this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
1147 points (95.0% liked)

World News

39396 readers
2840 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 36 points 1 year ago (1 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.

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 62 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 5 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.

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

[–] sixCats@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 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 1 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 1 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

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?