Slashdot Mirror

Jesus Mary and Joseph...
I didn't realize I was defending a doctoral thesis here..
deaths from coal mining: https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/...
non-mining deaths from coal: http://www.catf.us/resources/p...
Air pollution and health, from the lancet: https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
deaths attributable to AGW, so much here I'm not going to pick one: google scholar link, knock yourself out.. https://scholar.google.com/sch...
deaths attributable to Chernobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... I think you will find the numbers of the last link, are a tad smaller than the numbers in the first ones.

Now, would their be anything else, how was this morning's bowel movement, do you need me to go over your bum with a wet-wipe???

Just share with us the massive accidents and all the destruction coal plants have done.

OK. Here's a map of deaths per 100,000 population per year due to coal:

http://www.catf.us/fossil/prob...

As of 2004, coal is estimated to have been responsible for 24,000 deaths a year, down to 13,000 by 2010. By contrast, the IAEA and WHO estimate the total number of deaths from Chernobyl, not per year, but total, to be around 4,000:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre...

Happy to help.

CO2 can be calculated from known mpg or l/100km.

Not with diesels it can't since a lot of the carbon from the fuel ends up as soot depending on how hard the engine is working.

The automobile diesel production of soot is trivial, compared to their production of NOx and suchlike. As such, it makes almost no difference to the calculation for CO2 from mpg (CO would have a slightly larger effect). However, diesel engines produce much less CO than gasoline engines.

Then again, exhaust from traffic (both diesel and gasoline) is the largest avoidable cause of heart attacks. Diesels contribute through larger amounts of NOx and soot, and smaller amounts of CO and CO2 per mile. Gasoline engines contribute through smaller amounts of NOx and soot, and larger amounts of CO and CO2 per mile.

There is no way WE (the USA) could really do anything about carbon emissions, unless you just want people to needlessly die and the USA be remanded back to third world status.

It's comments like this that really get my goat. There are options between doing nothing and becoming a third world country. The President's plan wouldn't make us a third world country and it will decrease our carbon emissions.

Oh, BTW, closing coal powered plans will actually reduce deaths in the US; and, you know what, it's already happening! See Death and Disease from Power Plants. The numbers of deaths attributable to pollution from power plants has gone down significantly in the last 15 years.

You are completely and utterly wrong.

"This latest report finds that over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. This represents a dramatic reduction in power plant health impacts from the previous studies...

Our 2004 study showed that power plant impacts exceeded 24,000 deaths a year, but by 2010 that had been reduced to roughly 13,000 deaths due to the impact that state and federal actions were beginning to have. The updated study shows that strong regulations that require stringent emission controls can have a dramatic impact in reducing air pollution across the country, saving lives, and avoiding a host of other adverse health impacts."

Back when the accident happened, a significant number of Slashdotters were saying that no meltdown had occurred, that there was no significant structural damage, that no radioactive material would reach the sea, that the incident was overblown and that the plant would be largely still operational.

God, we're sure lucky to have someone so intelligent as you to save us from ourselves... lets review the first article on slashdot about Fukushima so we can let you revel in our combined humiliation:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/s...

What's this? The post had meltdown right in the title? How could this be?!!?
Oh that's right, you're full of shit.
And just to make it clear, if you read through those posts... the Slashdot consensus at the time was the same as yours: The worlds over... big corporations just killed us all.

The current death toll of the disaster: 0
With 1 worker who died of esophageal cancer... so maybe 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Long term affects:

Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima are predicted to be extremely low to none.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2...

Your reactionary statements are not based in fact.
Nuclear power is fairly safe, modern reactors literally CANNOT melt down.
The nuclear industry is prevented from upgrading their plants to safer models because people like you panic and protest.
Japan moved to coal to replace the power lost due to the loss of nuclear power:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
24,000 people per year died because of polution from coal fired power plants:
http://www.catf.us/fossil/prob...

get a clue

By which mechanism? Oh that's right, sympathetic magic because it is also dust.

You call it magic. I consult the EPA, CATF, and JAMA.

Also why should I post sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real?

Why should I bother posting sources against someone that is very obviously just making stuff up and pretending they know it's real? I mean, it's not like you've cited one thing you've said, and citations disproving your statements are about 10 seconds of google searching away. Despite that, I've bothered to cite various sources like the EPA and CATF. Other cites used information collected by the World Health Organization and other reputable sources.

It doesn't get anyone anywhere since we both know it's made up and also the only bit you've got that's actually about fly ash, using a landslide as evidence that the stuff is dangerous is misleading - so is snow in the wrong place.

Well, you could have gone to the links and found that there are people concerned, that there's moves to further restrict the stuff, and there have been incidents of ground water contamination from leeching. Water being one of the biggest killers in the world is a known but separate issue. The problem I was trying to point out with the landslide of ash was the possibility of chemical contamination making so that people couldn't just move back into their homes after cleanup.

Really, you want to be insulting? Fine. You are a very poor debater. You fail to post sources or citations. You fail to respond with countering evidence when I provide evidence. You fail to provide specific details, attack the person instead of addressing the topic, etc... I'm not perfect, but you suck.

Interesting. I'm an 'alarmist' for pointing out that the statistics are 15 deaths per TWh from coal power, vs less than 1 for a number of other sources? I'm an alarmist for breaking out US deaths, since the situation is far worse than it has to be in China, skewing world standards?

I'm a 'poorly informed alarmist' because I check your statements up against publicly available sources and find them misleading?

You want alarmist? Fine.
13.2k deaths in the USA from fine particle pollution. $100B in adverse health impacts.
India is much, much worse: 115k/year, costing $4.6B
China has really cut it's accidents - down to ~2k/year, vs a high of nearly 7k in 2002. Still, COPD linked to fine particulate pollution was 26% of all deaths in China. Their death figure is 750k/year from pollution.

Links aren't included just for you, but for the benefit of others.

Well, the 13,000 deaths per year that are attributed to coal-fired power plants in the US alone. How about not loving that?

Source: http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/existing/

How many deaths in the US are attributed to nuclear power per year? None?

Fine, whatever. But if you want to climb onto your high horse and preach about the amount of radioactive material released, why pick on a few isolated unintentional nuclear accidents? Why not cite the thousands of nuclear weapons tests that were deliberately conducted during the Cold War? Any one of those tests probably released more radioactivity into the air than Fukushima, and we know for a fact that people have died as a result. But did they ever kill 13,000 people a year?

(Admittedly, that's probably some kind of nuclear-industry astroturf site, but I'll still stand by the point that we would never tolerate the environmental harm caused by coal-fired plants if it were as obvious as a Fukushima or Chernobyl.)

$375 Million and the Price-Anderson act. So far the Fukushima disaster has cost the Japanese over $240 Billion.

Actually, estimated at $70 billion to $240 billion for the next 10 years.

Hmmm, so $7 to $24 billion a year.

Lets see. Fossil fuels fine particle pollution kills over 13,000 people a year in the US, mostly from coal. So if a human life is worth $540,000 to $1,850,000, we've matched that in the human cost alone for power plants operating normally in the US.

But it looks like the value of a human life comes in at $5 million in the US, on the low end. So normally operating non-nuclear plants in the US are costing us $650 billion in the human cost alone for the next 10 years.

For a free market, it seems like no coal power plants would be built. Even considering the difference in how much total power comes from coal vs nuclear, coal seems much, much more expensive.

FACTS.

FACTS.

FACTS.

FACTS.

Pro-Nuke news is out there, it's just nobody will report on it, because it won't attract as much viewers/readers.

Global death toll from the pollution from fossil fuel burning-based electricity generation. It is estimated that 0.3 million people die annually world-wide from societally-imposed, fossil fuel-based electricity generation pollutants

Source: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuel-based-power-plants, http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/files/The_Toll_from_Coal.pdf

So you're telling me that you'd rather have 300,000 people die a year... and rising. Rather than advance Nuclear power when Pripyat (Chernobyl) has killed about 9000 total after decades of radiation? The choice sucks. But one is, to me, the lesser suck.

This report suggests that coal fired power plants kill 15,000 people in the US annually. I think that would fit in the "terrible" category.

Look no further than the Fukushima disaster for the proof of nuclear safety versus other power generation methods. How many people have died so far because of Fukushima? How many are projected to get sick in the future? How many have been killed by hydro dams failing and wiping out those downstream? How many coal miners die through accidents each year? How many to lung diseases from working the mines for years?

It's not just that. 24,000 people die prematurely each year from the normal operation of coal fired power plants, in addition to a myriad of other health concerns. Talking about the dangers of nuclear without mentioning the costs of current methods is intellectually dishonest.