Thread: With allies like these...

Originally Posted by CivilWars

No, my justification is if 100 people die every year for ten years mining coal, and 1,000 people die one year due to nuclear reactors, but none the prior nine years, the net effect is the same. It is just that the 1K all at once is more noticeable than the 1K over a 10 year period.

I don't know the exact numbers, but you get my point.

Granted and i get your point but when did i say any of those jobs were safe? All i said was nuclear power isn't as safe as people think it is. I also disagree whole heartly with it cheap. Maybe for the power company it is but the end user sees no difference on their bill.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You wont know that total for a while to begin with. Radiation doesn't always kill right off the bat. More to the point though just because right now the body count is low means its safe? Natarual disasters are unpredictable by the very nature of the beast. It only takes one mistake and nuclear can kill. Not to mention the waste producted by the nuclear process.

Lets look at the last nuclear disaster Chernoble. How many died then? Last i knew it was near 1 million globally from explostion to years later. Now what about those that didn't die? How about all the side effects that generations live with?

Dont mistake luck for safe.


Actually luck is only a part of what saved hundreds of thousands from death. Those 300 engineers played a pretty vital roll in that. Just felt i should give credit where its due.

Also, that last true nuclear disaster happened 25 years ago. I'm sure there have been many new safety regulations and processes and so forth since then. While nuclear energy is by no means completely safe, it seems like a good calculated risk. Unfortunately that won't do much for commuting costs, unless the reliance on oil for power drops enough that oil prices themselves drop....which is pretty unlikely.

At this point electric cars seem to be gaining a little bit of traction, which is at this moment probably the best long-term replacement for most driving issues. I've seen ads for one or two completely electric cars. I've also seen a lot of ads for GE's electric charger-thing, which looks pretty cool. Hopefully advances will be made so that the electric cars won't be underpowered, so to speak, so that they can travel faster or more powerfully then a wind-up toy car. If that happens I think they'll become much more popular then they are now....because let's face it, the majority of Americans aren't going to buy a car that travels about 40 mph and can't pull their dog on a leash, let alone a jet-ski or a u-haul trailer.

At this point I'm just hoping SOMEthing changes, because spending $55 to fill up my 13 gallon tank seems a bit odd when a year or two ago I did it for $20-$25 less. I may not drive nearly as much as I used to these days as I'm back to being a full-time student, but that makes those rare trips to the pump all the more painful lol.

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Deaths per TWH by energy source

This is just the first link I found, but it proves my point of safety.

As for prices, here is the first link I found.

Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar

I am sure there is probably bias in them, but I am too tired and lazy to look.

Yeah im riht there with you on being tired im about to call it a day. It doesn't prove your point though. It all but dismisses chernobyl with an eventual 4000 deaths for a total. Then it doesn't address any of the deaths or side effects from radiation in the last 57 nuclear accident in the US alone since chernobyl. Look im not saying ever reactor is going to blow up. All im saying is they have been pushing how safe nuclear energy is for so long that people have bought into it. Shit happens all the time but your talking about a huge industry that can bury pretty much whatever it wants to.

Originally Posted by ElFuriosoGato

Deaths per TWH by energy source

You can't ignore deaths due to particulate matter emitted from coal-powered plants.

Nor can you ignore the many superfund sites related to coal fly ash.

Nuclear is the only viable option in for the next 50-100 years that will meet our needs at safe and low cost. As time progresses we will develop not only technology for nuclear replacements, but also ways to further reduce nuclear waste problems. Nuclear's problem is not that it is unsafe, its problem is that technology/risks are above too much of the public's level of understanding. This all leads back to encouraging students to enter STEM fields but that is another debate.

Oh im not dismissing anything. This is an area where every direction carries a risk with it. Im just saying it isn't safe like its being passed off as. It would probably be impossible to get an actual count on the deaths by radiation, waste contact, and so forth and it be correct. If everyone died like spock in which ever damn movie it was then it would be easy but that isn't reality.