"Just stop oil"

ver01@ said:
Plenty of links for nuclear but nothing about solar/wind. Why could that be? :)
Click to expand...

Because you were arguing that people killed by wind and solar don't matter at all. Also that people who work in energy generation being killed don't matter at all, even if they're working in wind or solar. But the core of your belief is that many people are killed by nuclear power stations. Also, the report containing the summary of death rates has a "sources" section that gives their sources. So, as usual for you, your statement is untrue.

You know very well that the rate of death per unit of electricity generated is about the same for wind, solar and nuclear fission.

You also know very well that the only reason the rate of death for nuclear is as high as that for wind and solar is Chernobyl. Wind and solar are currently deadlier than nuclear fission.

You also know very well that it is impossible for Chernobyl to happen again.

Your position is one of hypocrisy (you refuse to provide any evidence of any kind for your claims while ignoring evidence anyone else provides and claiming that they're not providing any evidence) and denial of reality for ideological reasons.

visibleman said:
No as i wasn't making the original statement but thanks though, will have a read :)
Click to expand...

Rather amusingly, they're repeating the same source that I gave. A source which directly contradicts their claims.

ourworldindata.org

Death rates per unit of electricity production

Death rates are measured based on deaths from accidents and air pollution per terawatt-hour of electricity.
ourworldindata.org ourworldindata.org

Nuclear: 0.03 deaths per TWh
Wind: 0.04 deaths per TWh
Solar: 0.02 deaths per TWh
Hydro: 1.3 deaths per TWh

EDIT: The same figures are in the page they gave you a link to. Unsurprisingly, since it's the same source.

The paragraph immediately after the few words they cherry-picked from that page is this:

People often focus on the marginal differences at the bottom of the chart – between nuclear, solar, and wind. This comparison is misguided: the uncertainties around these values mean they are likely to overlap.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
You know very well that the rate of death per unit of electricity generated is about the same for wind, solar and nuclear fission.
Click to expand...
Life measured by units of energy generated. I assume you agree with that, Right?
Angilion said:
You also know very well that the only reason the rate of death for nuclear is as high as that for wind and solar is Chernobyl. Wind and solar are currently deadlier than nuclear fission.
Click to expand...
And you know very well that the number of non-worker deaths for wind and solar is much lower, not to mention the risk of future morbidity from exposure to radiation (thyroid cancer) to the exposed population.
Not something wind or solar can cause.
Angilion said:
You also know very well that it is impossible for Chernobyl to happen again.

Your position is one of hypocrisy (you refuse to provide any evidence of any kind for your claims while ignoring evidence anyone else provides and claiming that they're not providing any evidence) and denial of reality for ideological reasons.
Click to expand...
And once again you are misguiding forum members as these figures include ALL people that have died (workers and non-workers/children) when I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that non-worker deaths are similar.
 
ver01@ said:
And you know very well that the number of non-worker deaths for wind and solar is much lower, not to mention the risk of future morbidity from exposure to radiation (thyroid cancer) to the exposed population.
Not something wind or solar can cause.
Click to expand...
for modern nuclear that number is zero
 
ver01@ said:
[..]

And once again you are misguiding forum members as these figures include ALL people that have died (workers and non-workers/children) when I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence to support your claim that non-worker deaths are similar.
Click to expand...

I have never made that claim. You are, as usual, lying.

Unlike you, I think people dying in the production of the energy required for modern civilisation is a bad thing. Unlike you, I don't see their deaths solely as a tool to be used for ideological purposes. Unlike you, I do not and will not dismiss people's deaths as being of no importance just because they work in energy production of any kind. I've said this repeatedly and it won't change.
 
bigmike20vt said:
I dare say FAR more lives have been saved by the smallpox vaccine than the deaths directly from all vaccines put together.


i was about to mention Fukashima ............ i dont know enough about it and if you guys want to claim the wiki (which is not always accurate) is totally wrong, i cant dispute that
but according to the wiki

I just dont see how ZERO risk as mentioned in another post above groks with the below (and note i say this as someone who supports nuclear)
Click to expand...

I couldn't find the claim of ZERO risk from Fukushima that you refer to, but no risk higher than that from naturally occurring background radiation is true for almost everywhere in the world, including almost all of Japan. There's a slightly higher risk in the immediate vicinity, although there are places in the world where the natural background radiation is higher than the radiation levels inside the Fukushima exclusion zone. The highest naturally occurring background radiation at the surface is more than 20 times as high as that inside the Fukushima exclusion zone. The radiation inside the Fukushima exclusion zone isn't much higher than the naturally occurring background radiation in most of (for example) Cornwall. People don't generally regard Cornwall as somewhere too radioactive to be inhabitable, a place where the radiation risk is too high.

There isn't ZERO risk from radiation anywhere on Earth other than specially prepared bunkers. It's a matter of degree of risk.

bigmike20vt said:

April 9, 2013z​

Radioactive water leaked from the storage units, contaminating the soil and water nearby. The leak was controlled and stored in a contained area. Contaminated water continues to accumulate at the plant, where it is filtered to remove most but not all radioactive particles.[57]​


July 9, 2013​

TEPCO officials reported that radioactive caesium was 90 times higher than it was 3 days prior (July 6), and that it may spread into the Pacific Ocean. TEPCO reported that the caesium-134 levels in the well water were measured at 9 kilobecquerel per liter, 150 times the legal level, while Caesium-137 was measured at 18 kilobecquerel per liter, 200 times the permitted level.[citation needed]
Click to expand...

So the water in one well shouldn't be used in 2013. Although it would probably have been safe enough to do so, given how extremely low the legal limits are in Japan.

bigmike20vt said:

August 7, 2013​

Japanese officials said highly radioactive water was leaking from Fukushima Daiichi into the Pacific Ocean at a rate of 300 tons (about 272 metric tons) per day. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ordered government officials to step in.[58]

April 12, 2016​

Melted reactors were being cooled down with 300 tonnes of water each day.[citation needed]

September 10, 2019​

Since the plant was destroyed by the earthquake and tsunami in 2011, TEPCO has continued to pump water onto the melted-down fuel cores to prevent them from once again overheating. This contaminated cooling water has collected on the site, where more than 1 million tons has been stored in hundreds of tall steel tanks. Large filtration systems are used to clean this water of most of its radioactive contaminants, but they cannot remove tritium, a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. As the tritium-contaminated water continues to accumulate, the plant operator says the site will run out of space to build more tanks by 2022, when it will have to dump the radioactive water directly into the Pacific Ocean. It is not known yet how much water will be released by TEPCO, which will dilute the water first.[59]

April 13, 2021​

Main article: Discharge of radioactive water of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Japan's government approved the release of "treated" radioactive water from the plant into the Pacific Ocean – beginning in 2023 – over the course of an estimated 40 years.[5]
Click to expand...

That sort of dumping is relatively common and happens on a much larger scale in some places. For example, more than 10 times that amount is dumped into the English channel every year. So the dumping from Fukushima over 40 years would be at a rate less than 0.2% of the dumping into the English channel. There's no reason to think it poses any risk. It's massively diluted tritium, not strontium-90 or plutonium or suchlike. Degrees of risk.
 
Angilion said:
I have never made that claim. You are, as usual, lying.

Unlike you, I think people dying in the production of the energy required for modern civilisation is a bad thing. Unlike you, I don't see their deaths solely as a tool to be used for ideological purposes. Unlike you, I do not and will not dismiss people's deaths as being of no importance just because they work in energy production of any kind. I've said this repeatedly and it won't change.
Click to expand...
So you finally accept that nuclear is associated with more non-worker/members of public deaths. That's a start.
 
Some of this stuff is getting rather farcical:

www.politico.eu

Greta Thunberg removed by cops in Norway during anti-wind farm protest

Climate activists demonstrate against turbines built on land traditionally used by Sami people to herd reindeer.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu
Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg was briefly carried off by Norwegian police Wednesday after she and other activists blocked the entrance to Oslo's finance ministry during an anti-wind farm protest.

Thunberg, who was sitting in front of one of the ministry's doors forming a human chain with other activists, was carried away by two police officers who dropped her off on a nearby bench, without encountering any resistance, according to live footage from Norwegian media outlet Verdens Gang.

Thunberg then went around the building and attempted to block another entrance to the ministry, but was once again removed by police.
Click to expand...

Greta, the climate activist, is protesting against a wind farm... FFS! :D

Apparently because traditionally reindeer have been herded there:

Along with Indigenous and climate activists, Thunberg was protesting the construction of the largest wind farm project in Europe, which is partly located on land traditionally used by the Sami Indigenous people. Statkraft, an electricity firm owned by the Norwegian state, is the project’s majority owner.
Click to expand...

So no different to say people in Yorkshire or Wales complaining about a wind farm in a location where sheep are traditionally herded for centuries? Or people in Scotland complaining about a wind farm where cattle have been traditionally herded.

This is just fashionable wokeness being used to mask regular NIMBYism simply because the people involved constitute a different ethnic group to other Norwegians.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
So no different to say people in Yorkshire or Wales complaining about a wind farm in a location where sheep are traditionally herded for centuries? Or people in Scotland complaining about a wind farm where cattle have been traditionally herded.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you watched it but Guy Martin's latest 3 parter on energy had him at a massive wind farm in Scotland and there was no wind :)
 
dowie said:
Some of this stuff is getting rather farcical:

www.politico.eu

Greta Thunberg removed by cops in Norway during anti-wind farm protest

Climate activists demonstrate against turbines built on land traditionally used by Sami people to herd reindeer.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu


Greta, the climate activist, is protesting against a wind farm... FFS! :D

Apparently because traditionally reindeer have been herded there:



So no different to say people in Yorkshire or Wales complaining about a wind farm in a location where sheep are traditionally herded for centuries? Or people in Scotland complaining about a wind farm where cattle have been traditionally herded.

This is just fashionable wokeness being used to mask regular NIMBYism simply because the people involved constitute a different ethnic group to other Norwegians.
Click to expand...
The Norwegian government has now apologised for putting the wind farm there...
news.sky.com

Norway apologises to reindeer herders over wind farm after Oslo protests

The Sami are recognised by several international groups as Europe's only indigenous people as their cultural roots predate the creation of many countries.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I don't know if you watched it but Guy Martin's latest 3 parter on energy had him at a massive wind farm in Scotland and there was no wind :)
Click to expand...
I sometimes work out of an office near Bathgate (in Scotland) with loads of turbines outside and I've never seen them move. Makes the place look even worse to ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom