5 ms·
When I hear a comparison made in that manner my fraud antenna goes up. 'Higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants!' Is the sort of brea
by johngalt 14y ago
When I hear a comparison made in that manner my fraud antenna goes up. 'Higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants!' Is the sort of breathless thing you can say without considering that people living near nuclear power plants might not have much of a radiation dose to begin with?
Clean energy begins with honest conversations about the cost/benefit of each type of energy.
- nitrogen 14y agoI don't think I understand your objection. The comparison between coal and nuclear power is made because there is a public perception that living near a nuclear plant is dangerous, while coal plants are ignored. The electricity I'm using to write this was in all likelihood generated by the local coal power plant (though there is some wind and hydro generation nearby); I wish they'd replace it with nuclear. ...people living near nuclear power plants might not have much of a radiation dose to begin with? That's exactly the point.
- bradleyjg 14y agoThe extra dosage for living near a coal power plant is really low - about 2% of a chest x-ray per year. The extra dosage for living near a nuclear power plant is nearly non-existent at a third of that. The chemical effects of the pollutants in fly ash are a far bigger concern than the radiological effects. Edit: Neat chart (http://xkcd.com/radiation/ http://xkcd.com/radiation/)