Firstly, my quote was in response to Dave's quote below, and I was just pointing out that there was a valid counter argument.DJ_L3ThAL said:
Secondly, I've seen that graph you posted, and it's a beautiful way to distort statistics. The full article is here for anyone interested in reading it. The author attributes 1 death to the Fukushima accident. Admittedly, he wrote this only two days after the accident, but his data is based on actual deaths at the time of the accident, and not ongoing issues with radiation exposure. In the case of Fukushima, there was actually very little radiation exposure and the number of predicted deaths ranges from low to 25x the incidence of thyroid cancer. Regarding Chernobyl, the article only attributed 50 deaths, however it states:
I'm not saying nuclear isn't viable (as you stated). But I don't think that safety concerns are a figment of the imagination either. I also don't think your graph illustrates any environmental issues associated with uranium mining or disposal of nuclear waste. My point that I was trying to make is that there is a valid counter argument to yours, even if you can't see its merits.
If you think nuclear energy is so good go and live next to the reactors in Japan or Ukraine. If a coal fired power station goes arse up when the dust settles you get to work fixing it. Once that reactor is installed and started it is there for good and the ground will be good for nothing. forever.DJ_L3ThAL said:Sorry but I find it hard to believe people can stand against Nuclear energy as the most viable INTERIM energy source to reduce global emissions whilst meeting increasing energy demand, allowing time for renewables to develop and eventually take over all energy sources for us to be self sufficient across the globe going forward.
Before climate change "de-railers" step in, I'm talking reducing global emissions in a sense that how can it hurt? There will be jobs created and people in existing fossil fuel industries can jump on board renewables to progress their careers.
Back to my point, weigh up all these Nuclear "disasters" with deaths that have occurred in the history of modern energy supply per energy unit created by that source and you get this:
So please don't tell me Nuclear is not viable. It is only being held back by some figment of the imagination based on movies/TV that nuclear meltdowns will threaten the globe and terrorists will obtain the uranium and make bombs (mind you, weapons grade and fuel grade uranium are practically two completely different things). For those wondering, the Coal deaths come from asthma and respiratory related diseases from coal fired plant particulate emissions.
Fukishima was a super old plant that should have probably been decommissioned, which was impacted by an extremely rare occurring natural disaster, tell me when earthquakes occur and bridges/buildings collapse, there is not a global push to stop building bridges and buildings now is there? It is all factored into engineering safety in design for what is within an acceptable risk versus the rarity of occurrence.
Of course anyone can say that there is a counter argument for something, that is a constant. In relation to Chernobyl, the ongoing health effects etc, sure they increase the numbers in the graph, but still nowhere near as many deaths as attributed to a far more polluting and less efficient energy source in coal/oil. This added to the fact that burning fossil fuels as a process has not covered as much grounds in terms of efficiency improvement, safety and control like nuclear has.Kaiser Soze said:
You're basing this on the only two isolated nuclear disaster incidences known to man kind, with the assumption there have been no ill effects or disasters from fossil fuel exploration and exploitation, ill save you the effort googling and refer you to some examples at this link: http://io9.com/5526826/greatest-fossil-fuel-disasters-in-human-historybooargy said:
Read the full thread. The question was initially 'what policies make the Greens a bunch of loonies'. Their policy on nuclear energy was used as an example. Do you really believe that their counter argument makes them loonies? They're not suggesting we live on the moon, they are just voicing their opinion on nuclear energy, a view held by lots of other people around the world. I don't think this makes them loonies.DJ_L3ThAL said:
My point is, it's distorted statistics. The number of people currently dead might be smaller, but lets think logically here - if you got cancer from Chernobyl and faced the prospect of a shortened life span, that's a death sentence. It's like saying that in the 70's, asbestos could have been considered safe because the number of actual deaths that had occurred was limited.DJ_L3ThAL said:
I don't think the Greens are advocating this. In fact, I don't think there are many people advocating this.DJ_L3ThAL said:
Ah, I see, nuclear philanthropists?DJ_L3ThAL said:
Rightio, that was my original point.DJ_L3ThAL said:
Its the only way it could be doneKaiser Soze said:
Obviously the only two alternatives must be uranium or hippies.Dave70 said:
