[QUOTE=OvB;45132482]Every source has killed people. Wind turbine technicians have died each year, not sure about solar, but I'm sure there's a power generated to death ratio and I'm willing to bet nuclear is on the better end of that.[/QUOTE]
According to [URL="http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/"]this[/URL] article, wind has a higher death/trillionkWhr ratio than nuclear does :v:
[QUOTE=OvB;45132482]Every source has killed people. Wind turbine technicians have died each year, not sure about solar, but I'm sure there's a power generated to death ratio and I'm willing to bet nuclear is on the better end of that.[/QUOTE]
Solar has 5x as many deaths, wind has 2x. Coal is >1000x.
Most of the deaths for wind are indeed from falls. Solar varies a lot because it's difficult to quantify construction accidents when solar panels are almost always integrated directly into a building structure, so those numbers are hidden in general construction deaths.
Guess my bet is right then. :v:
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;45128783]Nuclear power plants are pretty cool. Look how much energy modern ones produce.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/%D0%90%D0%AD%D0%A1_%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%8B.png[/img][/QUOTE]
And when it comes to countries that matter, about 20% of the US's energy is from nuclear power, and Canada about 15%. Also we haven't built any since like the 70s because I have no idea.
(don't take that first clause seriously)
It's a shame that poor planning and shitty engineering is causing people to look away from nuclear engineering.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;45128356]Your only logical conclusion could be estimated deaths based on a model that has since been proven incorrect. When the estimation was made (before such deaths even could have started to occur), it was impossible to accurately predict anything because there was no reference. The scale of the disaster was something that nobody could have accurately modeled. To rely on such a prediction when numerous studies decades later have disproven it is ridiculous.
I could account for some extra deaths, but they are so insignificant that they could not be counted in the first place. At that point, frankly, they are negligible. To compare Chernobyl with other events and say "they can be counted!" does not make a difference. Smoking, coal mining, and Agent Orange are not radioactive. They are entirely separate. The Japan bombings released several orders of magnitude greater radioactive material than Chernobyl. At that rate, yes, it is possible to model (and count) deaths. For this scenario, it is not. That is the definition of negligibility.[/QUOTE]
Disproved decades later? What are you talking about? The health report I quoted was from 2005. Again, maybe you would be debating relevant points if you actually read any of the links I was giving you or reading. I don't understand how you can have such a high-horse mentality that you're not even paying attention to what points are being made. These are contemporary studies, not 1980s-era doomsday predictions, and they're from accredited institutions, not nutjobs like Greenpeace. And you're just ignoring them, because you've cherry-picked semi-related studies that at best would cast some measure of doubt on a small subset of the population of those studies. You're engaging in the kind of behavior we see from the tobacco lobby, not scientists.
And as for negligibility, [URL="http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf"]the WHO disagrees[/URL]. Their 2006 report indicates an estimated 9,000 deaths as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, as quantified in the above link. Are you going to actually read this, specifically how they take into account the fluctuations you describe in estimating their margin of error, or are you going to dismiss it with another pithy statement? Maybe with some grandiose [B]bold statements[/B] in lieu of citations?
This is exactly the cavalier attitude I was talking about. We can go forward with nuclear power in spite of the fearmongering without people outright ignoring the WHO, UN, and IAEA just because their (scientific, professional, statistically-supported) conclusions don't paint nuclear power as the flawless solution to all our problems.
[QUOTE=catbarf;45133514]things[/QUOTE]
An interesting read. I guess you missed the part right after it where they said that those estimates were "particularly uncertain" because the model itself (using an average dose of 7 mSv) is flawed.
Which is what I already said.
I do not deny the fact that more people could have died. However, those numbers are within the boundaries of statistical insignificance at this point.
You cannot say that 9,000 deaths occurred, because we cannot prove it. We can only estimate based on a model that is not very applicable given its limitations, which was created in 1991, not 2005/2006.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
