Germany's cabinet on Wednesday approved putting on-reserve lignite-fired power plants back online from October until the end of March 2024, the economy ministry said, as a step to replace scarce natural gas this winter and avoid shortages.
In fact, the fly ash emitted from burning coal for electricity by a power plant, carries into the
surrounding environment, 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the
same amount of energy.
You could have clicked the link above and read it yourself (for example here). It’s about a study from 1978 with data often much older from plants in Tenessee and Alabama (known for their magnicicient regulations, especially at that time *cough*)
To quote from that article:
“The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.”
"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. “Other risks like being hit by lightning,” he adds, “are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants.”
“According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you’re exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that’s still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.”
You will not find any mention of nuclear waste in there because the actual only number they used in that study is radiation living next to running nuclear power plant… as a base line to compare against.
EDIT: As for the increasing levels of radiation. The UN has a lot to say about that:
“The main man-made contribution to the exposure of the world’s population has come from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, from 1945 to 1980. Each nuclear test resulted
in unrestrained release into the environment of substantial quantities of radioactive materials, which were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited everywhere on
the Earth’s surface”
Yes… here we can actually talk about nuclear waste. It’s still less harmful then nuclear testing was.
The good thing about nuclear waste, is you aren’t breathing it in. You can just bury it and kinda forget about it.
The most radioactive stuff decays quickly, so it won’t be dangerous for generations to come. The less radioactive stuff can last millions of years, but the amount of radiation it creates is too small to be harmful (with the proper precautions).
I really want to give you an updoot, but… could you please cite sources?
Here is a source from the IAEA.
https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/43/035/43035329.pdf
You could have clicked the link above and read it yourself (for example here). It’s about a study from 1978 with data often much older from plants in Tenessee and Alabama (known for their magnicicient regulations, especially at that time *cough*)
To quote from that article:
“The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities.”
"Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. “Other risks like being hit by lightning,” he adds, “are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants.”
“According to USGS calculations, buying a house in a stack shadow—in this case within 0.6 mile [one kilometer] of a coal plant—increases the annual amount of radiation you’re exposed to by a maximum of 5 percent. But that’s still less than the radiation encountered in normal yearly exposure to X-rays.”
You will not find any mention of nuclear waste in there because the actual only number they used in that study is radiation living next to running nuclear power plant… as a base line to compare against.
EDIT: As for the increasing levels of radiation. The UN has a lot to say about that:
“The main man-made contribution to the exposure of the world’s population has come from the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, from 1945 to 1980. Each nuclear test resulted
in unrestrained release into the environment of substantial quantities of radioactive materials, which were widely dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited everywhere on
the Earth’s surface”
Yes… here we can actually talk about nuclear waste. It’s still less harmful then nuclear testing was.
www.iarc.who.int/news-events/cancer-mortality-after-low-dose-exposure-to-ionising-radiation-in-workers-in-france-the-united-kingdom-and-the-united-states-inworks-cohort-study/
Studifyfinds.org/low-doses-of-radiation-diabetes
The good thing about nuclear waste, is you aren’t breathing it in. You can just bury it and kinda forget about it.
The most radioactive stuff decays quickly, so it won’t be dangerous for generations to come. The less radioactive stuff can last millions of years, but the amount of radiation it creates is too small to be harmful (with the proper precautions).
Quickly is around 100 000 years. Konrad mine, Asse II mine, WIPP are here to remind that it is not simple.
The engineers who say there is no risk are the same ones who recommended dumping nuclear waste into the sea in the 1960s and 1970s.
I was thinking more like 30 years. With a 100 000 years half-life, the radiation amount should be small enough not to be a problem.
Some waste are dangerous for 300 years but other will kill you even after 100 000 ans. Some need to be store for 1 million years.