this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
924 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
85515 readers
4205 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love the trivia that there's traces of uranium in coal which go up with the smoke - coal is worse than nuclear in terms of radiological pollution.
When looking if it was feasible to convert coal power plants to nuclear, we found out that most of the coal sites have more radioactivity than is allowed for a future nuclear site
And Mercury
What does Freddie have to do with this ?
This is an often misquoted fact. The study that compared coal and nuclear was only studying air pollutants, and obviously the steam stacks from nuclear reactors don’t have as much radionuclide pollutants as coal. However, the study did not look at other sources like wastewater - which is where most radionuclide pollution from nuclear reactors comes from (along with other sources like spent fuel, casings, and moderator rods).
Sure, but I assume it's easier to collect wastewater for proper disposal than the air pollutants.