Coal is more dangurous than Nuclear?

[Some_weirdGuy]

Also, people see those billowing clouds coming from the huge cooling towers of a nuclear plant and think its pollution, but its actually nice, environmentally friendly steam, from the water that sits at the bottom of those things.

poor misunderstood nuclear power.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As another note, when a reactor melts down, its not the same as a nuclear bomb. It doesn't catastrophically cascade and explode (Chernobyl was a steam explosion, Fukushima was from hydrogen gas.) It degrades and releases radioactive isotopes, much like a dirty bomb, minus the explosive. It is dangerous, but not completely-level-everything-in-X-miles dangerous. Considering the amount of fail-safes that have to simultaneously fail, or the level of sabotage that would have to be done to even cause a meltdown, nuclear power plants are safer than warp cores in Star Trek.

Now for A. The radiation most often used in a fission reaction is gamma radiation, the most penetrative, which is the reason for massive amounts of concrete and/or lead. But, the most dangerous by far is ingestion of either alpha particles or (as previously pointed out), radioactive isotopes. Gamma produced by NP is avoidable (the farther the better), preventable (the thicker and denser the shielding, the better), and temporary (once the source is gone, no further exposure.) Any ingested isotope or alpha particle stays and continues to cause damage, and considering it is continuing to release radiation, the only way to prevent getting worse is somehow to remove it from the body. Now, before people get completely scared, many scientific studies show that you naturally have some damn-near harmless isotopes in you already (Carbon 14 for example,), and some even suggest small amounts of radiation over an extended period can be beneficial.

A meltdown doesn't necessarily mean a release of radiation, you are supposed to have somewhere underneath for it all to drain away into. You wrecked your very expensive reactor, though.

Oh, and surely particles aren'tingested, and aren't persistent, that applies to the things producing them...also not good if you get them on your skin, but you can brush or wash them off.

 

[Sewer Rat]

Doesn't really surprise me, Nuclear power has always struck me as being a relatively safe source of power, but when the shit hits the fan.... Oh boy does it hit it. So the question really is, do you want something that is consistently very deadly, or something that could potentially be absolutely catastrophic?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Its only safe as long as nothing goes wrong. Notice how more dangerous nuclear is once shit starts melting down.

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power (only 39 more years till Fusion power according to Sim City, w00t) But you can't compare coal vs nuclear without including the "OH NO!" risks.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Not sure if thread is full of trolls or a 12 years old. Not sure what is worse for that matter. What I am sure of, is that nuclear is an adjective, and saying stuff like "coal is more dangurous than nuclear" does not give much credibility for your opinion.

Lol!
Beleive me, it is.
For instance, did you know that when the 3 mile island nuclear facility melted down, it was the second largest meltdown to of ever happened.
And nobody died!

More people die from coal power due to gas build-ups, radiation poisoning (yeah, mire than nuclear), cave-ins and accidents.
Sit down son and learn some science.

 

[bloopblerp]

More people died in the huge explosion that happened almost immediately after the earthquake at one of japans petrochemical refineries than the melt down at fukushima. Not to mention the toxic fumes that were spewed out from the resulting fires were actually dangerous opposed to the pitiful amount of radiation emitted by the melt down

 

[similar.squirrel]

Nuclear meltdowns are a lot more conspicuous than the atmosphere being insidiously polluted. It's easier to ignore something that's occurring all the time, and even more so when you have scaremongers with personal interests on your side.

Chernobyl is doing fine, by the way. It's got a vibrant ecosystem. Natural selection has taken care of that. Granted, it probably took a few misshapen bison which have shorter generations to begin with, but still.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

Not to mention that nuclear power is about 20% cooler than coal

What you did there, I saw it.

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

I say build shitloads of nuclear, and then pour money into researching how to re-use nuclear waste.

 

[Viral_Lola]

Nothing is really without risk. Wind powered energy sounds like a good idea to people that have not seen the damage that a high powered turbine can do. Coal mining is dangerous work and black lung sucks. Radiation sickness is painful but only the Chernobyl meltdown were lives lost. I don?t think 3 Mile Island had any deaths. Chernobyl has healed itself nicely but Central, PN... That is another story.

 

[Exocet]

You have to give it time,nuclear power is still very,very new.Hell,there are people still alive today,that were there during the first pratical applications of the knowledge.

Also,it doesn't help that a lot of people are completely retarded and/or oblivious to any form of logic.
Here in France,we get over 70% of our electricity via nuclear power plants.There has never been any actual incident,yet when fissible material is being transported to or from a power plant,people will know about it afterwards and protest.They will demand to shut down all nuclear sites immediately.Not ask to find a safer solution(even though it's already safe),but demand we shut them down on the stop.It makes no difference to these people if we live without electricity for months.
Just for that,I ignore anyone who makes ludicrous remarks/demands about nuclear power in my country.This could be limited to some hippies,old people that cling to the good old days or scared misinformed people,but when it happens to fucking presidential candidates who claims we can only sustain nuclear power for 15,maybe 20 more years before we run out of uranium,and that it's dangerous as hell,it makes my blood boil.
It shows us just how much we are manipulated by media.

 

[OldGus]

A meltdown doesn't necessarily mean a release of radiation, you are supposed to have somewhere underneath for it all to drain away into. You wrecked your very expensive reactor, though.

Oh, and surely particles aren't ingested, and aren't persistent, that applies to the things producing them...also not good if you get them on your skin, but you can brush or wash them off.

Good points. A meltdown is not synonymous with a containment breach. And while alpha particles can be inhaled by themselves, they are not persistent, and are not dangerous without a constantly emitting source. I will revise my statement to saying alpha particle emitting isotopes.

More people died in the huge explosion that happened almost immediately after the earthquake at one of japans petrochemical refineries than the melt down at fukushima. Not to mention the toxic fumes that were spewed out from the resulting fires were actually dangerous opposed to the pitiful amount of radiation emitted by the melt down

Actually, to you and thaluikhain. I did post a question earlier asking if someone could come up with the death count as a result of the tsunami/earthquake vs. Fukushima. Failing that, the number of people rendered homeless/relocated because of either is good too. I haven't had much luck.

Here, the most recent story was about people being allowed back into the recently abolished 20-30km exclusion zone. There was another story about how much of the region not affected by radiation has nowhere near recovered, but it didn't go into specifics. I realize this comparison is not entirely on topic (except for relevancy on how media alters our perceptions), but I still consider it an important note.

Here in France,we get over 70% of our electricity via nuclear power plants.There has never been any actual incident,yet when fissible material is being transported to or from a power plant,people will know about it afterwards and protest.They will demand to shut down all nuclear sites immediately.Not ask to find a safer solution(even though it's already safe),but demand we shut them down on the spot.It makes no difference to these people if we live without electricity for months.

Tell me about it. Since the accident at Fukushima, you wouldn't believe how many of my friends and students I've heard call for the plants to all be shut down. Considering Tokyo, the main social, political, and economic center here, is still rationing electricity after 8 months, I don't know how it could be more retarded, or motivated by fear more than danger.

 

[SpAc3man]

Personally I hope for a time where we can be sustained with nothing but renewable power. Not having to rely on a fuel to source power should be the ultimate goal. Solar power should be used anywhere possible. I have always liked geothermal power stations and wind when it has a minimal impact on the local environment.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

Its only safe as long as nothing goes wrong. Notice how more dangerous nuclear is once shit starts melting down.

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power (only 39 more years till Fusion power according to Sim City, w00t) But you can't compare coal vs nuclear without including the "OH NO!" risks.

Actually, it would take several Chernobyl-scale disasters every year to match the deaths caused annually by particulate air pollution.

I didn't see that part, but I can believe it. Is that even with the new "clean air"
standards?

 

[TheComfyChair]

Yes, nuclear is much safer than coal in nearly all ways.

Also, i do find the whole fukishima media frenzy entertaining in a way. They suddenly started blaming nuclear power being unsafe, refraining from mentioning that the plant survived a tsunami relatively intact, when it decimated the surrounding town.

Also, due to the design, such an issue where cooling would be an issue would never happen in UK/EU reactors in any situation that could affect them. No, i do not expect the UK to be hit by a Japan style tsunami any time soon.

That's all based on nuclear fission anyway! God knows what the hippies are going to cry about when nuclear fusion becomes viable. No meltdown possibilities, very little in the way of potentially radioactive 'waste' (well, the 'waste will mainly be elements like lithium, which is useful) and ridiculously low levels of radiation. Oh, and it produces monstrous amounts of power. At the moment the massive bottleneck with the US style inertial confinement reactors are simply the laser efficiency (which is ~0.0001), if we can get lasers to be a mere 4 times more efficient nuclear fusion will be insanely powerful.

Moving on to more sci-fi territory:

Give us a few decades to further improve lasers and we may even be able to start shrinking the reactors, maybe even to the point of using them for vehicle use when the lasers are an order of magnitude or two more efficient than currently!

 

[TheComfyChair]

Its only safe as long as nothing goes wrong. Notice how more dangerous nuclear is once shit starts melting down.

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power (only 39 more years till Fusion power according to Sim City, w00t) But you can't compare coal vs nuclear without including the "OH NO!" risks.

Actually, it would take several Chernobyl-scale disasters every year to match the deaths caused annually by particulate air pollution.

I didn't see that part, but I can believe it. Is that even with the new "clean air"
standards?

Would china, for example, even have those standards?

To catch up, all new nuclear plants needs to not only melt down, but melt down while hosting a premier league football game inside of them, complete with the average crowds.

Personally I hope for a time where we can be sustained with nothing but renewable power. Not having to rely on a fuel to source power should be the ultimate goal. Solar power should be used anywhere possible. I have always liked geothermal power stations and wind when it has a minimal impact on the local environment.

Personally i don't think we could ever rely solely on 'renewable' energy in the traditional form - they take up too much space and will always take up lots of space no matter the efficiency (especially solar & wind). Technically you could class nuclear fusion reactors as 'renewable' on the time scales we use though. Hydrogen isn't running out any time soon. When it does, we have bigger things to worry about - like where have all the stars gone?

Also the issue with nearly all renewables is that there are places in the world where either one or the other, or even both, simply don't work well enough. Take the UK, how could that rely on solar? it's the same latitude as alaska!

 

[Mau95]

Arent there less nuclear power plants than coal plants? Also arent nuclear power plants fuelled by coal a lot of the time?

 

[Monsterfurby]

Nuclear power, when done right (as it is in most of the western world, excluding the US and Japan due to rampant deregulation) is much safer, cleaner and more efficient than fossil fuels.

However, due to the limited amount of nuclear fuels we have as well as the necessary investment to properly recycle burnt-out fuel elements, it can only serve as a bridge as we work on feasible renewable sources of power.

Also, global warming is a much greater threat than radiation due to nuclear power plants. Most industrial nations have the latter pretty well under control, the former - not so much.

 

[Mau95]

Its only safe as long as nothing goes wrong. Notice how more dangerous nuclear is once shit starts melting down.

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear power (only 39 more years till Fusion power according to Sim City, w00t) But you can't compare coal vs nuclear without including the "OH NO!" risks.

Actually, it would take several Chernobyl-scale disasters every year to match the deaths caused annually by particulate air pollution.

I didn't see that part, but I can believe it. Is that even with the new "clean air"
standards?

Would china, for example, even have those standards?

To catch up, all new nuclear plants needs to not only melt down, but melt down while hosting a premier league football game inside of them, complete with the average crowds.

Personally I hope for a time where we can be sustained with nothing but renewable power. Not having to rely on a fuel to source power should be the ultimate goal. Solar power should be used anywhere possible. I have always liked geothermal power stations and wind when it has a minimal impact on the local environment.

Personally i don't think we could ever rely solely on 'renewable' energy in the traditional form - they take up too much space and will always take up lots of space no matter the efficiency (especially solar & wind). Technically you could class nuclear fusion reactors as 'renewable' on the time scales we use though. Hydrogen isn't running out any time soon. When it does, we have bigger things to worry about - like where have all the stars gone?

Also the issue with nearly all renewables is that there are places in the world where either one or the other, or even both, simply don't work well enough. Take the UK, how could that rely on solar? it's the same latitude as alaska!

Lots of wind?

 

[Mau95]

Not to mention that nuclear power is about 20% cooler than coal

More chances to cause mutations too. X-Men, here I come!