Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If you look again at the numbers he posted, it is showing deaths per TWH (not total deaths without regard for how much energy it produces) so coal is the most dangerous and nuclear is the least dangerous. The list is rank ordered from most to least dangerous.

I did an edit I had hit the wrong button before I had finished my most. I pointed out that you need to look at the bigger picture its a cradle to grave thing once you burn the coal the ash is relatively safe not so with nuke power the waste can and does pose significant risk for many centuries. Not to mention long term risks that are just now beginning to show concerning ionizing radiation exposures.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Is there an equivalent list for bombs? I'm sure nuclear bombs would show similar numbers compared to conventional weapons based on stockpiles which would, in effect, reveal them to be less effective.

The problem with cherry picked statistics like the above is that they exclude risk. For example a nuclear plant going BOOM! is a very, very bad thing. Not so much for coal oil and gas. A skeptic might also suggest that those numbers are referring to staff at generating plants only and the low value of nuclear deaths is a result of the extreme safety processes required by the technology.



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Actually, it's not cherry picking and they DO include risk. If nuclear plants were going to go "BOOM" at least one of them worldwide would have already done that and the ensuing devastation would affect the number of folks killed per unit of energy produced and be reflected in the chart. While it's possible for a nuclear plant to have a meltdown like the one in Japan a few years ago, they just don't go BOOM like in a nuclear explosion, ever. It's fear mongering like that keeps uneducated people from making the logical decision to use more of the source of energy that is less likely to kill us rather than continuing to use the source of energy that continues to kill and injure health at a very high rate, higher than even the worst nuclear power plant disaster has or could ever cause, and by a very large margin.

Just imagine that a few hundred small to medium sized, modern, nuclear power plants were built all across the US that would allow us to end the burning of coal and oil for electricity completely. Then, even though these plants would be much more modern and efficient and better built and have higher levels of safety than the Chernobyl or Japanese plant that melted down, if somebody took a shortcut or made a mistake in construction and somehow a few of these plants went BOOM (meaning a meltdown or leak, not an actual nuclear BOOM), then we would still be WAY ahead of what we are doing now by avoiding nuclear and continuing to burn fossil fuels.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by newhaul

From your numbers I would have to say that natural gas is the top safe producer and coal is a close second . The death rate from nuke power is not accurate IMO at they don't take into account are the deaths from conditions caused by the exposure to ionizing radiation that may not show for many years and even not until the next generation after exposure. I'm not denying it is a good choice for power generation . Actually the opposite but if you are going to show stats you should really know the long term effects. Remember cradle to grave.

This is the entire post I had to redo ( hate this tablet does what it wants sometimes)

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, it's not cherry picking and they DO include risk. If nuclear plants were going to go "BOOM" at least one of them worldwide would have already done that and the ensuing devastation would affect the number of folks killed per unit of energy produced and be reflected in the chart. While it's possible for a nuclear plant to have a meltdown like the one in Japan a few years ago, they just don't go BOOM like in a nuclear explosion, ever. It's fear mongering like that keeps uneducated people from making the logical decision to use more of the source of energy that is less likely to kill us rather than continuing to use the source of energy that continues to kill and injure health at a very high rate, higher than even the worst nuclear power plant disaster has or could ever cause, and by a very large margin.

Just imagine that a few hundred small to medium sized, modern, nuclear power plants were built all across the US that would allow us to end the burning of coal and oil for electricity completely. Then, even though these plants would be much more modern and efficient and better built and have higher levels of safety than the Chernobyl or Japanese plant that melted down, if somebody took a shortcut or made a mistake in construction and somehow a few of these plants went BOOM (meaning a meltdown or leak, not an actual nuclear BOOM), then we would still be WAY ahead of what we are doing now by avoiding nuclear and continuing to burn fossil fuels.

Happy to bury the waste in your backyard, or to up and leave your house and possessions and move town on the odd chance of another Chernobyl? Fossil fuel generation doesn't carry that burden. Nothing is 100% guaranteed.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I did an edit I had hit the wrong button before I had finished my most. I pointed out that you need to look at the bigger picture its a cradle to grave thing once you burn the coal the ash is relatively safe not so with nuke power the waste can and does pose significant risk for many centuries. Not to mention long term risks that are just now beginning to show concerning ionizing radiation exposures.

But we ARE looking at the bigger picture in regards to nuclear waste because any deaths caused by nuclear waste in the past would be reflected in the numbers. But they aren't there because even 50 years ago they managed to effectively isolate nuclear waste so nobody gets hurt by it and using modern materials and storage techniques there's no reason to believe we've gotten worse at it than they were in the past. Yes, it COULD happen that someday an accident involving some nuclear waste could pollute an area or even kill some people, but EVEN IF that happened, the harm would still be WAY less than the sure thing deaths and illness that not developing and using nuclear power is causing every day.

I'm not familiar with ionizing radiation exposures so can't comment on that, but it would have to be frightfully dangerous to ever come close to the harm done by coal and oil that we routinely accept by not using nuclear instead.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If solar is such a good idea for the environment, and will save YOU money.... Why Mr. LakeEffect, haven't you installed it yourself?

When I point out your hypocrisy, you consider it crowing. So what do you consider yourself to be doing? Switching to solar electric would seem to be a logical solution for reducing YOUR carbon footprint. If you and Jack are soooo worried about an apocalyptic end to mankind, why haven't you bought into making a difference, but instead you insist others do the heavy lifting while you sit back an complain and preach?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

But we ARE looking at the bigger picture in regards to nuclear waste because any deaths caused by nuclear waste in the past would be reflected in the numbers. But they aren't there because even 50 years ago they managed to effectively isolate nuclear waste so nobody gets hurt by it and using modern materials and storage techniques there's no reason to believe we've gotten worse at it than they were in the past. Yes, it COULD happen that someday an accident involving some nuclear waste could pollute an area or even kill some people, but EVEN IF that happened, the harm would still be WAY less than the sure thing deaths and illness that not developing and using nuclear power is causing every day.

I'm not familiar with ionizing radiation exposures so can't comment on that, but it would have to be frightfully dangerous to ever come close to the harm done by coal and oil that we routinely accept by not using nuclear instead.

Some radioactive waste is toxic for up to 250,000 years. That's a geological time scale. Kind of makes alleged climate change the lesser of two evils when you stop to think about it.

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/hlwfcst.htm

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Happy to bury the waste in your backyard, or to up and leave your house and possessions and move town on the odd chance of another Chernobyl? Fossil fuel generation doesn't carry that burden. Nothing is 100% guaranteed.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Actually, some things ARE guaranteed and one of those guaranteed things is that millions of additional people will die unnecessarily in the coming years if we continue to ignore the safest form of energy available to us in favor of some of the most dangerous forms of energy. Why do you ignore those deaths but worry so much about many fewer possible deaths from a nuclear mishap that are proven to not happen in a frequency that could have a resulting death rate that wouild ever even approach the death rate from coal?

As far as burying the waste in my backyard, nobody is talking about burying the waste in yours, mine, or anybody's backyard. It is stored in sealed containers and those can either be left in place on the surface permanently or taken to an underground storage location many miles from anybody's back yard. Either way, it wouldn't bother me a bit to live next door to one of these storage areas and if you look on Zillow at real estate prices in Wiscasset, Maine where nuclear waste from Maine Yankee that was closed back in '96 is still stored, apparently not too many other people are very worried about it either.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Actually, some things ARE guaranteed and one of those guaranteed things is that millions of additional people will die unnecessarily in the coming years if we continue to ignore the safest form of energy available to us in favor of some of the most dangerous forms of energy. Why do you ignore those deaths but worry so much about many fewer possible deaths from a nuclear mishap that are proven to not happen in a frequency that could have a resulting death rate that wouild ever even approach the death rate from coal?

As far as burying the waste in my backyard, nobody is talking about burying the waste in yours, mine, or anybody's backyard. It is stored in sealed containers and those can either be left in place on the surface permanently or taken to an underground storage location many miles from anybody's back yard. Either way, it wouldn't bother me a bit to live next door to one of these storage areas and if you look on Zillow at real estate prices in Wiscasset, Maine where nuclear waste from Maine Yankee that was closed back in '96 is still stored, apparently not too many other people are very worried about it either.

Refer previous post

I should also say that I can "ignore those millions of deaths" (assuming you are inferring climate change is the cause) because they aren't actually happening,

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Some radioactive waste is toxic for up to 250,000 years. That's a geological time scale. Kind of makes alleged climate change the lesser of two evils when you stop to think about it.

HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE - NIRS

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

If you're going to go 250,000 years into the future to point to the possible danger of nuclear waste that is put into storage today, then we also must consider the children of the children of the children....that won't be born all throughout the next the next 250,000 years because millions of their ancestors died prematurely without reproducing if we keep burning coal and oil to make electricity instead of using nuclear energy.

Besides, don't you think that, say 100 years from now, some smart fellow will come up with an even more reliable way to isolate nuclear waste or possibly to reuse it productively or to render it harmless? But even if none of those things happen, if you look at our past record of isolating ourselves from the dangers of nuclear waste using relatively primitive technology, and if we can only be that successful into the future, we STILL are WAY ahead of the deaths currently being caused by not developing and utilizing nuclear energy.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If you're going to go 250,000 years into the future to point to the possible danger of nuclear waste that is put into storage today, then we also must consider the children of the children of the children....that won't be born all throughout the next the next 250,000 years because millions of their ancestors died prematurely without reproducing if we keep burning coal and oil to make electricity instead of using nuclear energy.

Besides, don't you think that, say 100 years from now, some smart fellow will come up with an even more reliable way to isolate nuclear waste or possibly to reuse it productively or to render it harmless? But even if none of those things happen, if you look at our past record of isolating ourselves from the dangers of nuclear waste using relatively primitive technology, and if we can only be that successful into the future, we STILL are WAY ahead of the deaths currently being caused by not developing and utilizing nuclear energy.

The prize for the most illogical AGW argument in this entire thread goes to ^^^

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Refer previous post

I should also say that I can "ignore those millions of deaths" (assuming you are inferring climate change is the cause) because they aren't actually happening,

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I'm not referring to anything about climate change when I mention those millions of deaths, just using the numbers the chart shows and what I have read about folks dying of things like lung cancer and other cancers that are caused by introducing carcinogens and other harmful chemicals into our environment by burning oil and coal to make electricity. The saddest part is that it's all so unnecessary if people weren't so afraid of something they don't understand, nuclear energy.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

If you're going to go 250,000 years into the future to point to the possible danger of nuclear waste that is put into storage today, then we also must consider the children of the children of the children....that won't be born all throughout the next the next 250,000 years because millions of their ancestors died prematurely without reproducing if we keep burning coal and oil to make electricity instead of using nuclear energy.

Besides, don't you think that, say 100 years from now, some smart fellow will come up with an even more reliable way to isolate nuclear waste or possibly to reuse it productively or to render it harmless? But even if none of those things happen, if you look at our past record of isolating ourselves from the dangers of nuclear waste using relatively primitive technology, and if we can only be that successful into the future, we STILL are WAY ahead of the deaths currently being caused by not developing and utilizing nuclear energy.

OK this is way off topic but may help some understand the ionizing radiation part of nuclear power ( BTW I have about half of the lifetime exposure limit)

WHO | Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I'm not referring to anything about climate change when I mention those millions of deaths, just using the numbers the chart shows and what I have read about folks dying of things like lung cancer and other cancers that are caused by introducing carcinogens and other harmful chemicals into our environment by burning oil and coal to make electricity. The saddest part is that it's all so unnecessary if people weren't so afraid of something they don't understand, nuclear energy.

As Jackdale would say.... Do you have links to peer reviewed literature supporting your assertions?



Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Jack's vast, encyclopedic resource library

Here is a link to part of my library

https://disqus.com/by/jackdale/