Despite climate change and over 200 dead in a Turkish coal mine yesterday, we can't u

tvc15

In contrast, the deaths due to the Fukushima disaster is up to zero people in total despite all the news coverage. So what is the big fascination and fear with Nuclear energy?

Outside of the USSR less people have died from Nuclear accidents in total than tragically died yesterday in Turkey. I am not even going to go into the (somewhat hysterical) numbers quoted in the hundreds of thousands of annual deaths due to global warming.

Duggy747

Why can't I what?

NZ_2014

tvc15 wrote: »

In contrast, the deaths due to the Fukushima disaster is up to zero people in total despite all the bews coverage. So what is the big fascination and fear with Nuclear energy?

Outside of the USSR less people have died from Nuclear accidents in total than tragically died yesterday in Turkey. I am not even going to go into the (somewhat hysterical) numbers quoted in the hundreds of thousands of annual deaths due to global warming.

Your not making much sense

Ash.J.Williams

tvc15 wrote: »

In contrast, the deaths due to the Fukushima disaster is up to zero people in total despite all the bews coverage. So what is the big fascination and fear with Nuclear energy?

Outside of the USSR less people have died from Nuclear accidents in total than tragically died yesterday in Turkey. I am not even going to go into the (somewhat hysterical) numbers quoted in the hundreds of thousands of annual deaths due to global warming.

we're gonna blow up anyway, so clean up your sh1t and keep the planet clean and at least let's not be the cause of our own destruction.

Alf. A. Male

Maybe come back when the long-term effects of Fukishima are known. Or maybe compare coalmining to Chernobyl instead of picking data which suits you agenda.

tvc15

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Maybe come back when the long-term effects of Fukishima are known. Or maybe compare coalmining to Chernobyl instead of picking data which suits you agenda.

How long should we wait? The long term effects of windscale are known, 33 deaths unfortunately but not exactly close to the numbers of people killed on oil rigs so far this year

My agenda is to look at the pros and cons of moving to nuclear power, and of course maybe someday to open a small atom smashing plant myself some day of course

In the mean time I am happy to let people who consider themselves environmentalists to consider nuclear power if they want to stop global warming, why not?

tvc15

NZ_2014 wrote: »

Your not making much sense

Ok, on second read I agree and will blame my phone for thhe typo and the thread title!

Alf. A. Male

You can't use Windscale/Sellafield as your data either since it never went through a Fukushima like event. More selective data comparison. Compare like for like and see if you have something worth saying.

Ash.J.Williams

I'm all for nuclear power, but it needs to be well run and we can't even manage ourselves let alone nuclear material. Also isn't there environmental issues surrounding provision/mining of raw material for nuke?

tvc15

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

You can't use Windscale/Sellafield as your data either since it never went through a Fukushima like event. More selective data comparison. Compare like for like and see if you have something worth saying.

What do you mean like for like? Do you mean a natural disaster affecting a coal or oil plant?

tvc15

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Also isn't there environmental issues surrounding provision/mining of raw material for nuke?

Of course but compare that to fracking, bp oil spills, fires etc. and you might get an idea how bad it is in comparison

kneemos

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

You can't use Windscale/Sellafield as your data either since it never went through a Fukushima like event. More selective data comparison. Compare like for like and see if you have something worth saying.

He's comparing total number of deaths in nuclear power to deaths in coal mining this year.
I think your the one looking for selective data comparison.

ScumLord

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Maybe come back when the long-term effects of Fukishima are known. Or maybe compare coalmining to Chernobyl instead of picking data which suits you agenda.

I think even including Chernobyl you'd find mining for coal would have a hell of a lot more deaths, even on a yearly basis, mining has all sorts of horrible risks associated with it.

Nuclear can be very safe, it really is the only power source that can satisfy the human races demand for power.

shruikan2553

Found this before and found it interesting http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Its in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced.

c_man

tvc15 wrote: »

In contrast, the deaths due to the Fukushima disaster is up to zero people in total despite all the news coverage. So what is the big fascination and fear with Nuclear energy?

15,000 people died in the tsumani which lead to the Fukushima disaster. Yet most media focused on the nuclear accident. *shrugs shoulders*

tvc15

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Found this before and found it interesting http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Its in terms of deaths per unit of energy produced.

I had never even heard of Banqiao dam killing over 100,000 people in the 70's! Hydroelectricity is not safe, end the hydroelectric slaughter now!