Death toll and Energy Source

S

Sam

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
2,155
Location
Houston
How many people die annually in coal mining, in oil exploration, in refineries, in power plants using coal or oil?

How many people die in the same operations using nuclear energy?

It's mind boggling that a few big smelly mouths can do to people's perception about the "danger" of one of the safest technology. Not to mention affordability, and environmentally friendliness.

I don't have a problem with "normal" people falling under the scare-tactics. But what about the people we elect? Aren't they supposed to be wiser, more practical? Aren't they supposed to be able to see through the smoke? Aren't they suppose to lead, to make tough but correct decisions on behalf of the sheep they herd?

Are French or Europeans smarter than Americans? Frustated but don't know what to do!
 
I feel a political rant in the offing...

I go out of my way and pay more to buy electricity from a supplier that does not use coal. It is enormously polluting, dangerous to produce, and trashes the environment where it is produced. Having said that, I don't hold any great feelings for nukes, either. Sure, the day to day death toll might be lower, but all it takes is one bad accident. I don't know if all the details will ever come out, but after a recent earthquake, the largest nuke plant in Japan was closed (maybe for a looooong time) after a release of nuclear material and who knows what else.
 
twaddle said:
So, Sam, you're saying Chernobyl was no big deal?

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That's exactly what I'm talking about! I'm somewhat surprised you didn't bring up 3 Mile Island.

So let's put it in context. Chernobyl was the ONE and ONLY accident in the nuclear power history. 31 people died within days or weeks of the accident. 10 more people died much later of cancer.

41 is less than the number of people dying ANNUALLY from coal mining alone world wide.

How often do we have a refinery accident? 15 deaths right in my backyard, in 2005: Texas City Refinery Blast.

And BTW, Chernobyl was a sub-standard operation. But you knew that, didn't you?
 
You're missing part of the nuclear cycle. Uranium is mined and I'm sure these mines have the odd accident, but I have no stats.
 
Sam said:
But what about the people we elect? Aren't they supposed to be wiser, more practical? Aren't they supposed to be able to see through the smoke? Aren't they suppose to lead, to make tough but correct decisions on behalf of the sheep they herd?
Click to expand...

:2funny::2funny::2funny:
 
I prefer not to be irradiated by my energy sources. Call me crazy.

There are two considerations when taking on some risky venture: 1) the probability of something bad happening, and 2) the impact of something bad happening. Low probability by itself isn't sufficient.

I think the efforts to make nuclear failure *low-impact* is a good thing, and public understanding of that is a good thing. But your comparison of death rates is just plain silly.
 
The other thing left out of the discussion is...

What in the world do you do with all of that spent nuclear fuel. And what do you do with all that nuclear waste ?

That problem is yet to be solved to my satisfaction.

Sam: Would you (please) volunteer to store a couple of those leaking nuclear waste drums in your garage ? Those drums double as a night light too.
 
Well, here's one country's take on it...thought folks here would appreciate this perspective:


"For a long time, in families, the good thing for a child to become was an engineer or a scientist, not a lawyer. We like our engineers and our scientists and we are confident in them" :D

FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: Why the French Like Nuclear Energy

unfortunately, i think the US's upkeep of bridges, levies and the like do not bode well for trusting our untechnocratic bureaucrats....
 
Right, but it's only 20% of the electricity we use. Most of Europe have 50% or more.
 
Sam,
Just to set the record straight: Chernobyl was not the only accident at a nuclear power plant. It was the only lethal accident. And the death toll there (including early deaths in the surrounding area) was a lot higher than 41 people.
Still, I agree with your point. Nuclear power, overall, is far safer AND has lower environmental impact than burning coal.
A greater percentage of our electricity will probably come from nuclear power as the environmental argument in its favor is finally being understood by even some of the old "no nukes" crowd.
I wouldn't count on politicians who are sweating out every daily poll to take positions divergent from the electorate. Sometimes I think this is good, sometimes I don't--depends if it is my ox being gored!
 
twaddle said:
I prefer not to be irradiated by my energy sources. Call me crazy.
Click to expand...

I won't call you crazy. But people living near coal plants are exposed to more radiation than people living near nuclear plants.

Coal has trace amounts of radiation from the ground, and it goes right out the smoke-stack.

-ERD50
 
Here is some back up data. It is worse than I thought:

Fossil fuel power plant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment leads to radioactive contamination. While these substances are present as very small trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released. A 1,000 MW coal-burning power plant could release as much as 5.2 tons/year of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons/year of thorium. The radioactive emission from this coal power plant is 100 times greater than a comparable nuclear power plant with the same electrical output; including processing output, the coal power plant's radiation output is over 3 times greater.[8].
Click to expand...

-ERD50
 
this thread is very enlightening...hadn't given the issue enough thought...until now...
 
Thank you ERD50!
I had been looking for that source for quite some time. I even tried Wiki, but apparently didn't read carefully enough or search the right terms.
I really find that information amazing, and even more so, that someone hasn't latched onto that as an argument against coal.
I prefer wind/solar over nuclear. However I prefer nuclear over coal.
 
UncleHoney said:
Uranium miners die, they just die a slow death.
Click to expand...

I wonder if stats exist for deaths caused by uranium mining.
It would be nice to do a direct comparison between different sources of energy. Something like:

xxx deaths/GigaWatts produced using coal, oil, natural gas, hydro, or nuclear power.

The above article lacks numbers. Without numbers, any issue can be made as tragic as the writer wishes. All too common amongst the fear mongers. All one has to do is show, talk about a poor widow who lost a husband, or a father who lost a loving, success-bound son, or...
 
Last edited:
Sam said:
That's exactly what I'm talking about! I'm somewhat surprised you didn't bring up 3 Mile Island.

So let's put it in context. Chernobyl was the ONE and ONLY accident in the nuclear power history. 31 people died within days or weeks of the accident. 10 more people died much later of cancer.

41 is less than the number of people dying ANNUALLY from coal mining alone world wide.

How often do we have a refinery accident? 15 deaths right in my backyard, in 2005: Texas City Refinery Blast.

And BTW, Chernobyl was a sub-standard operation. But you knew that, didn't you?
Click to expand...


I don't know where you are getting your numbers from .... but they are WAY off... I was in Kiev and wanted to get out to see the accident... it was not going to be easy to do so I blew it off... but, heard that many hundreds or even many thousand died. I was shown a fire station where every single person in that group died as they went in the first few days...

And there are many who died or gotten cancer who 'cleaned up' the site and build the tomb around it... (maybe these are the ones that the locals were talking about, but it was still related to the accident)..

Also.. there are many sq. miles of land that will not be used in the next few thousand years...


BTW... I am one that thinks we should be using more nuke energy, but it need to be better regulated more like France... NO skimping on maintenance etc.. I don't care what budget constraints you have...
 
Texas Proud said:
I don't know where you are getting your numbers from .... but they are WAY off... I was in Kiev and wanted to get out to see the accident... it was not going to be easy to do so I blew it off... but, heard that many hundreds or even many thousand died. I was shown a fire station where every single person in that group died as they went in the first few days...
Click to expand...

Nuclear Power Education - The Chernobyl Accident

I also "heard" of those numbers, but was never able to find any reputable source for confirmation.

Texas Proud said:
BTW... I am one that thinks we should be using more nuke energy, but it need to be better regulated more like France... NO skimping on maintenance etc.. I don't care what budget constraints you have...
Click to expand...

Hmm, interesting. French nuclear power plants are better regulated than the ones in the US? Skimping on maintenance? Any reliable source to back these up?
 
Last edited:
Texas Proud said:
BTW... I am one that thinks we should be using more nuke energy, but it need to be better regulated more like France... NO skimping on maintenance etc.. I don't care what budget constraints you have...
Click to expand...

Ahah! You're just an evil, pandering socialist! Knew it!

:D
 
Seems that the UN is even saying 4,000 so your 41 is way low... and there are much higher number around..

Have to admit it is from greenpeace... but...

"The new data, based on Belarus national cancer statistics, predicts approximately 270,000 cancers and 93,000 fatal cancer cases caused by Chernobyl. The report also concludes that on the basis of demographic data, during the last 15 years, 60,000 people have additionally died in Russia because of the Chernobyl accident, and estimates of the total death toll for the Ukraine and Belarus could reach another 140,000. "

Chernobyl death toll grossly underestimated | Greenpeace International


Guardian in the UK...

UN accused of ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl deaths



[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]· Atomic agency says toll will not exceed 4,000
· Doctors 'overwhelmed' by cancers and mutations[/FONT]

[FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]John Vidal, environment editor
Saturday March 25, 2006
The Guardian

[/FONT]
United Nations nuclear and health watchdogs have ignored evidence of deaths, cancers, mutations and other conditions after the Chernobyl accident, leading scientists and doctors have claimed in the run-up to the nuclear disaster's 20th anniversary next month. In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
Enviro-Green Tech: The Good? (not the Bad and the Ugly)
2 3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Koolau
Koolau
ladelfina
the past (and future?) of food; a limited view
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
ERD50
E
ShokWaveRider
Inflation, Cost of Living, Oil & Everything that effects us.
Replies
9
Views
3K
Rustic23
Rustic23
P
Death and Money - LONG (You are warned)
Replies
18
Views
4K
peggy
P
M
chips and donuts
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
chinaco
C

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom