Seeing a bunch of coal propaganda lately, wanted to remind everyone coal is brain poison. There are 1000 reasons not to support fossil fuel in any form, but if you had to pick a bad form, you’d be hard pressed to do worse than coal.
Research paper abstract:
Abstract
Background
Coal-fired power plants are a major source of air pollution that can impact children’s health. Limited research has explored if proximity to coal-fired power plants contributes to children’s neurobehavioral disorders.
Objective
This community-based study collected primary data to investigate the relationships of residential proximity to power plants and neurobehavioral problems in children.
Methods
235 participants aged 6–14 years who lived within 10 miles of two power plants were recruited. Exposure to particulate matter ≤10 μm (PM10) was measured in children’s homes using personal modular impactors. Neurobehavioral symptoms were assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Multiple regression models were performed to test the hypothesized associations between proximity/exposure and neurobehavioral symptoms. Geospatial statistical methods were used to map the spatial patterns of exposure and neurobehavioral symptoms.
Results
A small proportion of the variations of neurobehavioral problems (social problems, affective problems, and anxiety problems) were explained by the regression models in which distance to power plants, traffic proximity, and neighborhood poverty was statistically associated with the neurobehavioral health outcomes. Statistically significant hot spots of participants who had elevated levels of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and social problems were observed in the vicinity of the two power plants.
Significance
Results of this study suggest an adverse impact of proximity to power plants on children’s neurobehavioral health. Although coal-fired power plants are being phased out in the US, health concern about exposure from coal ash storage facilities remains. Furthermore, other countries in the world are increasing coal use and generating millions of tons of pollutants and coal ash. Findings from this study can inform public health policies to reduce children’s risk of neurobehavioral symptoms in relation to proximity to power plants.
** Keywords: Proximity to coal-fired power plants, PM10 exposure, Children, Neurobehavioral symptoms, Hot spots **
*edit formatting
Coal hurts kids’ brains
Yeah so does American politics, and any country whose government hinders the progression of society.
A normal coal train going to a powerplant is a about a mile long, and coal powerplants may require mutiple train loads per day.
Once you realize just how much coal that is, you will never be able to forgive the anti nuclear movement for fucking us over so hard.
There is a great documentary from 2006 by the BBC, it is called Nuclear Nightmares, and talks about our fear of radiation.
It is almost 20 years old, but it is still worth a watch. You can find it on Dailymotion.
In Australia the anti-nuclear argument actually does make sense. Not because nuclear is dangerous, but because it’s expensive.
Australia has so much open land for solar and wind power, and an enormous coastline of offshore wind. It’s already cheaper to build new solar power and battery storage than to continue running a newly built coal plant.
Nuclear makes sense in space-restricted areas like Japan, and can be used to replace fossil fuels anywhere, but the focus should be on the cheapest solution (renewables) where possible.
I am a Swede, so my perspective will be Scandinavian.
Here is how I believe we should use nuclear power:
- Nuclear power is not a long term solution, it is a mid term transition solution, it gave us the ability to shut down fossil fuel power plants, and replace them with nuclear power while developing renewables.
- Nuclear waste is a solved problem. Dig a deep hole, put waste in hole, backdill with clay, done. Here is where I believe we in Sweden could be a big player, we have VERY stable bedrock, we have stable political climate, we have the engineering to do this. Sweden should invest in a global nuclear waste site and sell space to other countries, we could also use the nuclear waste to develop boosted geo thermal heat.
“Nuclear is expensive” is a post-hoc circular argument, though. Nuclear has become expensive now because the hysteria about it, and accompanying massive political opposition, lawsuits, and paranoid regulations mandating massive overkill factors of safety, have succeeded in their goal of driving up the cost to the point of non-viability.
But back in the '60s, before the backlash had a chance to get going, we were building tons of nuclear plants at such cost-effectiveness that the economic worry was that the power they would provide would be “too cheap to meter.” And guess what: with very few exceptions, those power plants were, in fact, good enough in terms of safety and released no notable pollution throughout their entire operating lifetimes (or lifetimes so far, for the ones that are still in operation today).
At this point, sure, you’re right: it doesn’t make sense to build nuclear in 2025 because it’s incompatible with our paranoid regulatory environment, and also because our capability has atrophied after a generation of not training nuclear engineers because there was no job market for it. But that’s an “us” problem, not a problem inherent to the technology.
The world would’ve been massively better off if Greenpeace had stuck to saving the whales and we had built a trillion killowatt-hours worth of nuclear over the past 40 years instead of the gas-fired generators we actually built. Even at the cost of an additional Chernobyl or two.
I don’t like the idea of saying that a few nuclear plants exploding is better than burning coal, but you are correct.
The problem is very similar to the exploding cigarette problem. On average, a person will smoke 625,000 cigarettes before it kills them*. If cigarettes were completely harmless except for 1 out of every 625,000 that exploded violently and killed the user, it would most likely be banned for being unsafe.
Coal power plants kill many people every year and cause significant physical and mental health problems to many more, but because it’s all indirect and gradual, no-one stops them**.
If coal plants were required to capture and safely store 100% of the C02 and other harmful emissions they produce, the would likely be far more expensive than nuclear plants.
*This also counts cigarettes smoked by people who died from unrelated causes. The number is for demonstration purposes only and is not intended to be particularly accurate.
**Many people have protested and are trying to stop coal plants. Please keep trying. I’m complaining mostly about corrupt politicians, not citizen inaction.
I feel sorry for the people who have to endure it in the finger lakes because a bunch of jackasses decided to restart a coal power plant to mine bitcoin.
DYK coal releases more radiation than nuclear. But nuclear bad right right?
the closest nuclear site to me is Hanford. Yeah, its GREAT
How else are republicans supposed to get voters?
I was arguing with someone on another social media site because they were posting this nonsense about EVs being horrible for the environment because all the power comes from coal.
Turns out they live in Houston, where 92% of power generation is renewable. lol.
Even across the whole USA, coal is only 16% of power production. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
