• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
        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.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          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
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

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

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        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.