News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Deaths per unit of energy for various sources. Parent comment

Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by maigret on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @02:49PM (#2333342)
"A few 10s of European"... I think you should correct Wikipedia. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Chernobyl_dis... "Estimates of the total number of deaths attributable to the accident vary enormously, from possibly 4,000 to close to a million".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by Wientje on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @05:07PM (#2333927)
Forget wikipedia and go the site of the World Health Organisation. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594179_eng.pd... http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/chernobyl_di...

The reports range from 4000 extra cancer deaths (of 100 000 deaths) to 10 000 deaths out of a million. While 10000 isn't small, it represents a 1% increase in cancer related deaths. Stricter smoking laws can save more people than a nuclear stop.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by iujyhgtfhj on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @03:21PM (#2333463)
That's including 0.01% lifetime extra cancer risk * 100M people

If you are going to do that then a single cigarette ad on a formula 1 car kills more people than Hiroshima.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by bioh42_2 on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @04:35PM (#2333773)
If you are going to do that then a single cigarette ad on a formula 1 car kills more people than Hiroshima.

Maybe not a single ad, but certainly cigarettes do, and it is a valid way to count.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Deaths per unit of energy for various sources by jshen on Wednesday March 16, 2011 @04:12PM (#2333676)
then how are you counting?
[ Parent | on HN ]