Please understand that coal has irradiated tons of land too, and in a way we can't even evacuate from. The maximum damage from coal is enormous even ignoring CO2.
What you're saying is a lot of matches lit around the world is the same as a nuclear bomb going off in NYC because it's the same amount of energy released in little fireballs.
You get it - right? Do you? Chernobyl will happen again - for some reason. Imagine it happening in the middle of the US, and 1/3 of the country not being livable for 10k years. That's the maximum damage from nuclear.
France has lots of reactors. What happens when Hungary's dictator joins Russia, and sends two hundred dispursive cruise missles at 5 reactors in France? Yes, this can happen. It almost happened in Ukraine recently - have you, umm, read Any news in the last year? Big panic in all of Europe.
You don't know what can happen.
You do with coal.
We are comparing risk when something goes wrong. Your risk is.... "Don't eat more than two pounds of ocean fish per week." Chernobyl risk is 1000mi^2 is uninhabitable for 10000 years, and a radioactive cloud rained on half of Europe.
Do you remember last year when the entire EU was freaked out because the Russians were bombing a nuclear powerplant, cutting off it's coolant path, and a meltdown would have caused most of Ukraine, and half of Europe to be irradiated?
But yeah, that's the same as your fish thing. It's easy to think like that when you're on a comfortable sofa and not at risk of this. Until the political climate changes or a natural disaster happens - and then you are. But you aren't with coal. With coal, you have predictability, known ways to mitigate, and it's slow so you can adapt.
Both are bad. One is dangerous, unpredictable, and risky.
It's not the output from one plant, it's the amount you get from a big pile of coal plants versus the same amount of nuclear power, even with a very high projection of nuclear plant release.
The coal plants release radiation at a moderate speed but never stop.
> two hundred dispursive cruise missles
Lol okay dude, cruise missiles don't have to aim at nuclear plants to do the same damage.
light background radiation, present already everywhere is not the same as chernobyl (1000sqmi), where no one can live for 10000 years. i didn't think my matches example could possibly not be understood by even a talking monkey, but here we are.
a cruise missle does not damage an area of 1000 miles^2 for 10000 years. it blows up a part of a building. I have to ask - I thought the demographic here was older proffessionals. How did you find yourself here from the high school edgy teen subreddit?
A few big missiles can release as much radiation as chernobyl over a large area if that's what they're designed to do.
I hope insulting me makes your day better.
Which is a fine argument. It’s just a different debate.