Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
Nope. It's a death of probable cause.

The same thing can be done with cancer deaths of probable cause from nuclear radiation. Are willing to accept any estimate of those that I find on some fringe website like the one you posted?

@metal-brain said
The same thing can be done with cancer deaths of probable cause from nuclear radiation. Are willing to accept any estimate of those that I find on some fringe website like the one you posted?

1, my websites are not 'fringe'.

2, cut out the inappropriate insertion of the word 'fringe' from your question, the answer is, Yes. But I guess according to your moronic 'logic' but now applied to nuclear rather than fossil fuels, I shouldn't but instead moronically say and think there is no evidence that many people have died of nuclear radiation but for the wrong reason because NOT because of the absence of evidence of this (and, if what you mean by 'many' is many millions like with fossil fuels, this evidence IS indeed absent) but rather because we have to use the word 'probably' which, according to you, "says it all" (your quote) and means it is just all a wild guess. Those estimates, which aren't wild guesses but valid, and even by allowing a WILDLY large margin of error (say, a factor of 10) , show fossil fuels kill many times more people than nuclear.

@humy said
1, my websites are not 'fringe'.

2, cut out the inappropriate insertion of the word 'fringe' from your question, the answer is, Yes. But I guess according to your moronic 'logic' but now applied to nuclear rather than fossil fuels, I shouldn't but instead moronically say and think there is no evidence that many people have died of nuclear radiation but for the wrong reason be ...[text shortened]... margin of error (say, a factor of 10) , show fossil fuels kill many times more people than nuclear.

Those estimates you quoted are highly disputable and you know it. Millions is a ridiculous claim, but even if it was true it is only because people are too stupid to move out of urban areas into the country to escape it. I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem.

Call me apathetic, but I don't feel sorry for some Chinese people that choose to live in a polluted city and certainly not an American or Brit with a good standard of living. Smart people live in the country.

@metal-brain said
Those estimates you quoted are highly disputable

No, they aren't.

Millions is a ridiculous claim,

No, it isn't. It is a known fact and you are the only person I know of who denies it.

but even if it was true it is only because people are too stupid to move out of urban areas into the country to escape it.

There are often various advantages being in urban areas, such as more jobs with more pay, better education facilities, less travel to do shopping, etc, that collectively outweigh the health risk disadvantages despite the health risks. Poverty is ALSO a big killer and where and when people choose to live in urban areas to escape poverty then they are certainly NOT "stupid" to do so. + many people, especially vary poor people and small children, don't have much choice of where the live. + many people, through no fault of their own, aren't ware of just how big the health risks are or even what they are. You are very wrong to dismiss them as being just "stupid".

I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem.

if you got that choice then you are just lucky. Just being lucky doesn't make you smart.
I haven't got that choice and I for long time wished to move to the country but cannot because house prices are far too high there and I cannot yet sell house or obtain the required money from any other means currently available.

Smart people live in the country.

Many smart people smarter than you or I also live in urban areas.
Albert Einstein attended Petersschule, a catholic elementary school in the city of Munich. Later he lived and worked in the urban area of Princeton, New Jersey, for the remainder of his life; and he wasn't "stupid".
+ many people, smart or not, don't have much choice in the matter anyway.

@metal-brain said
That is just an ad hominem attack. Your source of information is incorrect and you know it.

https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/Coal_Ash_Recycling_Feasiblity_Assessment.pdf

It's not ad hominem. You brought up your own personal opinion that you don't believe in facts. That opinion belongs in a different forum.

Is there radioactivity in coal? Yes (obviously). How much? From the numbers I've seen, it's only a few ppm on average. But that few ppm add up while burning billions of tons of coal every year (references below)...

According to estimates by the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the world’s coal-fired power stations currently generate waste containing around 5,000 tonnes of uranium and 15,000 tonnes of thorium. Collectively, that’s over 100 times more radiation dumped into the environment than that released by nuclear power stations.

Clearly, as I've stated many times, the negative health effects are not known. But to say that nuclear energy is bad because of radioactive waste but coal energy is good despite the radioactive waste ignores basic facts and/or logic.

You can choose to believe that the uranium and thorium in coal magically disappear after they are burned (because where else would 20,000 tons per year of uranium and thorium go?), but that again belongs in another forum.

... radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/

https://phys.org/news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-ash.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30591983

@humy said
No, they aren't.

Millions is a ridiculous claim,

No, it isn't. It is a known fact and you are the only person I know of who denies it.

but even if it was true it is only because people are too stupid to move out of urban areas into the country to escape it.

There are often various advantages being in urban areas, such as more jobs with more ...[text shortened]... ; and he wasn't "stupid".
+ many people, smart or not, don't have much choice in the matter anyway.

"Many smart people smarter than you or I also live in urban areas."

They are so smart that they die sooner? I didn't know that dying early was a sign of intelligence.

@wildgrass said
It's not ad hominem. You brought up your own personal opinion that you don't believe in facts. That opinion belongs in a different forum.

Is there radioactivity in coal? Yes (obviously). How much? From the numbers I've seen, it's only a few ppm on average. But that few ppm add up while burning billions of tons of coal every year (references below)...

[quote]According ...[text shortened]... /news/2015-09-radioactive-contaminants-coal-ash.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30591983

If the radioactivity was that bad they would not be making cement out of it. Common sense. Geiger counters exist and are used to verify it is safe.
You are pushing a myth.

@metal-brain said
If the radioactivity was that bad they would not be making cement out of it. Common sense. Geiger counters exist and are used to verify it is safe.
You are pushing a myth.

Yeah. What myth? You've been posting articles extolling the potential danger of radioactive fish in Canada, but when it comes to thousands of tons of coal-derived radioactivity... nothing to see there.

I get it. You like coal. Nothing will change your beliefs, thinking that it's safer than nuclear.

@wildgrass said
Yeah. What myth? You've been posting articles extolling the potential danger of radioactive fish in Canada, but when it comes to thousands of tons of coal-derived radioactivity... nothing to see there.

I get it. You like coal. Nothing will change your beliefs, thinking that it's safer than nuclear.

And there is the added CO2 which he also denies is a problem when it clearly IS a BIG problem.

@wildgrass said
Yeah. What myth? You've been posting articles extolling the potential danger of radioactive fish in Canada, but when it comes to thousands of tons of coal-derived radioactivity... nothing to see there.

I get it. You like coal. Nothing will change your beliefs, thinking that it's safer than nuclear.

They are putting coal ash in cement. If it was that radioactive that would not be allowed. You were duped into believing an exaggerated claim. Some coal ash may have higher than normal radioactivity depending on the coal burned, but it is not all that way. You need to be skeptical when bias assertions are made. You are not doing that.

@metal-brain said
They are putting coal ash in cement. If it was that radioactive that would not be allowed.

-and yet its a known fact it is that radioactive and that the is allowed thus proving you wrong.

@humy said
-and yet its a known fact it is that radioactive and that the is allowed thus proving you wrong.

They use it in cement. Not all coal is highly radioactive. Fly ash is safe if the coal is safe to burn. People try not to burn coal that is high in mercury, uranium and other toxic elements. You are taking a worst case example and blowing it out of proportion.

https://www.thebalancesmb.com/fly-ash-applications-844761

@metal-brain said
They are putting coal ash in cement. If it was that radioactive that would not be allowed. You were duped into believing an exaggerated claim. Some coal ash may have higher than normal radioactivity depending on the coal burned, but it is not all that way. You need to be skeptical when bias assertions are made. You are not doing that.

I lived the first 18 years of my life in St. Helens, a former coal town near Liverpool. The pit was closed in the 90's, but we used to burn coal in the house in the way people burn wood in open fires. I'm sure the ash from our one fire was not especially radioactive, but the net effect of 100,000 odd coal fires might be. The point here is total emission rather than concentration. Nuclear waste from powerplants is concentrated. Fly ash from burning coal may not have a huge amount of concentration but 1,000s of tonnes of fly ash are produced. It adds up.

metal-brain

I would never live in the city, especially one that has a known pollution problem.
...
Smart people live in the country.

So here you contradict yourself by implying smart people live in the countryside because of pollution in cities which is inconsistent with your earlier claim that it is not true many people die of air pollution. If not many people die from air pollution then how can it be true that city people are "stupid" (your quote) for living in the city because of air pollution (your claim) ?

+ what is this "..."especially" one that has a known pollution problem..." ? ALL cities are known to have pollution and thus a pollution problem. Name any one city that doesn't...

@deepthought said
I lived the first 18 years of my life in St. Helens, a former coal town near Liverpool. The pit was closed in the 90's, but we used to burn coal in the house in the way people burn wood in open fires. I'm sure the ash from our one fire was not especially radioactive, but the net effect of 100,000 odd coal fires might be. The point here is total emission rather than con ...[text shortened]... y not have a huge amount of concentration but 1,000s of tonnes of fly ash are produced. It adds up.

"The point here is total emission rather than concentration."

concentration means something. Wildgrass used comparisons to bananas making it clear that concentration is an issue with him. Unless you want to claim fly ash in cement is a threat to human health I don't see your point. Fly ash has a use and is not sequestered. Are you claiming that is a dangerous practice? If so, why is it happening?