• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

    The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn’t even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it’s just unsuitable for human habitation.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

      Here’s my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!

      And that’s just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is a fun fact but I don’t think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying coal smoke is healthy, it’s fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Federation of American scientists (FAS) believe that the number is actually calculable:

          “The quantity of radioactive material liberated by the burn- ing of coal is considerable, since on average it contains a few parts per million of uranium and thorium”

          “Per gigawatt- year (GWe-yr) of electrical energy produced by coal, using the current mix of technology throughout the world, the population exposure is estimated to be about 0.8 lethal cancers per plant-year distributed over the affected population.”

          “Table 7.2 summarizes these data. With 400 GWe of coal-fired power plants in the world, this amounts to some 320 deaths per year; in the world at large, some plants have better filters and cause less harm, while others have little stack-gas cleanup and cause far more.”

          https://rlg.fas.org/mwmt-p233.pdf

          That’s about the number of people who died from Chernobyl, every year. From the radiation from coal power plants.

            • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sure sure, but we are still pumping out isotopes of uranium and plutonium into the atmosphere. We are lucky the effects of radioactive isotopes are generally overblown then, huh?

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                🙏 I need you to listen to me extremely closely. I am not saying nuclear shit in the atmosphere is good. I never said this. I never implied this. All I’m saying is that the nuclear aspects of coal usage are a drop in the bucket in the massive pile of problems it has. I’m not saying coal is good either.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I’m saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn’t a concern with regards to health.

            • Womble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right coal deaths are just confined to mines, respiratory illnesses and excess cancers from chronic low dose exposure.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I’m saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn’t a concern with regards to health.

                  So chronic low level exposure to radiation is fine?

                  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not saying it’s fine, I’m saying it feels like an order of magnitude less of a concern compared to all of the other bad things that can happen from coal smoke.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not meant to be “fair;” it’s meant to shock people with how ridiculously bad burning coal is. Think about it: it’s crazy that a trace-element unused byproduct of coal production is a pollutant being produced on the same order of magnitude as the thing in nuclear power that’s actually producing all the power. Until people read it, they’d probably guess that coal either produced no radiation at all, or many orders of magnitude less than nuclear, but nope. And on the other end of it, if that tiny fraction of coal’s pollution output is enough to rival all of nuclear, I think it helps put a finer point on just how much worse all the rest of it is.

            • ultracritical@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it’s core.

              The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don’t typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn’t change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs.

            • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fuck of with that false dichotomy shit. Just because something isn’t fair (like life), doesn’t mean it’s misleading.