never seen anyone claim that trace radiation from coal is more of a problem, just that it is a problem. cite someone making this claim lol otherwise looks like u did a strawman
Comment on rollin' coal
woelkchen@lemmy.world 7 months agoI’m not defending coal energy. It’s a repeated and factually wrong claim from nuclear power proponents that trace radiation that is more concentrated in ash is somehow on par or even worse than nuclear waste or catastrophes. Just because that claim is wrong doesn’t automatically result in coal ash being fine and dandy.
spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 months ago
MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Arguing that coal ash is less bad than the very rare nuclear disasters is also a bad take IMO.
Both have issues. It doesn’t mean that we should abandon nuclear for coal, nor the other way around.
Personally I’m a fan of nuclear, and I’m against coal, but realistically, there’s too many data points to argue, and bluntly, I don’t have sufficient information at this time, to competently and fully argue either way.
Fact is, green energy, like solar and wind (among others) are better than both nuclear and coal (and even gas and whatnot). I just don’t want to pretend that either nuclear or coal is a better ecological choice than renewables.
NegativeInf@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Both have a storage problem. But coal has a destroys the atmosphere problem. So, yes, trade-offs.
deegeese@sopuli.xyz 7 months ago
You’re moving the goalposts after they debunked the first claim.
9bananas@lemmy.world 7 months ago
“debunking” requires a source… otherwise they just put forth a claim