this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2164 points (94.4% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2943 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 79 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you just contradicted yourself in that same sentence

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In India alone it is estimated that 112,000 deaths per year are attributed to coal power plants. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2017936118

320 deaths globally is a drop in the in the coal bucket of death. It's not worth specifically worrying about. Coal as a whole is the problem. Not the nuclear byproduct of coal.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 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.