Hacker News Reader

Comment by coddingtonbear | Hacker News Reader

The point being made is that a properly funtioning nuclear power plant emits very little radiation when compared to a coal-powered plant.

Coal power plants, even with emission regulations, are very dirty as far as radioactive emissions are concerned.

View on HN

The risk of cancer for small children is doubled near a nuclear plant, see https://www.bfs.de/DE/bfs/wissenschaft-forschung/ergebnisse/...

As it’s small numbers and small distances involved, I wonder if the risk is really from parents working at the plant, or if they controlled for that.

There could be, of course, confounding factors; I can't read German, but I can say that in the US at least, cancer rates are elevated in industrial zones in general -- exactly the places that nuclear reactors are constructed.

> The point being made is that a properly funtioning nuclear power plant emits very little radiation when compared to a coal-powered plant.

Nobody is denying that or excluding the possibility to add coal plants to such a map. Excuse me for not adding a complete, prioritized list of features to my question. I find it disturbing that some people start insinuating "humorously" that someone is an "anti-vaxxer" because he's considering functionality for people who - for whatever reason - don't like living near nuclear plants. It's this kind of derailing that makes discussions on the Web unbearable sometimes...

Questioning superstition is important. What you are offended by is identical to what you would expect to experience were you to suggest that you want to avoid vaccines for 'whatever reason'. Leaving scientifically unsupported opinions unchallenged is irresponsible and I at least certainly don't feel like I've overstepped my bounds by challenging such an uninformed belief.

So, Chernobyl and Fukushima never happened on your planet, it's all superstition. Got it, let's leave it at that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com