๐ณ๐ฑ
@radiohacktive well i think we need to measure in risk per kWh if we want to really create an objective measure. Lets not forget manufacturing a solar panel involves an entire supply chain that introduces its own pollution and worker safety issues.
Radiohacktive
@freemo Oh of course, that's what I meant by "relative outputs", which we'd measure with kWh; comprehensive energy plan options would account for and weigh populations exposed to working conditions and pollution for both solar industry (and its chain, mining through manufacture) risks and nuclear industry (and its chain, mining through decomission) risks.
I was just commenting on the nuclear energy investment's unique risks from increasing environmental radioactivity (the "unsafe distance").
@freemo
"Safeish", far more cancer from the sun than Chernobyl tho.
@TheMysteriousEm You would get that cancer no matter if you harvested the light or not :)
@freemo
Yeah, maybe even less if we move towards solar collection above ground level.
Doesn't change the fact that we're exposed to lots of harmful radiation from an unshielded fusion reactor outside when it's sunny.
@freemo
Safe distance? The sun causes a hundred if not thousand times more cancer than our own nuclear power.
@freemo https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
Looks like it's more like 10000 times more dangerous.
@freemo safe if you have an ozone layer and magnetosphere.
@freemo This had me thinking about the differences between solar and nuclear energy as investment options for nations/states.
On top of their relative outputs and features, both do have health risks from each's industrial working conditions and pollution, but uniquely for nuclear: contamination, accidents/disasters, and aggressive global posturing. We receive the sun's impacts on human and environmental health regardless, so the solar investment comparatively only manifests risks from industry.