Conor MolloyFeb 12, 2023
Conor Molloy
Pub quiz Q. Which is more radioactive, ash from #Coal burning or #Nuclear waste in storage (water/casks)?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Nuclear Waste is.
13.3%
Coal ash is >radioactive
60%
Don't know / show me.
26.7%
Poll ended at .
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

Scientific American
Feb 11, 2023 at 4:12pmWeb
Show threadChris Nelder 🤘Feb 11, 2023
@conormolloy Strange article. First of all, the headline is flat wrong: nuclear waste is absolutely more radioactive than coal fly ash. But that's not even what the article was about, which is *human exposure* to radiation, an entirely different issue. But the text totally elided the complex and varying circumstances of exposure to dry cask waste storage as well. Anyway - interesting to revisit the 2007 point of view, esp. now that both nuke and coal power are well in decline.
Show threadConor MolloyFeb 11, 2023
@chrisnelder It did say pub quiz😉
In 1980s Ireland we built a large coal burner (Money point) instead of a nuke (Carnsore Point), I was in Carnsore today and it's a ribbon development eyesore, the wind turbines are its prettiest aspect. Ireland also has a huge problem with domestic burning of coal in open fires leading to AQ issues, hence the comparison. Wasn't meant to be exhaustive, just to open minds.
Show threadBryceFeb 13, 2023

@chrisnelder @conormolloy I gotta Chris, this line of thinking isn’t consistent. By the same logic, solar panels crushed up and put into farmland is gonna kill a LOT of people with heavy metals. If you’re going to use this against #nuclear then at least be consistent.

Exposure makes a big difference. Spent #nuclear fuel in dry casks is WAY less harmful from radiation to humans than coal ash dumped near coal power plants.

Show threadChris Nelder 🤘Feb 13, 2023
@coffeemayonnaise @conormolloy I take it you interpreted my comment as being about radiation exposure? It was not. I have no interest in that topic. If you read it again, you'll see my comment was about the *article*, which was badly done.