Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
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 ...[text shortened]... do so) than nuclear has ever done, and that's with Fukushima and all the nuclear accidents combined.

"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."

That is not a fact. Chernobyl released more radiation into the environment than all coal burning in the entire world. That is a fact.

@metal-brain said
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 ...[text shortened]... r such crap. Chernobyl alone released more radiation than all coal burning combined. That is a fact.

The question (for the 5th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

@metal-brain saidChernobyl released more radiation into the environment than all coal burning in the entire world.

Simply false.
It released radioactivity many times more concentrated in one place than from coal, which was very bad, but the total amount (NOT to be confused with concentration) released was still less than from coal globally.
Because it is the concentration that counts FAR more than the total amount released, probably more people have died from radioactivity from nuclear than specifically from radioactivity from coal DESPITE the latter being a larger amount of radioactivity; a point you repeatedly don't get because you apparently moronically think it is just all about the total amount. But that doesn't change the fact that, globally, many more people (much more than 100 times more) have died of coal-derived air pollution alone than radioactive release specifically from nuclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
"...
Average annual human exposure to ionizing radiation in millisieverts (mSv) per year

Radiation source | world
Inhalation of air | 1.26
...
Atmospheric nuclear testing | 0.005
Chernobyl accident | 0.002
Nuclear fuel cycle | 0.0002
..."

Get an education.

@wildgrass said
The question (for the 5th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

Chernobyl released more radiation into the environment than all coal burning in the entire world. That is a fact. You were duped.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants

@humy said
Simply false.
It released radioactivity many times more concentrated in one place than from coal, which was very bad, but the total amount (NOT to be confused with concentration) released was still less than from coal globally.
Because it is the concentration that counts FAR more than the total amount released, probably more people have died from radioactivity fr ...[text shortened]... ting | 0.005
Chernobyl accident | 0.002
Nuclear fuel cycle | 0.0002
..."

Get an education.

Wikipedia? LOL!

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/27/move-over-chernobyl-fukushima-is-now-officially-the-worst-nuclear-power-disaster-in-history/

@metal-brain said
Chernobyl released more radiation into the environment than all coal burning in the entire world. That is a fact. You were duped.

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants

The question (for the 6th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

p.s. Your "source material" here is just a link to another internet forum and I don't think it says what you think it says (but I don't really know what you think it says). I imagine some other internet forum is referencing you to demonstrate the validity of their delusions about coal. Confirmation bias doesn't seem intellectualy honest to me.

@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.

Taken yet again out of context. Releasing 100 X Nagasaki and Hiroshima used a total of maybe 20 pounds of nuclear material. The Japanese power plant used TONS of the stuff. Of COURSE there would be more radiation released. And there was tons, many tons of material radioactive just because of its use in a nuke plant. Just another strawman.

@wildgrass said
The question (for the 6th time): What do you think happens to the uranium in coal when it is burned?

p.s. Your "source material" here is just a link to another internet forum and I don't think it says what you think it says (but I don't really know what you think it says). I imagine some other internet forum is referencing you to demonstrate the validity of their delusions about coal. Confirmation bias doesn't seem intellectualy honest to me.

We all know what happens to it when it burns. It goes into the atmosphere and so does radiation from meltdowns. Meltdowns release more radiation into the atmosphere than all coal burning in the entire world. That is a fact.
Here is a peer reviewed article that shows meltdowns are not included in the figures. That is why you are wrong and are too stubborn to admit it.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045

@sonhouse said
Taken yet again out of context. Releasing 100 X Nagasaki and Hiroshima used a total of maybe 20 pounds of nuclear material. The Japanese power plant used TONS of the stuff. Of COURSE there would be more radiation released. And there was tons, many tons of material radioactive just because of its use in a nuke plant. Just another strawman.

Not taken out of context at all. You are making up crap again.

The article is accurate. Don't pretend it isn't while admitting there was more radiation released just as I said. Do you even know what a strawman is? You are using the term incorrectly. Look it up.
Meltdowns release more radiation in the atmosphere than all coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045

@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.

Answer my question. You have been avoiding my questions.

Are you claiming Coal emitted more radiation than Chernobyl?

@metal-brain said
We all know what happens to it when it burns. It goes into the atmosphere and so does radiation from meltdowns. Meltdowns release more radiation into the atmosphere than all coal burning in the entire world. That is a fact.
Here is a peer reviewed article that shows meltdowns are not included in the figures. That is why you are wrong and are too stubborn to admit it.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045

Your reference does not say that. Your reference is from 1978 (pre-Chernobyl). That is the reference used by the Scientific American article to say that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

Thank you for finally saying that coal energy releases radiation into our environment. For about 10 pages now, you have insisted that radioactivity is a problem specific to the nuclear power industry. Importantly, you have avoided the distinction between coal power radioactivity emissions on a constant, worldwide basis and nuclear meltdowns which are local disasters that occur infrequently. Which radiation source would you expect to expose more individuals?

@wildgrass said
Your reference does not say that. Your reference is from 1978 (pre-Chernobyl). That is the reference used by the Scientific American article to say that coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

Thank you for finally saying that coal energy releases radiation into our environment. For about 10 pages now, you have insisted that radioactivity is a problem specific t ...[text shortened]... sasters that occur infrequently. Which radiation source would you expect to expose more individuals?

I stand by my statement. Meltdowns release more radioactivity into the environment than all the coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact.
Your sources omit meltdowns to mislead.

@metal-brain said
I stand by my statement. Meltdowns release more radioactivity into the environment than all the coal burned in the entire world. That is a fact.
Your sources omit meltdowns to mislead.

You're not entitled to your own facts. Are you predicting hypothetical meltdowns to reach your calculation? Hard to tell.

Chernobyl is a tourist attraction now. It was a local disaster with zero evidence of global effects on human populations. At least 3X more radiation was released via weapons testing in the US. Your concern over nuclear energy is misleading and counter-productive. Future meltdowns are pure speculation.

In my opinion, the demonization of nuclear energy is completely unjustified. Overall, nuclear is cleaner and cheaper than coal. Natural gas is only slightly less polluting than coal. Without nuclear energy, it will take a lot longer to reach clean energy goals (essentially we are offsetting all our gains in renewables by prematurely decommissioning nuclear). We should stop decommissioning working nuclear plants and build more state-of-the-art facilities that can recycle waste and do so with infinitesimally low risk of meltdown.

@wildgrass said
You're not entitled to your own facts. Are you predicting hypothetical meltdowns to reach your calculation? Hard to tell.

Chernobyl is a tourist attraction now. It was a local disaster with zero evidence of global effects on human populations. At least 3X more radiation was released via weapons testing in the US. Your concern over nuclear energy is misleading and counter ...[text shortened]... te-of-the-art facilities that can recycle waste and do so with infinitesimally low risk of meltdown.

Hypothetical? Is Fukushima hypothetical?

When I brought up Chernobyl you dismissed that as Russian incompetence and that we here in the US build safer nuclear power plants. Your hypothetical is that it cannot happen here even though Three mile Island happened and you think those problems were fixed and it is all hunky dory from here on out.

Who is making predictions now? You think meltdowns in the past should not be an indicator of what is likely to happen in the future. So your position is based on the assumption meltdowns will not happen anymore.

Is that optimism justified? I doubt it.

Now that it is clear that meltdowns release more radiation in the atmosphere than all the coal burned in the entire world you have moved the goal post to discount any future meltdowns even though the past is the best indicator of the future.

Give it up. You have lost this one big time.

@metal-brain said
Hypothetical? Is Fukushima hypothetical?

When I brought up Chernobyl you dismissed that as Russian incompetence and that we here in the US build safer nuclear power plants. Your hypothetical is that it cannot happen here even though Three mile Island happened and you think those problems were fixed and it is all hunky dory from here on out.

Who is making predictions ...[text shortened]... though the past is the best indicator of the future.

Give it up. You have lost this one big time.

YOU are the one comparing the WW2 atomic bombing as much less radioactivity than Fukushima. Without also saying there was a thousand times as much actual nuclear material in those reactors. You mislead people deliberately since you have to have know that fact. Besides that, when the meltdown occurred there was left over radioactive metals having been bombarded with the actual nuke materials so that made the situation even worse.
But you made the argument an emotional one, comparing Fukushima to Nagasaki and Hiroshima.