Bags of debris from Fukushima disaster swept away in typhoon

Re:Bags of debris from Fukushima disaster swept away in typhoon by PhasmaFelis on Monday October 14, 2019 @09:55AM (#21248282)

> 3. Here's the important one: you need to look at failure modes. Coal plants pollute but they also do it very slowly and no coal plant has ever blown up to the point where it's made 1000 square miles of land uninhabitable for decades (to compare, the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is 1000 square miles).

I'm afraid I can't find the article right now, so I don't have the exact statistics, but I have read that a large coal plant operating normally for 20 years releases more radioactive particles into the atmosphere than Chernobyl did. (There's a lot of trace radioactives in coal.) Nuclear plants that melted down catastrophically every 20 years, like clockwork, might still be safer than coal plants operating perfectly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bags of debris from Fukushima disaster swept away in typhoon by Xylakant on Monday October 14, 2019 @10:17AM (#21248504)

What’s a radioactive particle? How does does that article account for the difference between plutonium, uranium, cesium, iodine and their substantial differences when it comes to their effect on the (human/animal) population. I’ll call any comparison on pure particle count bullshit.

There’s no question that coal is a stupid way of generating electricity, but that doesn’t make the dangers of nuclear go away.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bags of debris from Fukushima disaster swept away in typhoon by Aeolun on Monday October 14, 2019 @11:11AM (#21249107)

Just because they both have dangers doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use the safest one!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bags of debris from Fukushima disaster swept away in typhoon by Xylakant on Monday October 14, 2019 @04:28PM (#21252510)

There’s more than two options, after all.

[ Parent | on HN ]