Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(37,207 posts)
2. Right now vast amounts of mercury and lead from coal plants in Wyoming...
Thu Dec 11, 2025, 08:19 AM
Dec 11

...are released daily without a peep out of antinukes.

Massive amounts of radioactive materials have leaked out of nuclear reactors without containment buildings, notably at Chernobyl.

How does the death toll at Chernobyl compare with the death toll from coal burning even in a sparsely populated state like Wyoming?

Care to estimate, to give a shit?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

One of the signature tells of an antinuke is elevating and event that is conceivable but unlikely over an event that happens every fucking day, as in Wyoming, the release of coal waste, not limited to heavy metals, whenever a coal plant there operates normally.

Poke an antinuke, any time anywhere, and one finds an apologist for fossil fuels.

There are no exceptions.

The planet is dying, soaked in dangerous fossil fuel waste, in flames, and still we hear antinukes shouting about radioactivity, with which the planet formed, exists and has always existed.

When I was a young man, I worked with radioactive 125I and did so for a number of years. At that time it was the only tool for analyzing important biomarkers associated with serious human diseases, a now historical technique known as RIA, radioimmunoassay.. My work helped save lives. I am now an old man, proud of having has a radioactive thyroid gland four decades ago.

Nuclear energy saves lives on balance, millions of lives. It follows that on balance, antinukes whining about radioactivity in isolation kill people.

The risk associated with nuclear energy need not be zero to be lower than all other risks. It only has to be lower than all other risks, which it is.

Have an enjoyable holiday season and a nice day today.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»NRC's Rushed Approval of ...»Reply #2