News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by pinko on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:35PM (#2332965)
My point is that you or your child getting thyroid cancer, even if you or she recovers, is a pretty horrific outcome, and might deserve to be considered somehow -- not just fatalities.
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by mquander on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:40PM (#2332989)
True, but if you're counting that, there must surely be many other equally bad externalities worth counting; e.g. environmental damage due to oil spills and incidence of lung cancer due to air pollution from coal mining.

You have to draw the line somewhere to make the chart, and drawing it at fatalities seems sort of reasonable. It certainly doesn't seem overly gracious to nuclear power.

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by baguasquirrel on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:50PM (#2333041)
The elevated rates of asthma occurring in inner city kids is also pretty shitty. One of the better things they did in NYC was to shut down most of the power plants that were actually in the city.
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by khafra on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:07PM (#2333134)
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by borism on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @01:45PM (#2333014)
that's what nuclear fanatics here don't seem to get.

as I argued in other thread about the original numbers, what matters aren't direct deaths attributed to one or the other energy source.

what matters (to me at least) is how different energy sources affect our quality of life. I suspect nuclear isn't the worst offender here, but it isn't all butterflies and roses either.

For the record: I am responsible nuclear fission proponent.

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by NickPollard on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:12PM (#2333159)
Wikipedia[1] cites a claim that France (which generates on the order of 80% of it's power from Nuclear) has the cleanest air of any industrialised nation, due in large part to the lack of fossil fuel burning plants.

I for one think that's a reasonable trade to make for a few nuclear waste dump designated areas being radioactive until we can get some breeder reactors or similar to break them down more quickly.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by borism on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:50PM (#2333344)
really? Some better [citation needed].

2002:

Scandinavia and the Baltic countries had the cleanest air in Europe this summer while Greece, France and Italy faced the worst smog levels, said the European Environment Agency (EEA).

http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574

And BTW, I am fully in favor of replacing coal plants with nuclear.

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by tjogin on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @03:44PM (#2333557)
Scandinavia is mostly driven by nuclear and hydro power. So the point still stands.
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by borism on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @05:49PM (#2334111)
Hydro - yes. Nuclear - no.

Denmark and Norway - no nuclear.

Sweden - 45% nuclear.

Finland - 30% nuclear.

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by tjogin on Thursday March 17, 2011 @02:13AM (#2335255)
Uh, you're saying nuclear no, but then nuclear 45% of Sweden and 30% of Finland, so you must mean nuclear yes.
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by kiujhgtfghjk on Thursday March 17, 2011 @12:49AM (#2335113)
Smog is generated by petro chemicals, heat and sunlight.

That's why LA gets smog and Alaska doesn't - now why would hot sunny France with lots of people (and cars) get Smog but sparsely populated cold Scandanvia not?