It’s not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it’s core.
The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don’t typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn’t change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs.
It seemed clear to me that it was misinformation, intentional or not. I wasn’t presenting a false dichotomy; I was redirecting the discussion away from the tangent and back to my concern. Although their comment does nearly admit to it being intentional misinformation, I didn’t simply take that to be the case - I know other alternatives exist. So I pressed them on it for a clear yes or no.
Your comment doesn’t do the quality of discourse here any favors. I get that this can be an emotional topic but it wasn’t necessary or productive. Disagree with me that the comment is misinformation, fine, I’ll hold a conversation with you about it and hear you out. Or bring up a tangent politely, and I might even engage on that.
…so is it meant to be misleading, then?
It’s not unfair, nor is it misleading. Coal contains a few parts per million of uranium. Sometimes more depending on source. So when burned this uranium is released into the atmosphere. When used for fission uranium has about 200 million times the energy density then burning the carbon carbon bonds in coal. So kilo for kilo a coal power plant dumps about as much uranium and other nasty trace elements into the atmosphere then a nuclear plant has in it’s core.
The situation is even more unfavorable for coal as nuke plants don’t typically dump any of their primary radioactive elements to atmosphere. Increasing scale of nuclear doesn’t change this either as it would require every nuclear plant on the planet to go full Chernobyl just to match what coal outputs.
deleted by creator
Fuck of with that false dichotomy shit. Just because something isn’t fair (like life), doesn’t mean it’s misleading.
It seemed clear to me that it was misinformation, intentional or not. I wasn’t presenting a false dichotomy; I was redirecting the discussion away from the tangent and back to my concern. Although their comment does nearly admit to it being intentional misinformation, I didn’t simply take that to be the case - I know other alternatives exist. So I pressed them on it for a clear yes or no.
Your comment doesn’t do the quality of discourse here any favors. I get that this can be an emotional topic but it wasn’t necessary or productive. Disagree with me that the comment is misinformation, fine, I’ll hold a conversation with you about it and hear you out. Or bring up a tangent politely, and I might even engage on that.