Coal is more dangurous than Nuclear?

[Gilhelmi]

I found this chart. Right click and view image to zoom in

I know XKCD is done by a well known scientist. So I believe the data.

I thought about it and I had heard that Coal kills more people each year than Nuclear power (from mining accident to pollution).

Now also note that ALL of the Blue graph is only 3 green dots. I mean that the amounts of radiation received is from both the Nuclear and Coal power plant are very very small compared to the amounts you get flying from LA to New York.

Just reading the chart. I know radiation is still bad but I must wonder how overblown people get over small radiation exposure. I mean sure you might get cancer from the Coal power plant but it is just as likely (if not more likely) you get cancer from that plane flight you took, but on both just background exposure (meaning natural radiation that everyone from the start of time was exposed to) more dangerous. I know about cumulative effects and such but still people need to chill about radiation.

We need power and it must come from someplace. Kansas is facing power shortages because (Out Of State) Hippies are saying we can not build power plants. Not Coal, Not Nuclear. We are building wind power fields like crazy, but they only work when wind is blowing. Really they are only useful to ease the burden on existing power stations not to generate "real" that we need.

And do not get me started on the dam Serra club in Nebraska. Trying to stop a much needed oil pipeline that would help create jobs and provide Oil from North American oil Fields, so we are not force to ask the middle east to keep drilling.

That was a good rant. ty

FLT

 

[MrTwo]

So whats the question? (lol I just like it when people put questions in their OPs, makes me have to think less).
Erm, I really am surprised by some of the things on that chart. I mean, I really wouldn't have thought that eating a banana would give you more radiation than living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year *throws out all bananas and buys radiation suit*.
But does anyone know if nuclear power plants give out other radiation than this "ionizing radiation"? (Sorry if that sounds stupid, I really am stupid at science).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nuclear is scary. Coal has been around for centuries.

The one that is scary according to pop culture not being in fact the scariest isn't really news.

On the other hand, when a nuclear facility suffers a serious accident, it's much more of a big deal...though, always, always exagerated by the press (last time, the tsunami wasn't deemed newsworthy once the word nuclear hit the airwaves).

An accident at a coal plant isn't that exciting.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Nuclear is scary. Coal has been around for centuries.

The one that is scary according to pop culture not being in fact the scariest isn't really news.

On the other hand, when a nuclear facility suffers a serious accident, it's much more of a big deal...though, always, always exaggerated by the press (last time, the tsunami wasn't deemed newsworthy once the word nuclear hit the airwaves).

An accident at a coal plant isn't that exciting.

I also Strongly dislike for what passes for 'news' these days. Everyone claims they are fair, but really they are to the far left or far right. I would be fine with this if they were more honest and if they researched their stories for more then 5 F***ing minuets.

I do see your point, and I know that most people are smart. People are just stupider in groups. One person makes a bad assumption and suddenly the whole group thinks the idiot knows what he is talking about because "why would you say something if you did not know what you are talking about".

 

[the spud]

Yeah, ever since that one island and Chernobyl melted down, Nuclear Power has gotten a bad rap in the mainstream media, despite both incidents being caused by poor maintenence that could have easily been avoided from what I understand. For some reasons, the term "Nuclear Power" simply evokes negative connotations in the public's mind.

 

[robert01]

It all depends on the meaning of danger.
Someone living beside a coal plant would die because of it probably. Someone living beside a nuclear plant wouldn't.

If a coal plant catches on fire and gets destroyed the after effects are a lot less severe than a nuclear plant having a full meltdown.

The only reason nuclear plants get the bad deal is because of what happens when the melt down. They provide a cleaner more efficient source of power, but pose a greater risk in the event of an accident.

 

[Spencer Petersen]

I mean, I really wouldn't have thought that eating a banana would give you more radiation than living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year *throws out all bananas and buys radiation suit*.

Its because bananas contain very small amounts of the Potassium-40 isotope, which is radioactive. And considering radiation exposure to distance is a squared relationship, a digesting banana 1 foot from your center of mass is just as radioactive as a nuclear source 70 billion times more powerful, but 50 miles away.

 

[Unesh52]

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

Wow, unrelated pony meme in the very first response. And it's not even clever. And my Pinkamina is better than your Pinkamina.

OT: I've been saying this for a long time now. People overact to nuclear power on a startling scale. It's not a bomb, it's not going to blow up and kill millions, Chernobyl won't happen again and wasn't that bad in the first place (the reaction to it - evacuations and sensationalizing - had worse effects than the disaster ever could have), and radiation is not going to turn your babies into weird fish creatures. That being said, there are serious issues with nuclear power that do need to be addressed, specifically, what are we going to do with the waste? Thankfully, smart folks in clean white lab coats are working on ways to reduce or even completely eliminate it. Unfortunately they can't get any funding for it because people are terrified of the concept of nuclear anything.

Green energy sources don't pollute, but they are very inefficient. Thankfully, other smart people in white lab coats are working on that too. The simple fact of the matter is that we're going to need both if we're going to deal with our energy needs now, and that with a little foresight and research, we can do it without causing any serious damage to the environment or anyone's economy. But people getting up in arms about nuclear power because of how it's portrayed in The Simpsons and getting cynical about green alternatives just because they like to feel smart by supporting nuclear isn't getting us anywhere.

 

[MrTwo]

I mean, I really wouldn't have thought that eating a banana would give you more radiation than living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant for a year *throws out all bananas and buys radiation suit*.

Its because bananas contain very small amounts of the Potassium-40 isotope, which is radioactive. And considering radiation exposure to distance is a squared relationship, a digesting banana 1 foot from your center of mass is just as radioactive as a nuclear source 70 billion times more powerful, but 50 miles away.

I'll take your word for it. Hey, I kind of understood what you were talking about. That's an achievement, seeing as I understand science not.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Heck the "Lowest one year dose clearly linked to cancer" is still twice as much as a radiation worker is allowed to be exposed to in a year. and no one gets that much exposure other then emergency workers. I am starting too wonder If I really need a fallout shelter in a Nuclear war. I will still build one but more for storage (and tornado shelter) then radiation.

 

[Unesh52]

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.

Really guy? You can't make the simple inference that they mean to say "nuclear power source?" But surely, they're just idiots or trolls who don't know what they're talking about. Why don't you tell us why nuclear energy is so scary then?

It all depends on the meaning of danger.
Someone living beside a coal plant would die because of it probably. Someone living beside a nuclear plant wouldn't.

If a coal plant catches on fire and gets destroyed the after effects are a lot less severe than a nuclear plant having a full meltdown.

The only reason nuclear plants get the bad deal is because of what happens when the melt down. They provide a cleaner more efficient source of power, but pose a greater risk in the event of an accident.

This is a common misconception. The sensational connotation of "melt down" leads people to think of these things as catastrophic events, but they're actually quite mundane. Not to say they're not dangerous, but let's just say it wouldn't play well in an action movie. Even the worst nuclear disaster in history only killed about 100 people, almost all from the clean up crew that directly handled the radioactive core material. The claims of rampant mutations throughout the Ukraine in the wake of Chernobyl are ludicrous. The only credible link to any medical conditions was a slight increase in thyroid cancer incidence young boys from the area. And that's even treatable if it's caught early.

 

[robert01]

It all depends on the meaning of danger.
Someone living beside a coal plant would die because of it probably. Someone living beside a nuclear plant wouldn't.

If a coal plant catches on fire and gets destroyed the after effects are a lot less severe than a nuclear plant having a full meltdown.

The only reason nuclear plants get the bad deal is because of what happens when the melt down. They provide a cleaner more efficient source of power, but pose a greater risk in the event of an accident.

This is a common misconception. The sensational connotation of "melt down" leads people to think of these things as catastrophic events, but they're actually quite mundane. Not to say they're not dangerous, but let's just say it wouldn't play well in an action movie. Even the worst nuclear disaster in history only killed about 100 people, almost all from the clean up crew that directly handled the radioactive core material. The claims of rampant mutations throughout the Ukraine in the wake of Chernobyl are ludicrous. The only credible link to any medical conditions was a slight increase in thyroid cancer incidence young boys from the area. And that's even treatable if it's caught early.

I was referring more to the environmental impact and the long lasting effects that the radiation has on the earth, not human life. A coal power plant exploding and a nuclear power plant meltdown would probably have a very similar death count, although the ways the people die would be extremely different.

 

[Gilhelmi]

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

Wow, unrelated pony meme in the very first response. And it's not even clever. And my Pinkamina is better than your Pinkamina.

OT: I've been saying this for a long time now. People overact to nuclear power on a startling scale. It's not a bomb, it's not going to blow up and kill millions, Chernobyl won't happen again and wasn't that bad in the first place (the reaction to it - evacuations and sensationalizing - had worse effects than the disaster ever could have), and radiation is not going to turn your babies into weird fish creatures. That being said, there are serious issues with nuclear power that do need to be addressed, specifically, what are we going to do with the waste? Thankfully, smart folks in clean white lab coats are working on ways to reduce or even completely eliminate it. Unfortunately they can't get any funding for it because people are terrified of the concept of nuclear anything.

Green energy sources don't pollute, but they are very inefficient. Thankfully, other smart people in white lab coats are working on that too. The simple fact of the matter is that we're going to need both if we're going to deal with our energy needs now, and that with a little foresight and research, we can do it without causing any serious damage to the environment or anyone's economy. But people getting up in arms about nuclear power because of how it's portrayed in The Simpsons and getting cynical about green alternatives just because they like to feel smart by supporting nuclear isn't getting us anywhere.

I agree, I have even started pricing small Wind Turbines to power my farm and house in town. I know it will not cover my power need 10 days out of 30 but it would help with the power bills. The darn things cost 25k to buy (another couple thousand to install) and I am thinking that I will need permits and other government BS redtape to put it in. I like the wind turbines, they are part of the solution, but I get annoyed by hippies, with a BA in Arts (no science or real world skills or experience) who claim crazy things that make conspiracy theorist sound sane.

 

[OldGus]

We really do have pop culture to thank for it.
As one stickler for grammar pointed out, "nuclear" is in fact an adjective. To appease the possible high school English teacher, I shall now refer to the problem as Nuclear Power (NP).

Spoiler

The common misconception is that A: the radiation in question for NP is the most dangerous radiation ever. It is the most penetrative, however, that's not necessarily the same as dangerous. There is also B: the confusion between a nuclear plant and a nuclear bomb, mainly thanks to the overly simplified explanation that a nuclear plant works on the same principle as a nuclear bomb, just in a slower and more controlled manner. This is even less true than saying an internal combustion engine (like in your car) works on the same principle as a hand grenade. In the case of engine/grenade, both work via explosions with the diversion being one explosion is a slow pressure wave designed to push against its container, and the other is a sharp, piercing blast designed to turn its container into many many tiny projectiles, combined with a difference between containers, the engine being designed to give and let the gasses produced expand, and the other holding it in until critical failure. By comparison, a nuclear bomb works by deliberately causing an almost instantaneous cascade-fission reaction that uses all the material in less than a second, producing many lower-density radioactive particles. On the other hand, a nuclear power plant uses controlled exposure of fuel rods to each other to produce small amounts of fission, then harnessing the heat from it to superheat water and drive a steam turbine. Yes, both use fission, but a better comparison would be heating yourself with a hand grenade, or with a camp fire. Another thing to remember... the radioactive elements themselves in a reactor are in an enclosed system, unlike an engine which must expel its exhaust.

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 (EDIT: In the case of containment breach,)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 alpha particle emitting 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 or inhaled isotope 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, which does not emit alpha particles), and some even suggest small amounts of radiation over an extended period can be beneficial.

OT. NP is not dangerous when controlled, but can be extremely dangerous when all fail-safes are removed or damaged, and the reactor goes critical. Coal energy systems are a little dangerous all the time they are being used, a little like smoking. Not that surprised. As far as the problems in Kansas... people live there? As far as the problems with energy in general: Yes, we have systems in place that are not perfect. The real problem is, until they can be replaced with a safer, more reliable, and more beneficial for the whole planet, we do have to make due. And I'm sorry, environmental activists. Nuclear power plants are significantly cleaner and more safe than the current viable alternatives. You want to get rid of it still? Make a better alternative.

Foregoing catastrophic human stupidity, catastrophic natural disasters than already level huge parts of a major world economic power (ahem... lets be clear here. Could someone get an actual check of the people killed by that little tiny 8.9 earthquake and 100 ft tsunami the media promptly ignored versus the death toll of the "catastrophic failure" at Fukushima? Thank you.), and catastrophic budget cuts to the plant (Chernobyl), NP is NP.

 

[Unesh52]

I was referring more to the environmental impact and the long lasting effects that the radiation has on the earth, not human life. A coal power plant exploding and a nuclear power plant meltdown would probably have a very similar death count, although the ways the people die would be extremely different.

You're right about the last part. Death by radiation poisoning sucks. Pretty bad. So that may count for something.

The first point, though, is also a misconception. One of the most interesting things I learned when I looked into the matter for a short English paper last year was that the environment around Chernobyl improved in the wake of the disaster. It seems paradoxical, but it's because thousands of people evacuated when it happened (and then like twice as many evacuated after any real danger had already passed because they were hearing scary stories about radiation). Flora and fauna are flourishing in the absence of human interference -- the important thing to take away from this fact being that humans just being humans is worse for the environment than the worst nuclear power disaster in history.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

snip

There is a lot more to the dangers of both than radiation alone. Coal is, by any objective measure, a lot more dangerous. Nuclear is more spectacularly dangerous though, so it gets a bad rap.

Also, solar power is, given current trends, much more likely to be the best energy source for the near future than wind, coal, or nuclear.

 

[Rabid Toilet]

I was referring more to the environmental impact and the long lasting effects that the radiation has on the earth, not human life. A coal power plant exploding and a nuclear power plant meltdown would probably have a very similar death count, although the ways the people die would be extremely different.

You're right about the last part. Death by radiation poisoning sucks. Pretty bad. So that may count for something.

The first point, though, is also a misconception. One of the most interesting things I learned when I looked into the matter for a short English paper last year was that the environment around Chernobyl improved in the wake of the disaster. It seems paradoxical, but it's because thousands of people evacuated when it happened (and then like twice as many evacuated after any real danger had already passed because they were hearing scary stories about radiation). Flora and fauna are flourishing in the absence of human interference -- the important thing to take away from this fact being that humans just being humans is worse for the environment than the worst nuclear power disaster in history.

Indeed. I've done some research on Chernobyl myself, and despite the popular belief that the area around it is a radiated wasteland to this very day, the background radiation levels were back below safe levels by the next growing season.

The thing about radiation is that it only sticks around if it the thing producing it does. Once they remove all of the radioactive waste from the site of a meltdown, it doesn't take all that long for the radiation to bleed away. When you hear about radiation taking millions of years to fade, they're talking about the waste itself, which is safely producing radiation underground in a desert somewhere.