this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2166 points (94.2% liked)

World News

38978 readers
3402 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago (21 children)

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

The radiation would only affect a small area of the planet not the whole world, and technically radiation doesn't even cause climate damage. Chernobyl has plenty of trees and plenty of wildlife, it's just unsuitable for human habitation.

[–] [email protected] 80 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)

The daft thing is that even if another Chernobyl happened (unlikely given superior technology and safety standards) it wouldn’t be anywhere near as damaging as climate change.

Here's my favorite way to put it: because of trace radioactive elements found in coal ore, coal-fired power plants produce more radioactivity in normal operation than nuclear power plants have in their entire history, including meltdowns. And with coal, it just gets released straight into the environment without any attempt to contain it!

And that's just radioactivity, not all the other emissions of coal plants.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

This is a fun fact but I don't think it matters, no one is getting radiation sickness from coal smoke. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying coal smoke is healthy, it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you just contradicted yourself in that same sentence

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right coal deaths are just confined to mines, respiratory illnesses and excess cancers from chronic low dose exposure.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

it's fucking awful and causes way more deaths than nuclear power plants.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that saying the radiation concerns specifically of coal output isn't a concern with regards to health.

So chronic low level exposure to radiation is fine?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm not saying it's fine, I'm saying it feels like an order of magnitude less of a concern compared to all of the other bad things that can happen from coal smoke.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)