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ where it talks about coal vs nuclear plant at the

I've always found xkcd's radiation chart interesting: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ where it talks about coal vs nuclear plant at the beginning. Maybe his sources would help. ISTR that lignite would often be a bit radioactive and burning so much of it would spread it through leftover emissions ? If you find a proper source, I'm interested too.

wqaatwt 2y ago
I didn’t mean radiation specifically. Rather overall damage due to pollution compared to the casualties in Chernobyl and Fukushima. e.g. NIH estimates 460k excess deaths (just in the US alone) between 1999 and 2020 were caused by emission from coal plants. And that’s the period when coal became relatively “clean”. So it must have been much worse back in the 70s and 80s. The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000. But 16,000 is probably more realistic.
- natmaka 2y ago
  > The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000 Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    Obviously I implied [mainstream/non-fringe] estimate.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      AFAIK it is a well-known estimation, and 'fringe' may be considered weird given its main author's pedigree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the_Catastrophe_for_People_and_the_Environment#Authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...
      - wqaatwt 2y ago
        > may be considered weird It may. I don’t think that’s the consensus view though and again something being well-known doesn’t make it the consensus. I’m not saying that WHO’s and IAEA‘s figures are perfect and flawless but they aren’t widely challenged either.