Let's nuke climate change!

@wildgrass said
Thanks for articulating that better than I could.

It isn't true. Your source of information is wrong. Most coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock.
Is soil and rock more hazardous than nuclear? That is about what you are saying. Your source is bunk.

@deepthought said
So, you admit that radioactive emissions from fly ash are acceptable, but regard emissions from nuclear waste as unacceptable. Given that the net emissions from nuclear waste per kWhr of electricity produced are less from nuclear power than from coal so it's not entirely clear what your objection is.

Try reading the link I posted instead of ignoring it. Most coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock. Are you foolish enough to believe soil and rock are more radioactive than nuclear?

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"While most coals in China and the U.S. have typically low uranium concentrations, in some areas in China we have identified coals with high uranium content," said Avner Vengosh, professor of geochemistry and water quality at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. "Combustion of these coals leaves behind the uranium and radium and generates coal ash with very high levels of radiation."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171109224030.htm

Pay particular attention to this part:

" most coals in China and the U.S. have typically low uranium concentrations"

There you go.
Stop believing false assertions. You were duped.

@metal-brain said
It isn't true. Your source of information is wrong. Most coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock.
Is soil and rock more hazardous than nuclear? That is about what you are saying. Your source is bunk.

There are many sources that confirm the fact that 20,000-30,000 tons of radioactive uranium and radium are released into our environment as waste from coal (see below). Burning coal concentrates the levels of radioactive materials in the waste/ash, it's a well-established fact. Your reference does not address coal waste at all.

I asked this earlier and you didn't address it: what do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

Despite demonization and fear mongering, nuclear energy is still the largest source of clean air energy in the US. Despite the efforts by California to add thousands of windmills and solar panels, it's been more than offset by the irrational need to close existing, functional nuclear power plants. We're getting less green every day and nuclear fear mongers are to blame.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/

https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-ash.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30591983

https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/tvacoalash/2019/04/17/tva-internal-records-reveal-radium-heavy-metals-found-in-coal-ash/3275139002/

@wildgrass said
There are many sources that confirm the fact that 20,000-30,000 tons of radioactive uranium and radium are released into our environment as waste from coal (see below). Burning coal concentrates the levels of radioactive materials in the waste/ash, it's a well-established fact. Your reference does not address coal waste at all.

I asked this earlier and you didn't address ...[text shortened]... /tvacoalash/2019/04/17/tva-internal-records-reveal-radium-heavy-metals-found-in-coal-ash/3275139002/

Where in that Scientific American article does it mention radiation from meltdowns? Meltdowns are not taken into account and that is stupid. Why do you let an article that omits meltdowns convince you that is proof?

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The amount of radiation released during the Chernobyl meltdown was “100 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs together”.

https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/sciencebites/chapter/the-lingering-effects-of-the-chernobyl-disaster/

Don't give me an estimate based on Nuclear power plants that never have melted down. Give me an estimate based on how much the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns combined released radiation into the environment. There are others too.

https://www.history.com/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters

Be sure to take them all into account. Meltdowns matter.

@metal-brain said
Where in that Scientific American article does it mention radiation from meltdowns? Meltdowns are not taken into account and that is stupid. Why do you let an article that omits meltdowns convince you that is proof?

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"The amount of radiation released during the Chernobyl meltdown was “100 times as much radiation as the Hiroshim ...[text shortened]... om/news/historys-worst-nuclear-disasters

Be sure to take them all into account. Meltdowns matter.

What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

@wildgrass said
What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

The amount of radiation released during the Chernobyl meltdown was “100 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs together.

Are you claiming Coal emitted more radiation than Chernobyl? I don't think so.

@metal-brain said
The amount of radiation released during the Chernobyl meltdown was “100 times as much radiation as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs together.

Are you claiming Coal emitted more radiation than Chernobyl? I don't think so.

If we're playing the "large human-caused radiation release" game, look no further than the Nevada Nuclear weapons test site. Spoiler alert: Way, way bigger than Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is a good example of why nuclear power is not that dangerous. The design was terrible and bound to fail and would never have been build in the US. It was one of the worst nuclear disasters in history. It killed first responders and plant workers.

Of the people known to have received a high radiation dose, thyroid cancer increased in kids. For other cancers, the increase was too small to measure due to other causes of cancer such as air pollution (e.g. coal) and tobacco use. A decade ago, the fallout area of Belarus was repopulated as radiation doses fell below commonly accepted dangerous levels. Mammalian populations that lived there throughout the high radiation periods (100 times or whatever you said) did fine.

I think we can handle one of those every couple decades, compared to the constant nuclear pollution generated by coal plants. New plants are safer and more efficient. Nuclear is cleaner and cheaper than the constant radiation emissions from coal.

Now answer my question.

@wildgrass said
If we're playing the "large human-caused radiation release" game, look no further than the Nevada Nuclear weapons test site. Spoiler alert: Way, way bigger than Chernobyl.

Chernobyl is a good example of why nuclear power is not that dangerous. The design was terrible and bound to fail and would never have been build in the US. It was one of the worst nuclear disasters in ...[text shortened]... r is cleaner and cheaper than the constant radiation emissions from coal.

Now answer my question.

What question? I didn't see a single question mark in what you wrote.

You are resorting to silly arguments. Coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock. By your logic I should get cancer from weeding my garden.

Go ahead and write your congressmen and tell them how radioactive coal is. I'm done with you and your false information. While you are at it tell 60 minutes they are missing out on informing the public of the real radioactive menace. Go get em!

@metal-brain said
What question? I didn't see a single question mark in what you wrote.

You are resorting to silly arguments. Coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock. By your logic I should get cancer from weeding my garden.

Go ahead and write your congressmen and tell them how radioactive coal is. I'm done with you and your false information. While you are at it tell 60 minutes they are missing out on informing the public of the real radioactive menace. Go get em!

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

I guess Scientific American is fake news now.

@sonhouse said
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

I guess Scientific American is fake news now.

Go ahead and write your congressmen and tell them how radioactive coal is. I'm done with you and your false information. While you are at it tell 60 minutes they are missing out on informing the public of the real radioactive menace. Go get em!

@metal-brain said
Go ahead and write your congressmen and tell them how radioactive coal is. I'm done with you and your false information. While you are at it tell 60 minutes they are missing out on informing the public of the real radioactive menace. Go get em!

Ok, so Scientific American is fake news. Gotcha.
Of course, since it says stuff that just doesn't fit into your narrow universe.

From that article:

"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."

@metal-brain said
What question? I didn't see a single question mark in what you wrote.

You are resorting to silly arguments. Coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock. By your logic I should get cancer from weeding my garden.

Go ahead and write your congressmen and tell them how radioactive coal is. I'm done with you and your false information. While you are at it tell 60 minutes they are missing out on informing the public of the real radioactive menace. Go get em!

This is pretty basic stuff. No need to write congressmen, people are generally aware of this issue of radioactive coal waste. I think the disconnect may be related to the scale of the problem relative to nuclear. With a little research and an open mind, you'll see that DeepThoughts comment is accurate.

The question (for the 4th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

@wildgrass said
This is pretty basic stuff. No need to write congressmen, people are generally aware of this issue of radioactive coal waste. I think the disconnect may be related to the scale of the problem relative to nuclear. With a little research and an open mind, you'll see that DeepThoughts comment is accurate.

The question (for the 4th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

Coal is no more radioactive than soil and rock. Do you honestly think coal is more radioactive than soil? Do you think I will get cancer from weeding my garden? I didn't think so.
Exaggerations are common when people demonize coal. Just because some coal is radioactive (like some soil) doesn't mean burning it is common.
Don't burn radioactive coal. So simple a caveman could understand it. For some reason you are convinced all coal is that way. Then you compare it to only Nuclear power plants that have never melted down.
Sure, compared to one that has never had a problem that is true. Do you seriously think that is a fair comparison? All the articles that demonize coal omit meltdowns.

Even you cannot possibly be stupid enough to fall for such crap. Chernobyl alone released more radiation than all coal burning combined. That is a fact.

@sonhouse said
Ok, so Scientific American is fake news. Gotcha.
Of course, since it says stuff that just doesn't fit into your narrow universe.

From that article:

"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash rad ...[text shortened]... l food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."

Only those that have never melted down.

Are you prepared to say coal plants release more radiation than Fukushima? I didn't think so.

@metal-brain said
Are you prepared to say coal plants release more radiation than Fukushima?

Some might do within their long service life; it just depends. But, even if that is so, that would be missing the point; whether they do or not doesn't change the fact that the total amount of radioactivity globally released from coal is many times that globally released from nuclear. Even taking account that more power is generated from coal globally by taking into account the radioactivity released per unit energy generated (a far more rational and relevant measure of it), coal STILL releases more radioactivity. Therefore, if, just as it appears to be, your argument is that nuclear is bad because it releases more radioactivity than coal, then your argument has a false premise because it is coal that releases more radioactivity than nuclear.

And then, of course, there is the issue that coal power, whether either via accidents alone (think of coal mining accidents; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_accident ) or via pollution alone (let alone via BOTH! ), has killed vastly more people (and will continue to do so) than nuclear has ever done, and that's with Fukushima and all the nuclear accidents combined.