4 ms·

Probably but damage from nuclear accidents isn't only measured in deaths. No coal plant accident has caused an exclusion zone for 40 years.

woodruffw 8mo ago
I think that depends on where you draw the line around the term "coal plant." There have been plenty of coal ash disasters that result in years of exclusion (for purposes of habitation, drinking water, fishing, etc.)[1][2][3][4] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spil... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_water_crisis
brynnbee 8mo ago
If you look at net damage to the planet, fossil fuel burning energy sources kill literally 8 million+ people a year. Coal plants are vastly more radioactive than nuclear plants, and the effects of burning coal will have a vastly outsized share of damage to the planet in the long than nuclear. Its effects are just less concentrated to a single area.
panick21_ 8mo ago
Most of the exclusion zone is political nonsense. And overall coal has made much more areas much worse to live in. I rather live in the exclusion zone then next many coal plants. Also there is a single case that happened from a non-western design. When looking at western countries like France, it shows how incredibly safe the whole industry is end to end.
- ben_w 8mo ago
  Chernobyl's political nonsense was mostly down to the USSR wanting to deny that anything had, or possibly could, go wrong; if anything, the exclusion zone is the opposite of the western nonsense about nuclear power. It's our unique freedom-themed nonsense, not the Soviet dictatorial-nonsense, which means we have radiation standards strict enough that it's not possible to convert a coal plant into a nuclear plant without first performing a nuclear decontamination process due to all the radioisotopes in the coal. That said, perhaps that's actually a problem with the coal plants rather than nuclear standards: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4 > When looking at western countries like France, it shows how incredibly safe the whole industry is end to end. Relative to coal, absolutely. But don't assume western countries are immune to propaganda on these things, nuclear reactors are there for the spicy atoms, not the price tag or public safety.
  - panick21_ 8mo ago
    Nuclear plans have objectively made power generation save and clean. When they were built in the 1960-1990s the were objectively the best and cleanest energy that saved a gigantic amount of lives. The exclusion zone is nonsense because many that live in that zone has lower cancer rates then those outside. The idea is based on a invalid assumption about radiation an a linear relationship between radiation and harm. An I do think the standards we apply are to extreme in many cases mostly dating back to this misunderstanding about radiation. As for the locality to nuclear plants and cancer, this is as far as I know been shown in many countries and as far as I know at least can mostly be explained by nuclear plants usually being built in industrial areas that often used to have coal plants and other industry going on. > nuclear reactors are there for the spicy atoms, not the price tag or public safety. Not sure what 'spicy' means in this context. In terms of price tag they are objectively a fantastic deal if built in larger numbers. Even in places where they were not built in the numbers they did in France, they are good life time deal, and give relativity stable long term prices. And they don't have to be 'there' for public safety, they just need a good record on public safety and they do. In places like Austria and Germany we have many known cases where a nuclear plant was planned and was prevented by activists, only to be replaced by coal, in both cases impacting 10000s of lives being worse financially in the long term.
    - panick21_ 8mo ago
      What I didn't mention, in terms of propaganda, the anti-nuclear people are way ahead of any pro-nuclear propaganda. Its not even remotely close. The anti nuclear-weapons movement an environmental movement from the 1970s spread myths that are still repeated an often with emotional attachment. My parents who lived in central Europe during Chernobyl hate nuclear power, while believing lots of nonsense that was in the news back then.
      - ben_w 8mo ago
        I have heard that the anti-nuclear propaganda is funded by other nuclear states, because of the aforementioned value of reactors (and their scientists and engineers) to weapons programs. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds very plausible. However, if it was true, it would make it very much easier for governments to justify big spends on pro-nuclear propaganda. I mean, the USA managed to make test-detonations into a tourism opportunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Las_Vegas#Atomic_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Las_Vegas#Atomic_te...
catlifeonmars 8mo ago
And not all nuclear plants are the same. I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to compare Chernobyl to modern reactor designs, just because they both use the word “nuclear”. Apso not sure if you are including coal mining, and all of the deaths and negative health outcomes as a result of the industry
happosai 8mo ago
Exclusion zones are great for nature: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-ha... So The "worst case scenario" for nuclear power is creating a new wildlife park free from human interference.
- robotresearcher 8mo ago
  Nature would enjoy that. The economy not so much, depending on location. Around San Onofre (decommissioned now), a 30 mile Chernobyl-size exclusion zone would cover big chunks of Orange County and San Diego County. The US government recommended a 50 mile exclusion zone around Fukushima. 50 miles would cover southern Los Angeles and millions of people. So The "worst case scenario" for nuclear power is creating a new wildlife park free from human interference [and emptying out half of Los Angeles]
  - GoblinSlayer 8mo ago
    I wonder what is nuclear equivalent of pollution in Los Angeles.
wat10000 8mo ago
Only because the damage is more diffuse. Have you ever seen the common medical advice that pregnant women should avoid eating more than a few servings of seafood every week, and avoid certain kinds entirely, because they’re all contaminated with mercury? A huge portion of that mercury comes from burning coal. How’s that for an exclusion zone?
- ceejayoz 8mo ago
  Or for a big long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites

woodruffw 8mo ago

I think that depends on where you draw the line around the term "coal plant." There have been plenty of coal ash disasters that result in years of exclusion (for purposes of habitation, drinking water, fishing, etc.)[1][2][3][4] [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_Creek_flood [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_coal_slurry_spil... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_water_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_County_water_crisis

brynnbee 8mo ago

If you look at net damage to the planet, fossil fuel burning energy sources kill literally 8 million+ people a year. Coal plants are vastly more radioactive than nuclear plants, and the effects of burning coal will have a vastly outsized share of damage to the planet in the long than nuclear. Its effects are just less concentrated to a single area.

panick21_ 8mo ago

Most of the exclusion zone is political nonsense. And overall coal has made much more areas much worse to live in. I rather live in the exclusion zone then next many coal plants. Also there is a single case that happened from a non-western design. When looking at western countries like France, it shows how incredibly safe the whole industry is end to end.

ben_w 8mo ago
Chernobyl's political nonsense was mostly down to the USSR wanting to deny that anything had, or possibly could, go wrong; if anything, the exclusion zone is the opposite of the western nonsense about nuclear power. It's our unique freedom-themed nonsense, not the Soviet dictatorial-nonsense, which means we have radiation standards strict enough that it's not possible to convert a coal plant into a nuclear plant without first performing a nuclear decontamination process due to all the radioisotopes in the coal. That said, perhaps that's actually a problem with the coal plants rather than nuclear standards: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-026-69285-4 > When looking at western countries like France, it shows how incredibly safe the whole industry is end to end. Relative to coal, absolutely. But don't assume western countries are immune to propaganda on these things, nuclear reactors are there for the spicy atoms, not the price tag or public safety.
- panick21_ 8mo ago
  Nuclear plans have objectively made power generation save and clean. When they were built in the 1960-1990s the were objectively the best and cleanest energy that saved a gigantic amount of lives. The exclusion zone is nonsense because many that live in that zone has lower cancer rates then those outside. The idea is based on a invalid assumption about radiation an a linear relationship between radiation and harm. An I do think the standards we apply are to extreme in many cases mostly dating back to this misunderstanding about radiation. As for the locality to nuclear plants and cancer, this is as far as I know been shown in many countries and as far as I know at least can mostly be explained by nuclear plants usually being built in industrial areas that often used to have coal plants and other industry going on. > nuclear reactors are there for the spicy atoms, not the price tag or public safety. Not sure what 'spicy' means in this context. In terms of price tag they are objectively a fantastic deal if built in larger numbers. Even in places where they were not built in the numbers they did in France, they are good life time deal, and give relativity stable long term prices. And they don't have to be 'there' for public safety, they just need a good record on public safety and they do. In places like Austria and Germany we have many known cases where a nuclear plant was planned and was prevented by activists, only to be replaced by coal, in both cases impacting 10000s of lives being worse financially in the long term.
  - panick21_ 8mo ago
    What I didn't mention, in terms of propaganda, the anti-nuclear people are way ahead of any pro-nuclear propaganda. Its not even remotely close. The anti nuclear-weapons movement an environmental movement from the 1970s spread myths that are still repeated an often with emotional attachment. My parents who lived in central Europe during Chernobyl hate nuclear power, while believing lots of nonsense that was in the news back then.
    - ben_w 8mo ago
      I have heard that the anti-nuclear propaganda is funded by other nuclear states, because of the aforementioned value of reactors (and their scientists and engineers) to weapons programs. I have no idea if that's true, but it sounds very plausible. However, if it was true, it would make it very much easier for governments to justify big spends on pro-nuclear propaganda. I mean, the USA managed to make test-detonations into a tourism opportunity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Las_Vegas#Atomic_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Las_Vegas#Atomic_te...

catlifeonmars 8mo ago

And not all nuclear plants are the same. I don’t think it’s reasonable at all to compare Chernobyl to modern reactor designs, just because they both use the word “nuclear”. Apso not sure if you are including coal mining, and all of the deaths and negative health outcomes as a result of the industry

happosai 8mo ago

Exclusion zones are great for nature: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-ha... So The "worst case scenario" for nuclear power is creating a new wildlife park free from human interference.

robotresearcher 8mo ago
Nature would enjoy that. The economy not so much, depending on location. Around San Onofre (decommissioned now), a 30 mile Chernobyl-size exclusion zone would cover big chunks of Orange County and San Diego County. The US government recommended a 50 mile exclusion zone around Fukushima. 50 miles would cover southern Los Angeles and millions of people. So The "worst case scenario" for nuclear power is creating a new wildlife park free from human interference [and emptying out half of Los Angeles]
- GoblinSlayer 8mo ago
  I wonder what is nuclear equivalent of pollution in Los Angeles.

wat10000 8mo ago

Only because the damage is more diffuse. Have you ever seen the common medical advice that pregnant women should avoid eating more than a few servings of seafood every week, and avoid certain kinds entirely, because they’re all contaminated with mercury? A huge portion of that mercury comes from burning coal. How’s that for an exclusion zone?

ceejayoz 8mo ago
Or for a big long list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites