Coal plants are more radioactive than nuke plants

[Loren Pechtel]

The claims a home should care about is: what is the plant as a unit exposing it's external environment to? Nothing else pertaining to radioactivity matters. The waste at a coal plant is spewed into the external environment. The waste at a nuclear plant is encased in layers of lead, glass, and concrete. There is no rational way you can claim that a coal plant exposes the surrounding environment to more radioactive isotope than a nuke.

Exactly. Think of the powerplant as a black box. What threats does it expose?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except the claims were:

- the waste at coal plants was more radioactive than nuclear plants
- coal plants are more radioactive than nuclear plants

The very fine tuned scope of the actual data isn't about either.

Yes. And in any sensible way, that is true. But if you want to be a jerk, then please, go on.

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap? This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

 

[Juma]

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap?

It is because they arent...

This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

Eh? Did you never read the OP?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap? This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

Except you never proved this. Sure, the inside of the plant is a lot hotter--but this is about what ends up in the environment. The people near the coal plant get more radioactivity than the people near the nuke plant.

Sure, they didn't go measuring every plant around--there's no reason to. The radioactivity from the coal plant is related to what goes up the stack--and we do monitor that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap? This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

Except you never proved this. Sure, the inside of the plant is a lot hotter...

There is your proof.

 

[Jarhyn]

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap? This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

Except you never proved this. Sure, the inside of the plant is a lot hotter...

There is your proof.

No, it really doesn't. READ the OP title.

(Coal plants) are more radioactive than (nuke plants). It did NOT read "coal plants produce more radiation inside them than nuke plants", nor did it say "coal plants have more radiation inside them than nuke plants". It said the plant itself was more radioactive. Lauren already said, the intent of the title and the concepts it delivers was of "black box" plants, where the topic was the net radioactivity that the outside of the plant was exposed to. The only thing that really matters, barring a hop, skip, and superman leap of magical thinking over tall buildings, is how much radioactivity they expose their environment to. You might as well say jellyfish are more of an environmental danger than cars, with that kind of sloppy thinking. Sure, the jellyfish are (arguably) more poisonous, but on the whole of it cars are way more dangerous, and a much greater environmental hazard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How is it being a jerk by pointing out the OP title, the OP article, and the OP itself is crap? This thread wasn't about how emissions from a coal plant are more carcinogenic than nuclear plants.

Except you never proved this. Sure, the inside of the plant is a lot hotter...

There is your proof.

But nobody is inside the hot space, it doesn't hurt anyone.

One tidbit I ran into--if you were to go swimming in the cooling pools your radiation exposure goes *DOWN* until you are 6' underwater.