7 ms·

Excuse me? Does one of those plants have to blow up in your neighbourhood until you can relate to the fact that some risks are not worth taking? These things a

• jotm 13y ago
  Coal plants (and their supply chain) are just as dirty without having to blow up...
  • gaius 13y ago
    ... And actually emit more radiation, traces of uranium in coal just go straight up the chimney...
• mrottenkolber 13y ago
  Guess fukushima was too long ago. Oh wait, its still leaking a tons of gene-pool destroying toxin every day. I knew people first hand who died from chernobyl's toxic rain. Took 10 years for their faces to completely fall apart.
  • ars 13y ago
    And coal power is like a constant never ending fukushima. It's gut, but un-informed feelings like yours that are the cause of so much environmental destruction. > I knew people first hand who died from chernobyl's toxic rain. And I know of people who today are suffering from asthma and lung cancer from coal's toxic exhaust. And newsflash: There are way way way way more of them.
    • mrottenkolber 13y ago
      Why do you assume I am defending coal? It's irrational confidence like yours that nuclear power is in any way safe, and therefore a good replacement. Coal doesn't need a replacement, we need to start using energy responsibly. That means not using energy when we don't have it. A nuclear plant is not an acceptable way to generate energy.
      • Crito 13y ago
        Arguing against nuclear is de facto arguing for coal. Current options for renewable baseload power generation are limited. This will with any luck change sometime in the future, but in the present less nuclear means more coal. Using less power is not a realistic proposal. You should not expect that to be taken seriously.
        • sp332 13y ago
          Actually, thanks partly to more-efficient tech and mostly to the economy, America's energy usage has been lower in the past few years.
          • Crito 13y ago
            Do you have a source for that? Wolfram Alpha shows a slight dip corresponding with the recession, and the data cuts off at 2010, but the overall trend seems pretty damming: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+power+usage http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+power+usage
            • sp332 13y ago
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Co... shows residential and commercial electricity usage declining in 2000 but doesn't seem to have later data. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/12/31/u-s--homes-using-far-less-power.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/... says homes are down to using less energy in 2013 than anytime since the early 2000's. Here's a graph of energy use over time http://nation.time.com/2013/10/24/interactive-see-how-americas-energy-appetite-has-changed-over-40-years/ http://nation.time.com/2013/10/24/interactive-see-how-americ...
      • DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
        We think you're defending coal because you say things like "Coal doesn't need a replacement [...] a nuclear plant is not an acceptable way to generate energy" despite the fact that the coal plants are way more polluting and radioactive.
• lifeformed 13y ago
  Calculate the chances of that happening and compare it's damage to the thousands of people who die every year from coal usage. Coal is 4000 times deadlier.
• mikeash 13y ago
  Ironically, the danger of dirty bombs is vastly overblown.