| > But, if a war breaks out and someone bombs a nuclear reactor, it will be messy to clean up the mess. Still will be environmentally cleaner than a coal plant with no war breaking out and nobody bombing it. ...Even when we add the war itself to the nuke side. (...Well, unless we do have a nuclear war. Then all bets are off.) Edit: What, do I look flippant? Here are statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... > A United Nations study estimates the final total of premature deaths associated with the disaster will be around 4000, mostly from an estimated 3% increase in cancers which are already common causes of death in the region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... > Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged in the academic literature from none to hundreds. Compare this with: http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-e... > Air pollution causes 200,000 early deaths each year in the U.S. (...) Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-hea... > Burning coal has the worst health impact of any source of air pollution in China and caused 366,000 premature deaths in 2013, Chinese and American researchers said on Thursday. In short, (a year of operating coal plants, without accidents) > (worst nuclear disaster mankind has witnessed), by an order of magnitude (or two). |
A fleet of many coal plants operating normally kills more people than one nuclear plant accident. A nuclear reactor that is bombed during war (or otherwise suffers catastrophic loss of containment) is not environmentally cleaner than one coal plant of comparable capacity operating normally. Nuclear power is safe by the numbers, but you have to use the right numbers.
If reactor containment failed more often then reactors wouldn't be any better for human health than fossil power plants. It's because they are designed and run with such care that they have such a good environmental and safety record, on average. I was reacting partially to something that you haven't said that I've heard all too often in discussions like these: reactors are so safe, we should get rid of these burdensome regulations so they can be affordable too. It's the "burdensome" attention to detail that makes nuclear so safe. If the nuclear industry had the same cavalier cowboy attitude to safety as the coal mining industry, it would be an environmental disaster.
But you didn't actually call for deregulation, and just making a poorly worded numerical comparison isn't enough for a downvote. I apologize for that.