Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power
by dismayedjim on Sunday February 21, 2021 @06:50PM
(#26218584)
You can't wipe a continent out with the worst case coal plant failure. A reactor going critical and exploding, however "impossible" would do just that. Look at the Saudi plant going up. It is jokingly referred to as "a car with no seatbelts".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power
by ashtonkem on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:11PM
(#26219378)
You’d be surprised how many people die every year from coal power exhaust.
People naturally overweight low frequency high impact events like a nuclear meltdown but drastically undervalue high frequency low impact events. Someone dying early because they lived too close to a coal plant doesn’t make the news, but in terms of actual human impact it trounces nuclear’s impact by multiple orders of magnitude.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power
by ben-schaaf on Sunday February 21, 2021 @09:24PM
(#26220058)
Coal power plants also carry a lot more radiation into their surrounding environment than nuclear power plants: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
Yes, the real irony - coal plants release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants ever have - including Chernobyl.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power
by ashtonkem on Monday February 22, 2021 @03:15PM
(#26229965)
A great example of a low impact, high frequency event being underweighted.
You can't even wipe out a continent with a fusion bomb, how would a nuclear power plant even have enough material to be that damaging? Yeah, it might spread a bit of radiation if the entertainments cracked open like an egg, but that would be very obvious if terrorists, say, were trying that.
We are slowly wiping out the whole planet with coal now.
Re:Activists who embrace nuclear power
by lambda_obrien on Sunday February 21, 2021 @08:02PM
(#26219281)
Research what a critical fission reaction is, then come back and figure out why your sentence doesn't make sense.