Explosion At French Nuclear Site Kills One

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Explosion At French Nuclear Site Kills One

Posted by samzenpus on Monday September 12, 2011 @01:40AM from the someone-save-the-camembert dept.

syngularyx writes "An explosion took place in an oven Monday at the Marcoule nuclear site near the city of Nimes in the south of France. From the article: 'One person was killed and three were injured in the explosion, following a fire in a storage site for radioactive waste, Le Figaro newspaper said. It is a major site involved with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. emergency services said.'" Update: 09/12 16:20 GMT by S : Changed headline and summary to reflect that there seems to be no risk of a leak.

262 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by elrous0 · 2011-09-12 01:40 · Score: 5, Informative

In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone and no one gives a rats ass.
Deaths per terawatt hour (from nextbigfuture.com):
Coal – world average: 161
Coal – China: 278
Coal – USA: 15
Oil: 36
Natural Gas: 4
Biofuel/Biomass: 12
Peat: 12
Solar: 0.44
Wind: 0.15
Hydro: 0.10
Nuclear: 0.04

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Recalculate that in deaths per square foot and I bet it goes the other way.
2. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 01:51 · Score: 0
  
  Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.
  Perhaps workers per terawatt is much higher in coal industries than in nuclear industries?
  Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? I mean how can you possibly die if you are involved somehow in solar energy production? On the road driving to work? Falling from a roof while installing a paneel? So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop? If you have so many workes in solar energy related issues dying the first thing I would do is question the security measures.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
3. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by tqk · 2011-09-12 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
  ---
  Coal - USA: 15
  You couldn't even read your own source?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
4. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, because Uran-miners often don't die in mining accidents. They cannot continue to work due to cancer, whose causation cannot be proven to be from the working environment.
5. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by jellomizer · 2011-09-12 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  I fail to see your point. Just changing the numbers to show that Nuclear Energy could be more dangerous doesn't disprove that it isn't safe.
  How many people die from health conditions living next to a coal burning plant? At least with Nuclear its worse case usually effects a limited range. Fossil fuels effects thousands of miles.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
6. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by paskie · 2011-09-12 01:56 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Solar panel farms aren't risk-free places. High-current DC shocks can be very nasty - you get just a bolt at first, but it can start blood electrolysis and you die few days later.
  
  --
  It's not the fall that kills you. It's the sudden stop at the end. -Douglas Adams
7. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rhaban · 2011-09-12 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It makes sense to compare the safety of different means for producing energy. the number of workers, or the cause of death is irrelevant: if more people die to produce the same amount of energy, then this kind of energy is more dangerous to produce.
8. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Deaths per terawatt hour: Coal - USA: 15.
  And seeing how coal fired plants generate 440Twh in the Q1 2011...that comes to... 6,600 deaths.
  Something ain't stirring the Kool-Aid, here...
9. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  The measurement of "deaths per terawatt" is meaningful if you are an energy consumer. You have a roughly constant rate of consumption and you wish to know roughly how many people die in the production of that energy.
  On the other hand, "deaths per terawatt" is nearly meaningless if you are on the production side, either a miner, a plant worker, etc. There a more meaningful measure will be "deaths per man-hour" or similar since you want to know how likely you are to die during an on the job accident.
10. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rhaban · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
  ---
  Coal - USA: 15
  You couldn't even read your own source?
  
  30 coal miners die each year
  
  Deaths per terawatt hour
11. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:59 · Score: 0
  
  He can read. You can't. Notice the part that said the stats are for people killed per terawatthour? Simple maths should tell you that coal must be used to produce approx 2 TWhrs/year in the US. Understand?
12. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by kent_eh · 2011-09-12 01:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  In other news:
  a petroleum pipeline explosion has killed at least 100 so far today in Kenya.
  From linked article:
  
  "The scene is horrific, with charred bodies all around. I cannot differentiate between men and women or boys and girls. All that is left are bones, and the only way to identify the children is from their smaller skeletons."
  
  --
  
  ---
  "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
13. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Riceballsan · 2011-09-12 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  You couldn't even read the post you were mocking?
  Deaths per terawatt hour and deaths per year, the list is in deaths per terawatt hour, which would not necessarally line up with deaths per year.
14. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-12 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
  ---
  Coal - USA: 15
  You couldn't even read your own source?
  I don't see an inconsistency.
  The first number is deaths per year.
  The second number is deaths per terawatt-hr.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
15. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.
  Depends what the discussion is about. If the discussion is at a national energy policy level, then the question is really "Given that we need X kWhr per year to do everything we want to do, what is the 'best' way to get that much power?" Then for 'best' we can decide what tradeoff we want between cheap, reliable, safe, etc. So if we're talking about the safety of various energy sources, then certainly the death rate per terawatt-hour is (one of) the right metrics.
  If a given industry can give us the same number of TW-hr with fewer injuries and deaths, then that's a good thing. (They may acheive that through fewer workers/more automation, or better safety regulations, or using an inherently less dangerous energy source, or whatever...)
  
  Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? I mean how can you possibly die if you are involved somehow in solar energy production?
  Well that's the point, isn't it? There are fewer ways to have deaths and accidents with solar power, which makes it a safer way to generate energy. That's a point in its favor. To ignore the fact that solar is safer than many other modern energy sources does a disservice to solar, by ignoring one of its advantages.
  
  So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?
  If we're having a debate about the most dangerous rooftop work, then you could go ahead and do that comparison. If we're doing a comparison of the most dangerous energy source, then comparing solar to shingling a roof is a waste of time: what matters is how solar energy compares to nuclear energy, coal energy, etc.
  
  On the road driving to work? Falling from a roof while installing a paneel?
  
  Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).
16. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by JRowe47 · 2011-09-12 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  What in the blazes is blood electrolysis?
17. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by djmurdoch · 2011-09-12 02:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The linked source claims there are 30000 deaths per year from coal, and 2000 Twh. Those are roughly consistent with your numbers.
  They aren't all coal miners, so it's also consistent with the OP.
18. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-12 02:15 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yeah, because Uran-miners often don't die in mining accidents. They cannot continue to work due to cancer, whose causation cannot be proven to be from the working environment.
  No, the difference is that we mine far less uranium than we do coal.
  Note that it requires about 10,000 times as much coal as natural uranium (the kind you get out of the ground and then enrich to make nuclear fuel) to produce a given amount of energy.
  If we were to replace all electricity production in the USA with nuclear plants, we'd need to mine less than one tenth the uranium to run them all than the coal required for ONE big coal-fired plant.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
19. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  I believe he means because there are many more coal plants than nuclear.
20. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by urusan · 2011-09-12 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  Accounting for a higher number of workers per terawatt isn't that important. Even if the excess deaths were primarily driven by the number of workers, the fact that it puts so many more workers in danger is still a problem.
  Also, as you mention, solar-related deaths are probably almost all due to just plain everyday accidents. This sets a nice baseline level of danger and implies that the deaths in the bottom four entries are probably driven mostly by workers per terawatt. This makes sense because of the energy density of solar vs nuclear. In any case, in order for coal deaths to be driven by this factor alone there would have to be 366 times as many workers working in coal production per terawatt than solar (34 times as many if you restrict it to the US alone). This heavily implies that the extra deaths are due to a higher level of danger rather than simply more workers.
21. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by alcarinque · 2011-09-12 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  And yet, nobody cares because they were poor people of a poor country...
22. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:21 · Score: 0
  
  Mining uranium and mining coal is two very different things.
  It is very unlikely that the leaching methods that are used for uranium mining cases the death of a miner.
  The underground mining that is used for coal is far more likely to cause serious incidents.
23. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Yvan256 · 2011-09-12 02:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's when you drink too much Brawndo.
24. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't even include the radiation induced cancer caused by coal power plants.
25. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  This was not 'death by Nuclear!' - Industrial Accident - Title and posted info stated positive for leak, actual article negated the idea of a 'leak'. This is a low-level waste disposal site - NOT reactor!
26. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by fnj · 2011-09-12 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Whether you "agree," or "buy that" doesn't make the slightest difference. The statistics, which you do not even contest, tell the story. They are not "arbitrary" numbers. They are an actual accounting of the comparative death tolls, apples to apples. If you are not prepared to apply rational thought to the issue, then you must not expect to be taken very seriously. If an entire nation is not prepared to apply rational thought to the issue, then that nation must not expect to be taken very seriously.
  You have just made the title of this thread come true.
27. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  From linked article:
  "The scene is horrific, with charred bodies all around. I cannot differentiate between men and women or boys and girls. All that is left are bones, and the only way to identify the children is from their smaller skeletons."
  
  I can't really appreciate the horror they must be going through without pictures. Lots and lots of pictures.
28. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by jovius · 2011-09-12 02:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The risk depends on where the energy is produced too, so the metric is not absolute.
  The procedures and technology can be improved. The solar/wind/hydro deaths for example are calculated from resource mining, construction and maintenance related fatalities (/resource or /profession in general population) : http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html That article precedes the one that OP referenced and provides the methodology.
  The nuclear comes out as the safest probably because of the strict safety guidelines and the fact that not anyone can maintain a nuclear power station. Should the same kind of methods be enforced to all energy related activities in society the renewables (and coal too) would appear a lot more safer.
29. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by cbiltcliffe · 2011-09-12 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Coal miners are not the only people involved in production of energy from coal.
  There can be a lot of people die at coal fired power plants, but not a single miner die, or the other way around.
  In reality, it's a bunch of miners die, and various industrial accidents at coal fired power plants cause other deaths, and probably transporting coal to those plants causes a few deaths, too.
  You're trying to compare two completely different statistics that measure two completely different things, and wondering why they don't add up.
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
30. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by khallow · 2011-09-12 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.
  Why the uncertainty? Either it has meaning or not. But let me ask a couple of questions. Is it relevant to you whether someone lives or dies? All else being equal, would you pick an option that killed less people over one that killed more?
  
  So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?
  Those other industries don't generate electricity. The original poster is conducting a crude but fairly rational analysis. There's a particular outcome, generation of a unit of electricity and a cost (though not a full measure of the costs) associated with that outcome.
  
  If you have so many workes in solar energy related issues dying the first thing I would do is question the security measures.
  Safety measures. Security is a different game. Some activities are inherently dangerous so that merely questioning the safety measures doesn't measurably improve things. We've been working on roofs for ages, so I think the safety issues are probably worked out as well as they can be without some new innovation (say a cheap robotic system that provides near perfect stability for a roof worker or automated solar panel installation that doesn't require many roof workers).
31. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Chrisq · 2011-09-12 02:50 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Also, if you had a starship that could travel to Alpha Centauri killing half the passengers it would be the safest form of transport - when measured by the aircraft industry standard terms of deaths per passenger mile.
  
  (If you think this is off-topic - think about it some more)
32. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Altus · 2011-09-12 02:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  which would be reflected in the total amount of power produced by a particular source.
  
  --
  "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
33. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by khallow · 2011-09-12 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, "deaths per terawatt" is nearly meaningless if you are on the production side, either a miner, a plant worker, etc.
  Such measures are all subjective. So let's consider the original poster. Was he on the production side or the consumer side? I think it likely he was on the consumer side.
34. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Are you comparing apples with apples?
  People's fears over nuclear energy are that there will be a large-scale accident which will negatively affect them.
  If you are not a Chinese coal miner, poor safety standards in Chinese mines are unlikely to have a significant effect on your quality of life. If you live in an area of a developed country which will need to be evacuated in case of a nuclear accident or near-miss, then corners being cut by privatised utilities operating nuclear power stations are much more likely to have an effect on your quality of life.
  As was seen this year in Fukushima. Even if you didn't get cancer or be made infertile (afaik people not working in the station did not suffer these risks) you were probably not very happy about what happened if you lived in the evacuation zone.
  Also, there is a statistical consideration. Events like Chernobyl are 'fat tails' - very unlikely, but disproportionately damaging in comparison to how unlikely they are. These seem to arise by the chance or otherwise combination of several failures - each of which would otherwise lead to a 'near-miss' event.
  Thus, if near-misses become slightly more likely, Chernobyl style events become much more likely. Although they are still unlikely in the grand scheme of things, their risk starts to become less tolerable when weighed against the benefits of nuclear.
  On the other hand, if the rates of say, cave-ins in coal mines go up a little bit because of cost-cutting or whatever, that does not suggest that the chance of a huge cave-in, which would destroy half of West Virginia, has suddenly risen to an unacceptable level.
35. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by rubycodez · 2011-09-12 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone and no one gives a rats ass
  
  There are far more deaths among the *users* of those fuel sources than the producers. In the USA 36,600 deaths from automobiles, 1000 from railroads, 140 from aircraft....and even 1,000 annually of the green bicyclers get slaughtered by those using the fuel to get around. Do you give a rat's ass about that? no? then shaddap...
36. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Goaway · 2011-09-12 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  So? The relevant statistic, deaths per terawatt hour, was given.
37. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Skal+Tura · 2011-09-12 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  required energy production does not depend on the type of energy source, thus deaths per terawatt is the most meaningful statistic there is by far.
  So say for 10TW requirement for coal there is 1 610 deaths while for nuclear there is 0.4 deaths, or in other words 1 death per 2½years.
  So let's reflect that for every 1 death in nuclear production you get 4025 deaths for coal energy production. I'd say that's a DAMN GOOD trade off, even if deaths by nuclear production would increase by multiple orders of magnitude!
  
  --
  Pulsed Media Seedboxes
38. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by c0mpliant · 2011-09-12 03:03 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  And cue the blinkers to the actual problems of nuclear energy now.
  
  Even modern Generation IV reactors are not entirely safe, we still don't know what to do with the waste that is building up and that its not going away any time soon and not to mention that when things go wrong we're not usually just talking about it affecting a handful of people we're talking about massive environmental damage and potentially huge effects on the human population.
  
  I swear the people on slashdot who jump to the defence of nuclear power as soon as anything slightly related to nuclear power comes into the news really annoy me. Nuclear fision is at best a stop gap before the actual solution to our energy crisis. Yes coal is terrible, yes gas is terrible, yes oil is terrible but nuclear power is NOT a clean alternative, its as viable an alternative as "clean coal" (and no that does not mean that I'm saying we should be using "clean coal")
  
  --
  There is no -1 disagree
39. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by dusanv · 2011-09-12 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're off. That 440TWh number is huge. In 2009, US generated 314 GW from coal. That works out to about 2.75 TWh for the whole of 2009 from coal.
  2.75 TWh * 15 deaths/TWh = ~41 deaths.
  So the original poster's figure sounds reasonable.
40. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by ilguido · 2011-09-12 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Moreover this accident has little to do with nuclear energy. It's a furnace used to burn organic waste with low level of radiation: lab coats, radiology gowns and the like.
41. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  That is what I meant: you think it is a damn good trade off, but the coal miners perhaps think different.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
42. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Then the question gets even more interesting: how teh fuck can you die to Solar energy then? Thanx for pointing out the "saftey" ;D a common mistake for a german, sorry. Safty and Security translate to the same german word so if we don't think we easy mix it up.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
43. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by tqk · 2011-09-12 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  30 coal miners die each year
  Deaths per terawatt hour
  Crap. My mistake. Apologies, OP. :-P
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
44. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I do rational think about it. You seem to miss my point? Or?
  If we have 1000 workers in the nuclear energy to produce 1 terrawat, and 1 dies per year, and OTOH
  we have 20000 workers in the coal based energy production per terrawat and 300 die per year, then obviously we have more death to coal mining and coal based energy production than to nuclear.
  However, if we would magically reduce the amount of workers needed to produce that amount of coal to 100, we had far better ration. Don't you agree?
  So: AGAIN, using death per terrawat is a completely arbitrary measurement and you can find dozens of others and try to draw conclusions from them.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
45. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by djmurdoch · 2011-09-12 03:22 · Score: 2
  
  No, T is tera. 1 TWh is 1000 GWh. 314 GW corresponds to 2750640 GWh, or 2751 TWh.
46. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Carewolf · 2011-09-12 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  All the numbers include disasters. So yes, the nuclear number includes all deaths involved in "plant explosions" (sic) and more importantly the raised cancer risks in the surrounding area (which are much lower than the raised cancer risk around a coal plant).
47. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by na1led · 2011-09-12 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  You play with fire and you'll get burned, or in some cases Radiated.
  
  --
  -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
48. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  You know that the official numbers about Chernobyl are faked, or don't you?
  Also the numbers about cancer around coal plants are decades old and don't apply to modern plants (if they ever where true, most papers or reports in the USA regarding teh danger of coal are debunked since a dekade or more).
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
49. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Toonol · 2011-09-12 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  The only reference I could find was as some sort of ridiculous alternative medical treatment. In the context the poster was using it, I can't find anything. I'm guessing the poster was subtly trolling?
50. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Toonol · 2011-09-12 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  No, I think nobody cares because it was petroleum instead of nuclear.
51. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Riceballsan · 2011-09-12 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't the quanity of workers still be a solid statistic. If I produced a special energy plant that could somehow magically power the entire country, and only took 2 people to operate it, and one of them died after 10 years, then the statistic would show as 50% of workers, which would be higher then any other method of power opperation in history, yet as a result of having it, it would have cut down the total number of deaths in the power industry from well over 30 a year, to 1 every 10 years.
52. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Eunuchswear · 2011-09-12 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I do rational think about it. [ ...]
  However, if we would magically reduce the amount of workers needed to produce that amount of coal to 100, we had far better ration. Don't you agree?
  So: AGAIN, using death per terrawat is a completely arbitrary measurement and you can find dozens of others and try to draw conclusions from them.
  So you think death per terrawat us arbitrary because, by using magic, you can reduce deaths from coal production.
  So, do that then, and we'll look at the numbers again.
  In the absence of available magic we have to go with the numbers we have.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
53. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  Generation IV reactors are not entirely safe
  Nothing is entirely safe.
  
  we still don't know what to do with the waste that is building up
  YES WE DO! We reprocess it and/or place it into a breeder reactor to produce MORE energy. Just because the United States of America is too pussy to actually do that doesn't mean we "Don't know".
54. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  ... How do you die from peat?
55. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  "and the fact that not anyone can maintain a nuclear power station. "
  Nobody can, apparently.
56. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by h4rr4r · 2011-09-12 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Magic is not an available option. Until coal can make such a reduction in work force theorizing about it is worthless.
  You are also ignoring the costs of human health damage from coal emissions.
57. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by fnj · 2011-09-12 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, and if an 12 angels could dance on the head of a pin maybe John Lennon would still be alive. You're not very good with statistics, are you?
58. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by petermgreen · 2011-09-12 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  As was seen this year in Fukushima. Even if you didn't get cancer or be made infertile (afaik people not working in the station did not suffer these risks) you were probably not very happy about what happened if you lived in the evacuation zone.
  Nuclear isn't the only industry whose accidents can displace a community on a near permanent basis.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
  And that is just direct impacts. If global warming from fossil fuel usage causes large sea level rises or shifts in what land is arable that could displace a lot of people to.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
59. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by instagib · 2011-09-12 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with these statistics is that they are unreliable for long term prospection; i.e. one big incident for nuclear or hydro (dam collapse) near populated areas would skew the result for all times.
60. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by V+for+Vendetta · 2011-09-12 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  And everyone knows that coal is only used for energy production, nothing else, like cooking steel or something the like ...
61. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  This statistics follows a simplistic approach. Even more people die lying in bed at their home. So will you say nuclear plants are safer than beds in our house? The potential danger of nuclear energy is very high (as proved by Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Chernobyl and recently Japan) and that is why even smaller incidents strike big news. We have not gone through full life cycle of nuclear plants. They remain radioactive for thousands of years and who can guarantee the safety when such hazardous plants accumulate over time.
  Let's count the genetic mutations caused by the accidents too and compare them with the mutations caused by solar panels.
62. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Kielistic · 2011-09-12 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  So your point is: with a slight application of magic and ignoring some statistics coal is safer than nuclear?
63. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by gfreeman · 2011-09-12 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Because they might be out of a job? We're talking about safety here, not employment. If you want to talk employment about an industry that will eventually be replaced by more up-to-date technology, then the coal miners will have to deal with it in the same way the buggy manufacturers were screwed by the car industry, the portrait painters were screwed by the advent of photography, and 8-track factories were shut down when ... you get the idea. At least I hope you do.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
64. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Dan667 · 2011-09-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  it is normalized, that puts all of them on equal weighting
65. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Joce640k · 2011-09-12 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I believe he means because there are many more coal plants than nuclear.
  Ummmm, you see the bit that says "...per terawatt hour"?
  That's there for a reason.
  
  --
  No sig today...
66. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rei · 2011-09-12 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  Your link is one of the most irresponsible, shoddy pieces of "reporting" I've seen in a long time. I followed back their web of references until I finally found their source. The numbers for coal cited by their source are 0.04-0.14 or 0.13-0.23 occupational deaths per TWh for coal, and 0.01-1.23, 0.65, or 0.62 public fatalities per TWh for nuclear and 0.02-0.09, 0.04, or 0.02 occupational fatalities per kWh.
  In short, their numbers cited are total BS.
  Let's look at the rest of the graph that the author *didn't* want to talk about. First, public health costs (all numbers hereon are in milli-euros per kWh):
  Coal: 0.05, 0.01-0.07, 0.01-0.64, 3-5, 4-13, 5-14, 10-50
  Nuclear: 4.9, 0.003-0.009, 0.001-0.005, 0.012, 2.4, 2.4
  From that, we can see that coal is likely worse than nuclear for public health, but different researchers can't even come *close* to agreeing on the risk. It's likely that the nuclear disparity is dependent on whether or not you include accidents or just "business as usual" operation.
  Now, occupational health costs:
  Coal: 0.08, 1-2
  Nuclear: 0.08-0.09, 0.15, 0.14
  Possibly the same, possibly safer to work in a nuclear power plant than a coal mine. And now, environmental costs (I have no idea how they quantify these):
  Coal: 0.005, 0.013-0.015, 0-0.1, 0.1, 0.2-0.8, 0.02, 0.5-2
  Nuclear: 0-0.002
  And lastly, global warming (the one case that nuclear wins hands-down):
  Coal: 0.04, 10-18, 15, 10-50
  Nuclear: 0.0012, 0.0012
  But, of course, this is A Total Red Herring, because virtually nobody is proposing to replace nuclear power plants with coal power plants. The general counterproposal is to use some combination of wind, solar (with or without thermal storage), geothermal, dam uprating for peaking, pumped hydro storage, NG peaking, and long-distance transmission for load averaging.
  
  --
  Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
67. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  [...}
  Nuclear: 0.04
  Does this include the slow death because of nuclear contamination when mining Uranium and processing the nuclear waste?
  For details see e.g. this article.
68. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by gfreeman · 2011-09-12 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Once you can drive a car to Alpha Centauri that will become a meaningful statistic.
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
69. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Uhh isn't Germany planning to do this right now (replace Nuclear Reactors with Coal)
70. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by crypticedge · 2011-09-12 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Such incredibly bad spelling makes me think you don't know what you are talking about. If there is any truth behind what you claim, post links to proof that aren't coal sponsored, but everything I've seen published in the last 3 years says coal is 10x more dangerous than previously thought.
71. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by MiniMike · 2011-09-12 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  what happens to a coal miner who becomes unemployed because of a switch awayy from coal?
  Job protection has historically been a poor reason to fail to embrace new technology. But I'm guessing he might look at the new nuclear power plant, or uranium mine depending on where the hypothetical miner is. You also seem to be overlooking construction, which is a multi-year project for a nuclear power plant, and would create many jobs in the safety-conscious first world.
  Your point about the failure to impose first world safety standards on third world coal mines is well taken, but seems like more of an argument to increase nuclear power.
  
  Here where I work we have about 10 plants in a 150km range. (This does not count the ones on the frensh side of the boarder)
  What percentage of those nuclear plants have released significant radiation? I'm guessing 0.0% What percentage of coal plants nearby have released significant radiation? I'm guessing 100.0%
72. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:26 · Score: 0
  
  Not quite sure what your point is. At best your argument should be that travel deaths should be "Deaths per hours/days/years in motion". What more "fair" measurement do you want for energy? Deaths per day would favor nuclear power, deaths per facility would favor nulcear, deaths per square mile would favor nuclear.
  
  Again, what's your point?
73. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  That, and the fact that the nuclear figure doesn't include uranium mining. You know, because it's propaganda.
74. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rei · 2011-09-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Germany is already phasing out coal power, so no. Because of how rapidly they're doing their nuclear phaseout, there will probably be more coal in the short term, but Germany has made it clear that it intends to replace them with solar and wind, and has announced a boost in investment in these sectors.
  
  --
  Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
75. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by dryeo · 2011-09-12 05:34 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).
  There are probably more deaths involved in uranium mining then working in a reactor. This is one problem with the pro nuclear folks, cherry picking statistics even though in this case uranium mining is probably still far safer then coal mining it doesn't look good cherry picking.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
76. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be trying to make a point that normalized deaths (per passenger mile or unit energy) isn't a good way to measure danger. I don't understand your argument, though. How many people would survive if they drove to Alpha Centauri (following the analogy of astronomical distances for other methods of transportation)? Wouldn't 100x fewer people die if we used 10x more nuclear energy (so all our energy came from nuclear instead of coal and oil)?
  There are certainly some small factors involved that can make in uneven. For travel, you might have to fly something like sqrt(2) more passenger miles to get to your destination, so it's actually sqrt(2) more dangerous than in strict passenger-mile terms. For energy, nuclear energy is electricity, so you'd probably need a little more for some uses, like almost 3x for resistance heating (being pessimistic there because geothermal heat pumps are so expensive to install), and maybe slightly more for transportation (again being pessimistic about the cost of electricity distribution and battery efficiency as well as the cost to switch your car from liquid fuel to electricity). But these adjustments are small relative to the risks involved.
77. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Solandri · 2011-09-12 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with these statistics is that they are unreliable for long term prospection; i.e. one big incident for nuclear or hydro (dam collapse) near populated areas would skew the result for all times.
  We've had two big incidents with nuclear. One was pretty much the worst-case scenario and is estimated to have caused about 50 direct fatalities and 4000 long-term (cancer) fatalities (World Health Organization estimate). The other has caused zero fatalities (independent of the initial quake damage). The "big incident" risk from nuclear simply isn't as bad as the doomsayers say it is, especially when amortized over the amount of power produced.
  
  And I should point out that the opposite effect (death by a thousand papercuts) is also present, and insulates distributed power generation like wind and solar from media scrutiny befitting the actual danger associated with them. Did you know that while Fukushima has thus far caused zero radiation-related deaths, we've already had two wind-related fatalities? A teen in Ohio climbed a wind turbine at his school which was inadequately secured, and fell to his death. And a maintenance worker in Iowa fell to his death while working inside a wind turbine.
  
  The price for concentrating your power source like with nuclear is that when an incident happens, it can cause a lot more damage. The price for distributing your power source is that there's a lot more area and equipment which needs to be secured and maintained, and consequently a much higher chance for things to go (fatally) wrong.
78. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Chrisq · 2011-09-12 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite sure what your point is.
  The point is that a very small average risk level might be outweighed by a very large potential or eventual risk level.
79. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 06:04 · Score: 0
  
  This would be relevant if deaths per power generated in nuclear exceeded the coal stat while in reality the total number of deaths in nuclear industry accidents is still much much lower than coal even when not dividing by output.
80. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by jbengt · 2011-09-12 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  If I produced a special energy plant that could somehow magically power the entire country, and only took 2 people to operate it, and one of them died after 10 years, then the statistic would show as 50% of workers, which would be higher then any other method of power opperation in history, yet as a result of having it, it would have cut down the total number of deaths in the power industry from well over 30 a year, to 1 every 10 years.
  Yes, but would you want to take that job?
81. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by elrous0 · 2011-09-12 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  But it's got electrolytes.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
82. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by NoSig · 2011-09-12 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Hm, while I think about it, perhaps we could also calculate deathes per operation hour of a facility instead of energy produced.
  You could calculate that, yes, but it is not a relevant statistic for comparing energy sources for safety. If you need a given amount of energy, the statistic being offered to you is how many people has died producing that amount of energy for you. A person who dies of radiation poisoning is no more or less dead than a person who dies from falling off a roof while installing a solar panel. If we imagine a whole town dying due to a horrific nuclear accident, then that is no better and no worse than the same amount of people dying due to coal-polluted air, even if all those coal deaths happen distributed over a large country instead of in just one place.
  
  Your arguments are mostly about whether coal is better than nuclear. Even if coal were superior, that wouldn't change the fact that coal kills more people producing the same amount of energy. To say that nuclear is less safe than coal, you must dispute the numbers you were given, it doesn't matter for this discussion whether coal or nuclear has other benefits or disadvantages that are not related to safety. Though I guess you could say that the numbers are correct, but that they will be different in the future for example due to stricter safety standards on coal mines. I'm pretty sure that nuclear is going to get safer at a faster rate than coal is, but that is also an argument you could make.
83. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  what percentage of coal plants nearby have released significant radiation? I'm guessing 100.0%
  You are wrong here ;D Modern plants release any at all and the myth about old plants doing it is debunked since decades, but the wikipedia authors don't know that.
  OTOH regulations regarding power plant seem to be very lax in the USA.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
84. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-09-12 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  How did the solar deaths happen?
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
85. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by NoSig · 2011-09-12 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  I think you want to say that our current modes of transport would be safer than this spaceship when traveling to Alpha Centauri. All our current modes of transport would have a 100% death rate for the same journey, so that spaceship would be much safer than anything we have now. So what I think you want to say is obviously wrong. Was there something other than that that you wanted to say?
86. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I posted from my job and they ONLY have IE there and for some brain dead reason it has no way to activate a spelling correction.
  Sorry about the spelling, but if it is not red unlindered I dnot see slepnlg erors.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
87. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  No, I don't get the idea ;D
  If you replace the danger in the mines by modern technology you have the same effect as replacing coal with nuclear -> less death in the mines.
  More I did not want to point out.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
88. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by gfreeman · 2011-09-12 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  Then I really don't understand what your point is. Why would the coal miners think different from "less deaths in the mines is a good thing"?
  
  --
  Ceci n'est pas un sig.
89. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by mdielmann · 2011-09-12 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite sure what your point is.
  The point is that a very small average risk level might be outweighed by a very large potential or eventual risk level.
  So, we can kill hundreds of people per year in relatively unspectacular ways, but not have truly spectacular accidents every few decades that kill significantly fewer people overall. Gotcha. I'm guessing you still feel better about driving than you do flying.
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
90. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Zoxed · 2011-09-12 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  > How did the solar deaths happen?
  Falling from the roof whilst fitting them ?
91. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by dryeo · 2011-09-12 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  There are other differences between mining coal and uranium. Coal is usually mined pure so you dig it out and burn it.
  Uranium is diluted, I can't find any figures quickly looking besides seawater containing 3 ppb but American uranium deposits are considered very low grade with most of the current mining being removing uranium from sandstone.
  So really you need to compare mining uranium that is perhaps 1 part in 10,000 (number pulled out of my ass) to coal which is 1 part in 1 which could mean equal amounts of material are removed from the ground.
  Also processing the uranium ore is messy whereas coal needs very little processing.
  Both coal and uranium mining also have associated health risks with the pro-nuclear people often forgetting to factor in the health hazards of uranium mining.
  Overall I'd think that uranium mining is still better then coal mining but without actual studies we don't know. The studies are also hard to do as a lot of the health risks are quite delayed.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
92. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because they might die on starvation? Because they like their job? Etc. etc. ... no idea frankly. Because they want their coal sold?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
93. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  You neither, I think.
  Because if you are right, if 24 angles would dance on the head of a pin the likelihood we had 2x John Lennons would be close to 85%, or not?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
94. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  In the absence of available magic we have to go with the numbers we have.
  I'm really surprised how few people are able to think.
  I talked about reducing the amount of workers involved to dig the same amount of coal.
  Do you think it is remotely possible or not?
  If you think the amount of coal workers can't be reduced, then you are right.
  However I wonder why in germany 5000 coal workers dig the same amount of coal 1000000 does in china? Would it not be possible to "somehow desperately avoiding the word `magic` here^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H scale down the coal mining work force in china?
  Now imagine if the workforce where much less, and the safety also increased, would that not change something?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
95. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  No my point is: you can not read. Please go back to the sentence where I mentioned "magic" to get your attention and read that sentence AGAIN.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
96. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but would you want to take that job?
  Very likely yes, as the job has nothing to do with the death toll or power generation involved.
  Would I want to work in China in a mine? Certainly not.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
97. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Kielistic · 2011-09-12 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I know exactly what you are saying. If the number of coal workers magically reduces you are asserting that the ratio of workers dying will also decrease. Which, I guess might be true being as we've completely distanced ourselves from reality here anyway and might as well just claim anything. Unfortunately it's meaningless because those people are needed for the coal industry. Your reasoning is not that far off from saying "If less coal workers died then coal wouldn't be so bad and therefore this metric is useless". The fact is that all those coal workers are needed and all those coal workers do die per terawat produced.
98. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-12 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  There are other differences between mining coal and uranium. Coal is usually mined pure so you dig it out and burn it. Uranium is diluted,
  Good point.
  If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the price of U3O8 and coal represent the relative difficuly in mining the two substances, we do a quick check, and find that that U3O8 sells for about $10 per pound, and coal for abouit $50 per ton.
  Which means that Uranium is about 400 times as difficult to mine as coal, all in all.
  Which would suggest that we'd need to remove about 1/25th the material from the ground for the nuclear option as opposed to the coal option.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
99. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by MechaStreisand · 2011-09-12 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  You know that nuclear reactors require FAR less uranium than coal plants require coal, right?
  
  --
  Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
100. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by nojayuk · 2011-09-12 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Uranium orebodies being exploited at the moment usually run about 1%-2% metal, that is a tonne of ore will yield between ten and twenty kilos of metal after processing. For nuclear power reactor use the U235 concentration in the metal needs to be enriched from 0.6% to about 3%, a fivefold increase so a tonne of ore will produce between two and four kilos of "fuel" and the residue metal is depleted uranium, nearly all U238.
  Most uranium mining is done at open-cast operations as they are the cheapest method of extracting the ore. In contrast there are few high-quality open-cast coal operations left anywhere as they were usually mined out decades or even centuries ago. A lot of coal today is dug from underground workings, more labour-intensive and more dangerous than open-cast diggings. Some countries such as Germany carry out large-scale brown coal or lignite open-cast mining to feed their thermal power stations but this results in low thermal output per tonne of fuel and requires more expensive pollution controls on the smokestacks.
101. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anguirel · 2011-09-12 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  I would guess that it is exactly what it says, Electrolysis of Blood (more specifically, the water in the blood).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
102. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anguirel · 2011-09-12 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  The Solar Deaths (from what I recall of seeing this information previously) were mostly roof-installation deaths, and comparable to other roof work per man-hour required. However, the Solar Panel installation required more time on top of the standard roof work, so could be and was measured separately. Having safety guidelines and actually having them enforced are very different propositions.
  I suppose if you include freak mirror accidents for the focused solar heat arrays (should any have ever occurred), that would qualify as well. There's more to solar power than just the direct Photo-voltaic Cell Arrays you're considering.
  That said, why not include it? If the argument against Nuclear power stems from "It's Dangerous!", and statistics that show, per functional unit of output, it's safer than any other form of electricity generation, that seems pretty valid as a counter argument. If we went with number of workers per terawatt-hour, that would just show how efficiently we were using available manpower. Showing deaths per worker might show general safety concerns in terms of what an employee might want to know, but isn't terribly relevant in terms of which technology is the "safest" (in terms of deaths, anyway) for end users to get the amount of electricity they demand.
  
  --
  ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
  QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
103. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by HungryHobo · 2011-09-12 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  That would be wonderful but no matter how much you don't like it that is not how the world actually is. Coal mining and coal power production actually kills that many people right now.
  If it was not coal mining, if they had robots digging all the coal, if they could magic coal out of the air, if they could put every worker into a full suit of body armour capable of withstanding a cave-in and if they could just run the power plants without the need for all that messy coal then yes the figure would be lower.
  unfortunately here in the real world the numbers are what they are and no amount of wishing makes any difference.
104. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Roskolnikov · 2011-09-12 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  So do those hundred full under the oil category? I see oil, natural gas but no petro distillates.... certainly good old gasoline is used to generate power (though somewhat harder to determine) I think they should be counted.
  
  --
  Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
105. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by HungryHobo · 2011-09-12 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  I've run into this guy before in other topics.
  expect him to insist that coal is wonderful no matter what, he'll keep on and on about how all the plants where he lives (I can only assume as some kind of employee in the PR department) are perfectly clean and don't release and toxic chemicals, heavy metals or anything but sunshine and he'll keep referring to sources and documents which he is sure he read one time somewhere but which he feels no need to actually provide.
  meanwhile he's sure that almost everyone near Chernobyl died within days and there's been some kind of sinister coverup since then because he clearly remembers the news reports at the time talking about everyone dying.
106. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by HungryHobo · 2011-09-12 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  We went through this before. long ago. again and again and again. europe is no better.
  you even eventually provided an actual document(in german) which you insisted supported your claims which actually just listed the vast quantities of arsenic,NOx etc which the plant released into the air.
  we also established that in reality the US plants were actually cleaner and are held to a higher standard by regulatory bodies than the lovely german plant you gave documentation for.
  but you apparently either live in a fantasy world or work for a coal plant PR department.
107. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by theArtificial · 2011-09-12 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Such incredibly bad spelling makes me think you don't know what you are talking about.
  
  For many people English is a second language and I believe this poster is German.
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
108. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  you even eventually provided an actual document(in german) which you insisted supported your claims which actually just listed the vast quantities of arsenic,NOx etc which the plant released into the air.
  You are mistaken.
  I showed you the statistics of the few plants that still produce exhaust, minor one, because for the ones that don't there are not many numbers available.
  You showed standards for the USA which where more stringent, but you showed no actual numbers of actual exhaust.
  So you have more stringent numbers on paper, but obviously no one who checks them.
  However that is not the point, as you repeat here: arsenic, NOx (you forgot mercury) and ... where is uranium? There is none ...
  Regarding your coal plant department insult: no, I only want that people start to think.
  My simple example: reduce coal workers to 1 single person and then the death toll is changing, seems to difficult to grasp.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
109. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  No, those people are not "needed" for the coal industry.
  It is just that it happens to be the way that in third world countries like Chile or China a lot of manual work is involved in coal mining.
  In other countries the amount of coal mined per person is 10 to 50 times higher. Which implies you can reduce the manpower needed by a factor of 10 to 50. Also you can invest in safety.
  Anyway, you prefer to stick to what you believe instead of thinking out of the box.
  My point is not number shuffling but encouraging to think out of the box.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
110. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Kielistic · 2011-09-12 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  Except coal numbers were listed for just the US as well and they were still a couple orders of magnitude higher than nuclear. Thinking outside the box is fine but you still have to stay within the confines of reality.
111. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Capsaicin · 2011-09-12 13:30 · Score: 1
  
  Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.
  Sure it's meaningful and reflects the actual question: How many units energy can we generate per unit risk?
  Perhaps workers per terawatt is much higher in coal industries than in nuclear industries?
  Yes that could be the case, and this means is that more people are would exposed to risk per unit energy generated. Which goes to emphasise the meaningfulness of the measure originally given.
  Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? ... Falling from a roof while installing a paneel? So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?
  Mode of death is irrelevant to the question of how many units energy can we generate per unit risk! It's meaningless to compare "other industries that do work on the rooftop," unless the risk adopted in working on said rooftop is being spent generating energy. Or?
  
  --
  Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
112. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by dryeo · 2011-09-12 17:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, what I don't know is how much ore has to be dug up and processed to power a nuclear reactor whereas coal is dug up needing almost no processing.
  Most of the Uranium in the States is extracted from sandstone so it is hard to believe that there is a very high percentage of uranium in a given amount of sandstone.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
113. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  You neither, I think.
  Because if you are right, if 24 angles would dance on the head of a pin the likelihood we had 2x John Lennons would be close to 85%, or not?
  Even if he's crazy, he makes a good point with this.
114. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Fiduciary · 2011-09-12 19:50 · Score: 1
  
  What about the 950,000 coal workers in China you are threatening with modern processes? Maybe we should all go back to manual coal extraction because it employs more people. Oh wait that's even more dangerous. Choose, danger or jobs?
115. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Fiduciary · 2011-09-12 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  Plans in Germany produce less harmful exhaust, but there are no numbers because they are so clean. The plans in the US are held to be clean on paper but there are no numbers so the must be filthy dirty.
116. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Carewolf · 2011-09-12 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  True, modern coal-plants are much less dangerous than old ones, but the numbers are global, so it includes crappy coal plants, just like it includes crappy nuclear plants. And just like coal plants are safer today, so are nuclear plants. The constant fear surrounding the plants, ensure that even the smallest of leaks are raised to international news, and thus leaks and raised cancer risk is non-existing around plants in the western world.
  Feel free to multiply the Chernobyl numbers with 10 or 100, or even 1000. Nuclear power will still end up several magnitudes of power less dangerous than coal.
117. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Internetuser1248 · 2011-09-12 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  So what is your 20 word cure all answer for those of us opposed to both coal and nuclear? Once you are done screaming "you are hypocrites" to the coal lobby, perhaps we could have a general debate on safe energy solutions.Perhaps you also think that murderers should be let off because they kill less people than wars?
118. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-12 23:42 · Score: 1
  
  The figures don't seem to take into account the tens of thousands of people dead or seriously ill due to nuclear fall-out from Chernobyl, not to mention the fact that the cost of dealing with it nearly wrecked the economy of the USSR (even though people couldn't sue the operators for compensation).
  That is the problem with averages, they don't reflect the seriousness of a nuclear accident. That is why we insist on such high safety standards.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
119. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-12 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).
  Sure, and the most dangerous aspect of flying is tripping over something. You can't compare a trip to a serious crash, or individual radiation exposure during handling to the release of large amounts of material into the atmosphere.
  Nuclear is mostly safe, just like flying is. The problem people have with it is that if something does go badly wrong the consequences are huge, far more so than a single aircraft crashing or a coal fired station burning to the ground. Until about five years ago there wasn't really any alternative, but now there is I don't think it's unreasonable for people to prefer cheaper and safer options.
  There is no irrational panic, only pragmatism and a proper understanding of the risks and benefits.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
120. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, a starship travelling to Alpha Centauri would kill all of its passengers multiple times over.
  It would take several generations to reach....
121. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by delt0r · 2011-09-13 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  Your backing up GP point. Also i heard that more people die from falling down stairs in the US than from guns. Don't recall where i say that though.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
122. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by delt0r · 2011-09-13 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  You mean including the 20 new plants already commission or under construction? In my book phasing out would including not building new ones.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
123. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by delt0r · 2011-09-13 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  What is it will /. today, the kool-aid on special or something? The point wasn't that others are worse, its that the media over inflate nuclear deaths and accidents so we *don't* have a proper debate.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
124. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by tehcyder · 2011-09-13 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  For many people English is a second language and I believe this poster is German.
  I think the .de email address is a pretty good clue there.
  
  Man blir trött av att gå och gora ingenting.
  And as for bad spelling, your sig might as well be written in a foreign language!
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
125. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by happyfeet2000 · 2011-09-13 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  In another news about Kenya's explosion, authorities confirmed that since it is oil there will be no need to evacuate anybody in a 30 km radius like with nuclear. Also, you won't have to worry about increased cancer deaths for the next 20-30 years.
126. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by tom17 · 2011-09-13 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's going to be one VERY busy miner. How will he supply the world of coal all on his own??
  He'll die in no time from exhaustion alone. That would be a 100% death rate then!
127. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Internetuser1248 · 2011-09-13 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  I love this attitude that saying the word "kool-aid" automatically makes you right and whoever is disagreeing with you wrong. Especially while claiming to want a proper debate. While I agree the media is a giant hype machine and any complaint against that is valid, I don't think the radiation spills are all about deaths on the site. One reactor workers death is not more important than one coal miners death in itself. But I doubt your statistics take into account the long term deaths from various cancers and other radiation related illnesses caused by nuclear industrial incidents, because these numbers are not really known to anyone. The incident at chernobyl for example has 31 deaths directly attributed to it, with the UNSCEAR claiming another 64 confirmed deaths from the radiation leaks. These are the numbers that make the nuclear industry death statistic posted earlier. However the WHO estimates 4000 radiation deaths not including clean up workers, the TORCH report estimated 30-60,000 deaths from cancers as a result and other organisations have estimates as high as 900,000. It seems a bit dishonest to quote the 31 deaths in statistics and ignore the rest. The truth is we don't know how many people have died from or will die in the future from the large industrial nuclear accidents. We will likely never know, as the cause of cancer is near impossible to ascertain. The reason one confirmed death in a nuclear accident is more newsworthy than a coal miner's death is that each one represents many other untold victims.
RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:43 · Score: 4, Informative

The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak. Geeezuz H Me, couldn't someone vet this stuff before it gets posted?
1. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  "The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak."
  And of course we all know that the news media would never ever lie at the behest
  of a government.
2. Re:RTFA! by alci63 · 2011-09-12 01:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Well... the article says the Nuclear Safety Authority _says_ there is no risk of radioactive leak. They also said the radioactive cloud from Tchernobyl stopped at the country borders :-)
3. Re:RTFA! by Issarlk · 2011-09-12 02:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  In France, radioactive clouds stop at the country borders. And even if they were to somehow fly over the country, it wouldn't be the cause of an increase of thyroid cancers. Nuclear energy is pretty safe in France.
4. Re:RTFA! by Jawnn · 2011-09-12 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak. Geeezuz H Me, couldn't someone vet this stuff before it gets posted?
  LOL... You must be new here.
5. Re:RTFA! by skyraker · 2011-09-12 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  No, the Russian government said that, and they said that after everyone knew about it because the cloud had already made it to another country. This explosion was in a waste furnace. It doesn't produce radiation. The only risk is very local depending on how much contamination was in the furnace at the time, which wouldn't be a whole lot. This isn't a reactor.
6. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  The title is "Leak Risk At French Nuclear Site", not "Leak at french nuclear site". Technically it is true. There is a leak risk at all nuclear sites, there is also a leak risk under my sink, it may not be radiation, but it's true.
7. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  I know, right! Look people, the government said there was no risk of a leak after theJapanese earthquake. And it only took a couple days after Chernobyl for the USSR to announce the problem.
  
  All accidents, especially nuke/chemical ones, are accurately reported minutes after by officials responsible for the oversight. Never has anyone said nothing to see here move along and it be reported as fact.
8. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  This factory only recycles low to very low radioactive materials such as gloves or suits used by personal that work in nuclear facilities. It's an INDUSTRIAL accident not a NUCLEAR accident...
9. Re:RTFA! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Okay how about this. Solar panels could kill Billions as a headline.
  Hey if we made enough of them and dropped them from a good height on to people they could. Let's always post what could happen in every headline shall we. France could attack Russia, hey it happened before. Nazis could take power in the next German elections. Or better yet Obama could order nation wide martial law and suspends elections.
  Their is as much evidence of those happening as their was for a leak at that facility.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
10. Re:RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  The French government _did_ actually say at some point that the Chernobyl radioactive cloud had affected all neighboring countries but not France.
  It's now a very common source of dubious jokes about cloud-stopping customs, and we French have learned to distrust the government on this topic.
Not a terrorist attack, according to other media by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:44 · Score: 0

Not a terrorist attack, according to other media.
Which is good in a way ,but doesn't really hamper the scare for the those in the near area.
Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 01:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Freak, an oven exploded killing a working in the plant. There IS NO LEAK. THEY EXPECT NO LEAK. THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!
FREAKING HECK PEOPLE!!!!!
If this was a Lego factory no one would care.
We had two workers die at my local power plant. They where putting giant snow flakes on the smoke stacks for Christmas! Really this is just to the point of being shameful.
HOW BAD IS THIS TITLE!
From the link in the story!!!!!!!!!!
"There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials."
REALLY JUST SHUT DOWN SLASHDOT your are killing it with your abuse!

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
1. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 01:53 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  We had two workers die at my local power plant. They where putting giant snow flakes on the smoke stacks for Christmas!
  You know, I wouldn't kill anybody, but it seems like those guys deserved to die. There's just something too fucking postmodern about putting giant snowflakes on top of global warming-contributing pollution emitters...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by cultiv8 · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My favorite line FTA:
  
  There are no nuclear reactors at the southern French site
  
  --
  sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
3. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by nstlgc · 2011-09-12 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  u mad bro?
  
  --
  I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
4. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Freak, an oven exploded killing a working in the plant. There IS NO LEAK. THEY EXPECT NO LEAK. THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!
  I would say that panic is completely justified. You have no idea how seriously the French take their ovens.
5. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  A no they didn't and by no they don't pollute.
  That power plant has not been run in probably more than a decade but it is still manned and just sits there. It is a running joke.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
6. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by GameboyRMH · 2011-09-12 02:12 · Score: 3
  
  This is shameful. Come on I know Slashdot is like a skin mag and we don't really read it for the articles, but this is Daily Mail-quality reporting here.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
7. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-09-12 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  samzenpus = timothy = kdawson. They all post inflammatory, poorly researched bullshit.
  
  It's almost as though they want people to leave /.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
8. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yes I am. This level of crap makes me crazy. Not to mention that Slashdot was my favorite site. While not perfect the community was actually much better behaved and reasonable than most other communities plus it was News For Nerds and did't have the crap spin that other sites had.
  Samzenpus who posted this should be let go for allowing such garbage on the front page. It isn't a human error but an intentional lie that was posted on the front page of Slashdot.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
9. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  If this was a Lego factory no one would care.
  I would care and I think a large number of people on this site would care. That might cause the price of Lego to go even more through the roof.
10. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  It is, however, a radioactive waste storage site.
11. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Oxygen99 · 2011-09-12 02:32 · Score: 2
  
  Would this be the same "they" who concocted the tissue of lies and half truths regarding the damage to the Fukushima plant, or is it some other reputable "they" who always tell the truth, no matter the personal cost, when something bad happens to their employers on their watch?
  
  Frankly, in light of the current reputation of the nuclear industry, I think it's understandable people might be a little oversensitive to, ooh, I don't know, explosions at a nuclear waste processing site.
  
  Rather a healthy skepticism about the words of a tarnished industry than a collective head in the sand blindly accepting the word of PR as truth. Sheesh. You're just as bad as those who insist on claiming the sky is falling all the time.
  
  --
  I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
12. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Oxygen99 · 2011-09-12 02:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Heh, I know it's bad form to reply to your own post, but a quote from the Guardian story on this made me laugh.
  
  The papers said the body of one male worker at the plant had been "found carbonised", but it added that there was no evidence that the explosion had "caused any radioactive leak".
  
  A spokesman for the French atomic energy authority told journalists: "For the moment, there is nothing coming out."
  
  Emphasis, mine, obviously.
  
  --
  I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
13. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by dkleinsc · 2011-09-12 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Here's another way of putting it (with apologies to Mel Brooks):
  Throw up your lunch!
  Posts incorrect!
  Errors? a bunch!
  Front page a wreck!
  You'll be surprised
  You're making a French mistake.
  Voila!
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
14. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Rather a healthy skepticism about the words of a tarnished industry than a collective head in the sand blindly accepting the word of PR as truth. Sheesh. You're just as bad as those who insist on claiming the sky is falling all the time."
  So make it up?
  Really?
  This is not skepticism this is out and out fabrication. No where in the linked article did it say that there was any risk of a leak. Everything said that there was no leak.
  The explosion was in an oven used to burn old coveralls and their are no reactors on the site!
  Sure be skeptical but do not make crap up.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
15. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Kentari · 2011-09-12 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Those workers probably didn't decide to put the snowflakes there. Please aim your death wishes at the people responsible.
16. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, screw the US government, throwing a hissy fit over harmless things like dirty bombs. That's not even a nuclear bomb!
17. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  It's a valid point, but that hasn't prevented serious nuclear accidents from occurring from non-reactor processes at non-reactor sites before. For example, the Tokaimura nuclear accident in 1999 in Japan didn't involve a reactor. Well, not an intentionally constructed one, anyway.
  You are correct that the slashdot summary and many news reports are exaggerating the situation, but lack of a reactor doesn't mean much.
18. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by horza · 2011-09-12 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Agreed. This is beyond pathetic. One of the first sentences is "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast" and later it says there are no nuclear reactors on that site. The fact somebody was killed in an industrial accident is sad, not matter how many times it happens each day, but the nuclear element is spurious.
  There is nothing quoted that even insinuates there is a remote possibility of a leak, and so I agree with lwatcdr that the whole Slashdot post is a made-up lie. This is majorly damaging to the reputation of Slashdot.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
19. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Toonol · 2011-09-12 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Some day we're going to get a story about a worker accidentally impaled by a forklift in a nuclear plant's parking lot, and the headline will be "Fatality at Nuke Plant: Risk of Leak?"
20. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · 2011-09-12 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Well they edited the headline which is good. Now the question is will they learn from this or just do it again.
  
  --
  See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
21. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonyme+Connard · 2011-09-12 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  THERE IS a nuclear reactor on the site, along with a storage facility for highly radioactive wastes from others reactors, research facilities and plants producing nuclear fuel for civilian and military applications.
  The part of the site concerned is dealing with low radioactive waste, but THERE IS a risk of leak. Probably not really dangerous, nothing compared with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but hey.
  The site is known for recent radioactive leaks, of small quantities, that the authority first DENIED.
22. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Atzanteol · 2011-09-12 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Experience would show that no, they will not.
  
  --
  "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
  
  - Charles Darwin
23. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by drinkypoo · 2011-09-12 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  Godwin? Is that you? I could swear I heard him calling...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
24. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  In fact, they are wrong !
  There are reactors there ... One of the oldest French ones ... and of course, closed for many many years.
  And as I'm living less than 200km ( 130 miles ?) away from the explosion : Nothing interesting in this news.
25. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 07:19 · Score: 0
  
  This is not Fukushima, Chernobyl, or anything to do with nuclear reactions. If there are risks of nuclear contamination at this site it is extremely low level and fundamentally incapable of affecting a large area. There aren't even nuclear reactors or fuel storage pools at this site. They had an industrial accident while burning garbage. It's not like they can't get within miles of the site or have to climb through utter devastation in order to get information on the situation either like the other examples you gave. This event was over by the time the BBC even posted it. As of now it's a complete and utter non-event. It is done. Not even worth putting on Slashdot to begin with as it is relevant only to the relatives and workers at the facility which were impacted by it.
  No, seriously, If they are burning it and it exploded and caught fire anyways then it is really not much worse for the environment, only worse for the people nearby who expected it to be a contained event instead of a sudden event. There is a limit to how much paranoia is healthy regarding chemicals and nuclear hazards. Personally, I'm more concerned about the sewer work they are doing down the street causing my floor drains and sinks to let out sewer gas than anything to do with nuclear power anywhere in the world. Risk is relative, but perspective is fundamental. Your skepticism is beyond just trying to be "healthy" in this situation. It is paranoia.
26. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by ArsenneLupin · 2011-09-12 20:04 · Score: 1
  
  THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!
  Indeed. That's why they've got those signs in nuclear power stations: no eating, no drinking, no smoking, no urinating, no open wounds.
  (Sorry, no picture, as somewhere it also said no cameras, no cellphones).
27. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by ArsenneLupin · 2011-09-12 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. People coming to Slashdot for this...
28. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by delt0r · 2011-09-13 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps now it should be News for Fox News Nerds... well there should just about be a FOX in there somewhere. Is there a better place to go?
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
very misleading title... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:46 · Score: 0

"Leak Risk at French Nuclear Site"
Second sentence of the article: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast"
From Here : by dvaldenaire · 2011-09-12 01:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Hi there,
I am french, and i can tell you all : there are no problem in nuclear here. Never. Go back to sleep. Thanks for your attention.
In fact, here in France, it is almost illegal to put "problem" and "nuclear" in the same sentence without any negation...

--
What does it mean, "appended to the end of comments you post"
1. Re:From Here : by airfoobar · 2011-09-12 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, here in France, it is almost illegal to put "problem" and "nuclear" in the same sentence without any negation...
  Is that one of Sarkozy's new policies, because I hear he really has issues with that "freedom" thing...?
2. Re:From Here : by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:54 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  Lies. France is particularly transparent regarding nuclear incidents. They even invented a level 0 incident. And absolutely everything is published on the website of the ASN http://www.asn.fr/ . Now if other industries could be even half as transparent
3. Re:From Here : by jellomizer · 2011-09-12 02:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I am a big supporter of nuclear Energy and I think a lot of the world has an irrational fear of nuclear energy. However to ignore and not respects the dangers of it too is just as irresponsible. Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
4. Re:From Here : by Rhaban · 2011-09-12 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Lies. France is particularly transparent regarding nuclear incidents. They even invented a level 0 incident. And absolutely everything is published on the website of the ASN http://www.asn.fr/ . Now if other industries could be even half as transparent
  Hey, I worked on this website!
  (it has been down several hours today... maybe I shouldn't brag about it.)
5. Re:From Here : by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  Don't get ahead of yourself here. There was a butload of cases where nuclear sites officials refused to receive Nuclear Safety Authorities inspectors, who had to "law-force" their way in.
  Transparency regarding nuclear incidents, maybe. Regarding safety and site management, not so much.
6. Re:From Here : by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.
  If only people had the same fear of coal plants then...
7. Re:From Here : by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  I am a big supporter of nuclear Energy and I think a lot of the world has an irrational fear of nuclear energy. However to ignore and not respects the dangers of it too is just as irresponsible. Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.
  Except that people have an unhealthy fear of radiation. As far as contaminants go, it's just the same as any poisons in the atmosphere. If you eat a kilogram of lead, you'll die.
8. Re:From Here : by jafac · 2011-09-12 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  It's not nuclear energy that people fear.
  It is contamination from fission byproducts and waste. Primarily, I-131 in the short-term, (months), and Cs-137 in the long term (decades), and many, many (hundreds of) other byproducts. The particles produced are nanoscale-sized, and extremely difficult to filter. In an accident, they are discharged and spread far and wide. By their radioactivity, they are difficult to detect - because they are not actually all that radioactive, outside the human body. But if they are combined with other elements in the environment, and introduced into the food chain, and inhaled or ingested, they can persist in the human body, and do tremendous damage over long periods of time.
  Once deposited over a wide area, there is no alternative other than to abandon the poisoned land. Sure, people can "live" on it. But when you look at the data from health studies, over the long term, our health is impacted. There are mutations, unexplained deaths, cancers, birth defects, immune disorders.
  FACT: The increased risk of health impacts are small.
  FACT: If you amortize these health risks over time, and over the population as a whole, the economic costs, of the cancers, in particular, are huge. The alternative, the hundreds of square miles of abandoned land (for decades or longer) - (this must also include Pripyat, and also the areas in Russia and the US that have been abandoned due to improper disposal of waste from cold-war weapons production).
  FACT: Over time - in the future, the risks will only increase, as there are more accidents. More land will be denied, higher concentrations of contaminants will accumulate across the globe, as we build-out more and more plants, as we continue to reject that nuclear is an "unacceptably risky solution".
  FACT: I'm personally, not happy, that I have to accept a .001% higher risk of cancer, because TEPCO couldn't keep their plant in proper repair, and prepared for a disaster that anyone could have predicted was eventually inevitable.
  FACT: There are "clean" alternatives.
  Question: Why choose the risk? The "convenience" of nuclear power does not outweigh the cost of these health risks.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
9. Re:From Here : by jellomizer · 2011-09-12 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Just categorizing your opinion and labeling them Fact doesn't make it so.
  Citation please, and not from hippy websites. I am not saying you are wrong but if you are going to state your opinion as fact, you better be able to back it up.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
10. Re:From Here : by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  The New Zealand government had to send the navy to Mururoa and simultaneously launch a massive International protest to stop the nuclear detonations. Even some privateers got on board and went in to protect the French Polynesians from the French determination to turn the atoll into glass.
  Never any problems? Ask the thousands of people who enjoyed a radioactive beach.
Golden Girls! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:49 · Score: 0

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.
Are you for real? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:49 · Score: 0

Indeed. As demonstrated by recent events in Japan, the nuclear power industry has a very good track record when it comes to correctly estimating the radioactive leaks from events.
Really? by yrrah · 2011-09-12 01:50 · Score: 1

Quote from summary: "There is a risk of a radioactive leak" Quote from linked article: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak"
RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:50 · Score: 0

Line one of TFA:
There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast
The first line of the article disagrees... by The+Pirou · 2011-09-12 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no risk of a radioactive leak according to the article referenced or several other articles referencing the incident.
1. Re:The first line of the article disagrees... by SwedishChef · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  There's never a risk of radiation leaking according to the first announcement in every case.
  
  --
  No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
2. Re:The first line of the article disagrees... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-09-12 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  This is a furnace for incinerating items contaminated by exposure to nuclear fuels during regular use (clothing, tools etc). By themselves they are more than likely harmless, but if left to build up in landfill sites I'm sure they'd cause problems.
  
  Furthermore, If a Bono isn't on stage where people can see him and isn't clicking his fingers, are children in third world countries still dying much more often than industrial workers on French nuclear waste processing sites? Yes. Yes they are.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
3. Re:The first line of the article disagrees... by SwedishChef · 2011-09-12 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  None of those arguments are even germane to my post; they always claim right off the bat that there is no radiation danger even when they know that there is. Or they just cover it up (numerous documented cases). Even if you could rid the nuclear industry of corruption in administration, operation and construction you still couldn't make the same claim I make in my sig. Your continuous argument that more people die differently is like saying that because there are two documented cases of people falling from airplanes at altitude the rest of us should give it a try. Just because people die from malaria doesn't make the nuclear industry safe.
  
  --
  No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Side by side by side by roman_mir · 2011-09-12 01:52 · Score: 0

We just had this story "Fukushima and Chernobyl Side-by-Side", and I stand by idea that there needs to be less state, more private enterprise involved in this, because there needs to be research approaching the entire question differently - how is energy extracted from nuclear materials?
In that thread there are so many people talking how much better State ran nuclear power plants are, though Chernobyl was State ran.
I mean, here is a guy commenting: Listen, that's nuts. You can't really talk about state-run nuclear power plants without first talking about France, where about 78% of all electricity generation is nuclear. The French safety record is excellent, and it's mostly excellent because the main electricity producer was (until 2004) owned by the government, and this and this.
Yes, France has lots of nuclear power plants. Yes, they are relatively safe. No, it doesn't mean they won't have a problem. No, it doesn't mean private plants must have problems.
Sure, State can spend more money on everything, every back up possible, but that's because the State forces everybody in the state to pay up or borrows the cash from others, or prints it.
Again: how about allowing private enterprise get more involved in research and design, because I really want a nuclear powered skateboard.

--
You can't handle the truth.
1. Re:Side by side by side by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  You're insane. Your incoherent ramblings have been on my radar for a while, but now you've skipped into uncharted territories of stupidity and insanity.
2. Re:Side by side by side by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  "my radar" - yes, the all knowing AC radar.
From the field by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:53 · Score: 0

I live near this nuclear site, 8km exactly. The oven that exploded is NOT on the site, there is NO leak risk at all. This oven was used to incinerate LOW activity waste sur as white suits, gloves, etc.
Just like old times by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 01:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

"There is no need for panic," the French government official continued, "as we have already begun our standard national emergency response plan. In fact, our ambassador is on his way right now to delivering our articles of surrender to Berlin."
Why is this even on Slashdot? by Lose · 2011-09-12 01:55 · Score: 1

The only part of the article that is really noteworthy is that one person died in an explosion at the plant. The rest of the article clearly states that it has not damaged the reactor's containment in any way.
1. Re:Why is this even on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  what reactor?
2. Re:Why is this even on Slashdot? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-09-12 02:32 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Perhaps they wanted you to see the headline in the sidebar about an oil pipeline fire in Kenya that killed at least 100 people. You know, so that you'll be convinced that nuclear power is far more dangerous than any other form of energy.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
Oh Ye /. of Yore by cosm · 2011-09-12 01:55 · Score: 1

I would pine for thee if it was any better, but alas I don't think it was. But this story warms me cockles and is a gentle push in the never coming back here again direction.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Kneejerk reaction! by EmagGeek · 2011-09-12 01:57 · Score: 1, Funny

We must immediately halt all nuclear decommissioning due to the obvious recklessness it poses! Isn't it obvious from this incident that all nuclear decommissioning activities pose an immediate, inherent, and almost guaranteed risk of catastrophe??!?!
... Confidant, not Cosmonaut, you blithering bot. by JRowe47 · 2011-09-12 02:06 · Score: 1

Betty White might have dated one, I guess, but really...
crap sum/story/sub by luckymutt · 2011-09-12 02:08 · Score: 1

How the hell did both syngularyx and samzenpus screw this up?
First line of the linked article:
There was no risk of a radioactive leak

Seriously, did syngularyx misread it (and only read the first paragraph to hurry up and be the submitter) and samzenpus just follow the link to verify it exists, without bothering to read even the first paragraph the article?
On the front page of the CBC by perp · 2011-09-12 02:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Headline: French nuclear waste site blast kills at least 1
Sidebar: At least 61 killed in Kenya pipeline explosion

--
There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
1. Re:On the front page of the CBC by Rei · 2011-09-12 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Therefore, we should all be driving Ford Nucleons? ;)
  
  --
  Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
RTFA!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:11 · Score: 0

risk of leak???? QUOTE: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast,"
1. Re:RTFA!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  In these announcements there is never a risk of a leak until the leak has already happened.
New Low For Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:12 · Score: 0

Slashdot 2011
Slow news (on average 3 days).
Yellow journalism
Comments often contain information that debunks the topic.
L
O
W
Really, Editors? Really, Syngularyx? by Lookin4Trouble · 2011-09-12 02:14 · Score: 2

QTFA: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast..."
A stitch in time saves Nimes ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:17 · Score: 0

and there you have it.
Radioactivity figures in TFA by chocapix · 2011-09-12 02:20 · Score: 2

TFA claims that what they burn averages nearly 10,000Bq/kg, yet the 4 tonnes in the oven accounts for 63,000Bq?
Maybe they gave an average over their whole activity, and the explosion occured when they were burning extremely low activity waste, but phrased like that it's very confusing. Anyone has more info?
Note that either way we're talking about a negligible amount of radiation (the average human being generates about 8,000Bq.)
DEATH RATE OF LINUX LUSERS !! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:20 · Score: 0

100%
It's a fact !!
First Sentence of TFA by asylumx · 2011-09-12 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast
Slashdot, please fix the damned headline.
1. Re:First Sentence of TFA by asylumx · 2011-09-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, Editors, for fixing the headline!
Meanwhile 110+ dead in kenya by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:24 · Score: 0

But I am willing to bet that nobody will scream against oil and ask it to be banned within 10 years in germany, while this new incident will be PIMPED up by the new media.
breaking news 16h17 by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:26 · Score: 0

The French Press Agency (AFP) reports :
"Aucune contamination radioactive après l'accident dans le Gard : L'accident qui a fait un mort et quatre blessés lundi matin dans l'installation nucléaire Centraco, dans le Gard, "est terminé", a annoncé l'Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, qui a suspendu son organisation de crise."
which means no leak was observed by the Nuclear Safety Authorities.
Explosion near "the city of mimes"? by Hsien-Ko · 2011-09-12 02:31 · Score: 1

While nuclear disaster is no laughing matter, I swore I read that the first time....
1. Re:Explosion near "the city of mimes"? by PPH · 2011-09-12 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  We warned you about locking them in that box.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
I've never heard this before, but it's perfect by Quila · 2011-09-12 02:39 · Score: 1

We need X energy. We want to evaluate the safety of the various means of providing X energy.
So the relevant question is: How many people will die to provide us with X energy by a means?
Deaths per terawatt-hour perfectly answers the question.
1. Re:I've never heard this before, but it's perfect by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  Lol,
  I *know* t is on the first glance.
  Did even read my post to the end?
  A much more interesting question for me is: how can you make the unsafe energy sources more safe? You get it?
  There is always more than one solution to a problem ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:I've never heard this before, but it's perfect by bennomatic · 2011-09-12 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I'd agree that it's a valuable metric, but it's not the only one by any stretch.
  
  If a solar panel installer falls off a roof, he falls off a roof and there aren't isn't any other significant fallout (puns intended).
  
  If a nuclear reactor explodes and one person dies, that's often not everything. Dozens of additional workers may get ill, have their lives shortened in ways that are difficult to pin to the specific event, or pass on issues to their unborn offspring. Additionally, dangerous contaminants may get into the air and water, and into the general ecosystem, causing an ongoing ripple effect that is--again--difficult to pin directly on the event.
  
  I think the reason people react so strongly to events at nuclear facilities is the uncanny nature of the effects from these things. It's not like a mine can't explode or an oil rig can't leak. However, for the most part, neither of those things are likely to give you thyroid cancer 15 years after exposure. I think most people look at a tragic accident where a dozen people die as a tragic accident that should be prevented in the future. However, an accident which causes no immediate deaths, but which at least appears to lead to a dozen deaths over the next decade causes a terror reaction. The extra time is not a blessing, but a time bomb.
  
  I think one other element of the anti-nuclear set is the vehement, zealous and complete denial of safety risk by nuclear boosters. Going by deaths per KWH without considering other effects is one example where people feel that the truth is being manipulated. Hell, we've seen this before with cigarettes: everyone in the world has known for decades that cigarettes will kill you, but the tobacco folks fought against any such insinuation which carried legal weight for years.
  
  The problem is that the most extreme people on both sides of the issue dig in hard enough that it's clear that neither are telling the whole story. I posted something like this a couple of years back, and someone here on /. linked me to an ad for a portable nuclear power station which was built in such a way that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the containment vessel to be breached. I don't think I even bothered responding (until now, I guess) because that sort of hubris is exactly what causes the most fearsome problems.
  
  The reactor in question was, I think, this. The idea is that it arrives at the site fully loaded, is buried underground to generate power for a community, and the vendor comes around every few years to take the reactor back, swap out the spent fuel for new fuel, and rebury the thing. I'm sure it's got all sorts of safety mechanisms built in, but since it's (a) built by people and (b) built to be opened and refueled, "impossible" is a really, titanically huge word to describe the likelihood of problems. And here's the thing: if something like this is deployed in a small remote town, and it breaks down for some reason and there's a containment breach, it's possible there would be no deaths, but that there would be residual health issues facing that whole community for generations. Or it could make the region uninhabitable.
  
  The TL;DR version of this post is: deaths per KWH is not the only metric to consider by any stretch of the imagination.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
3. Re:I've never heard this before, but it's perfect by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  It's not about how many people have died, but how many will die.
  The deaths per terawatt study does not take into account expected thousands of deaths due to thyroid cancer near Tchernobyl.
  It's not about how many people have died, but how many could die.
  The worst case scenario for a coal mine will kill 100 or 200 workers. What about the worst case for a nuclear plant ? The worst case for Tchernobyl was a 3 to 5 megaton explosion that could have blown half of Europe.
They're "darkies" so who cares? by Quila · 2011-09-12 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not like they're real people or anything.
This was one white European guy, so he matters far more than they do.
It's also not scary radioactive material, just plain old oil.
All this together makes it not so newsworthy.
1. Re:They're "darkies" so who cares? by Rogerborg · 2011-09-12 04:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This was one white European guy, so he matters far more than they do.
  That's racist, sir. Racist. France employs a lot of North African immigrants to do dirty, dangerous work, it's far too early to jump to conclusions about whether we should care about the corpse.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
2. Re:They're "darkies" so who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  On similar news: Does anyone here even remember that 10 years ago, a week after 9/11, ten thousands of people died in floods in India?
  (Now I wonder if somebody will mod even this down, not realizing that I'm not trying to downgrade 9/11 at all, but proving the very point I'm making....)
3. Re:They're "darkies" so who cares? by TodoRojo · 2011-09-12 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, the Kenya disaster was the top story on nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/world/africa/13kenya.html?hp
4. Re:They're "darkies" so who cares? by Daetrin · 2011-09-12 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  Come now, to paraphrase "Volcano," it doesn't matter if you're a native European or a North African immigrant, we're all the same color after being carbonised by a nuclear waste furnace explosion. And that color is black. A crispy, crispy black.
  
  --
  This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Nice point, but by assertation · 2011-09-12 02:45 · Score: 1

does it take into account that so MUCH more coal has been used and is being used than nuclear power.
How many more nuclear debacles would there be if every municipality in the US had a nuclear power plant the way there is a coal fired electrical plant now?
Would radioactive zones that people had to stay away from become a common every day occurrence?
1. Re:Nice point, but by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Since it's per terawatt hour, yes, it does take into account that coal is used much more.
2. Re:Nice point, but by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-09-12 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  does it take into account that so MUCH more coal has been used and is being used than nuclear power.
  nuclear power accounts for about 1/3 the electricity that coal power does in the USA.
  
  How many more nuclear debacles would there be if every municipality in the US had a nuclear power plant the way there is a coal fired electrical plant now?
  See above. It implies about four times as many "debacles". Note that we've only managed ONE "debacle" in the USA over the last half century (TMI).
  
  Would radioactive zones that people had to stay away from become a common every day occurrence?
  Unlikely. Note that their are about 1300 coal fly ash dumps in the USA. They collectively contain more uranium than all the nuclear reactors in the USA.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by rubycodez · 2011-09-12 02:54 · Score: 1, Troll

100 utter and total fools, with no regard for there own life, ran *toward* rather than *away* from a leaking fuel line, to collect a bucket or cup of fuel. Some of these *complete idiots* were even stupid enough to be smoking while collecting the highly flammable fuel, and some topped even that astounding level of moronic sensibility by allowing children to accompany them, when any normal human with a shred of decency in his heart would have at least driven the soon to be doomed youths far away.. A supreme imbecile amongst them threw his glowing cigarette butt into a pool of fuel collecting in a sewer, tragically earning the Darwin award for them all.

There, you bleeding hearts, how do you like my take on the situation?
1. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2011-09-12 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Similar thing happened in India. Tanker truck carrying kerosene overturned, villagers gathered around to collect the leaking kerosene. Dozens died. There was this oil worker in texas who lit a lighter to because it was too dark to inside the gasoline storage tank. There was a squatter's slum in a beach in Ennore, Tamil Nadu, India near the refinery. The oil pipeline from the jetty to the refinery was passing under. Some enterprising slum dweller dug a pit to find the pipeline, built a hut over the pit, punctured the pipeline. The crude oil collected in the pit and he was selling them by the bucketfuls. Till he or one of his customers took a smoking break.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
2. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by Beelzebud · 2011-09-12 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be that this pipeline was running right under a slum housing area, and was literally underneath many homes. Not everyone who died in this tragedy was a "complete idiot", and only a heartless fucking idiot would try to tell the story as such.
3. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  ... and it's absolutely impossible that the slum dwellers built their shacks over the pipeline?
4. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by rubycodez · 2011-09-12 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  some illegally built their shacks right over the pipeline in an industrial area, yes.
5. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by mspohr · 2011-09-12 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure that you are rich enough to have a nice house in an area away from industrial hazards. However, you should realize that some people are not so lucky and must live wherever they can which can be a slum in an industrial area.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
6. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by rubycodez · 2011-09-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  actually, no not rich and no house and some industrial hazards nearby including railways to ship dangerous things, but nowhere near the danger of leaking fuel lines. But back to the point at hand, if one lives in city that is lax about building shacks/squatting on private property (or most anywhere else), one can choose to avoid those things which leak flammable or explosive or poisonous liquids or gases. Unless one is trying to take advantage leaks, or intends to make leaks, which I strongly expect is the case here, given much precedent. Failing that, one can avoid walking around the leaky pipe while smoking. Or avoid those dimwits who do. Or not flick butt into pool of fuel. Somewhere along this line we pass from dangerously foolish, roar right on past recklessly stupid, to suicidal and mass homicidal level of imbecility. I frequent places poorer than the capital of Kenya, yet people somehow are smarter about avoiding danger.
7. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Mythbusters showed cigarettes don't burn hot enough to ignite gasoline so a lit butt wouldn't do it. Something's not quite right about that account.
8. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by mspohr · 2011-09-12 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  I really don't think you have a clue about the economic and living conditions of these people in Nairobi. They are very poor. They do not have any choice about where to live. They are desperate to survive day to day. If some fool in their neighborhood taps into a fuel line, they can't avoid being incinerated.
  It sounds like you are trying to say that these people have a choice to live in a nicer place and instead choose to live with this danger so they can tap the fuel line. You couldn't be more wrong.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
9. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's a sobering reminder that children can't too not die in a tragic gasoline accident.
10. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  once you start living on a dollar or two a day, you see if you don't run towards the fuel line, presumably to get enough fuel to either sell or otherwise use as a month's worth of firewood.
11. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-12 23:33 · Score: 1
  
  They would only be fools if they knew of the danger, and since going to school is a privilege and at school the focus is on basic reading and number skills rather than fire safety the chances are many of them didn't.
  Combine ignorance with desperation due to crushing poverty and you can start to understand why these things happen.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
12. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by delt0r · 2011-09-13 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  You think that dead nuclear worker was smarter?
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
13. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by delt0r · 2011-09-13 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  Myhthbusters only get one thing right. Blowing shit up never gets old. But when it comes to science they are crap. No replicates no discussion of systematic errors.. etc etc etc. In this particular case you need the vapors to be the right % in the air to be ignitable, a pipe line could have all sorts in it (light crude, heavy crude etc) that could quite easily end up in the right concentrations where the ignition temp is about that of a cigaret burning--or being puffed. This could especially be true if some of the more volatile volatiles where in the mix.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
14. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by ToasterMonkey · 2011-09-13 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  100 utter and total fools, with no regard for there own life, ran *toward* rather than *away* from a leaking fuel line, to collect a bucket or cup of fuel. Some of these *complete idiots* were even stupid enough to be smoking while collecting the highly flammable fuel, and some topped even that astounding level of moronic sensibility by allowing children to accompany them, when any normal human with a shred of decency in his heart would have at least driven the soon to be doomed youths far away.. A supreme imbecile amongst them threw his glowing cigarette butt into a pool of fuel collecting in a sewer, tragically earning the Darwin award for them all.
  There, you bleeding hearts, how do you like my take on the situation?
  What really amazes me is how this ^ and religious social conservatives can be on the same team.
15. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by rubycodez · 2011-09-13 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  what a ridiculous point of view, that only a school can provide safety knowledge, including of flammable fuels. Hell, mine didn't. Yes, many "progressive socialist" types in our education system believe only they can do that, but of course they are ivory tower fools who would cut their own fingers off if you gave them a knife and a chunk of wood to whittle. hahahaha!
  
  I have a shocking revelation for you from my experience, uneducated people in third world countries (I have relatives in that situation because of what their countries went through while they were growing up) know that gasoline and diesel fuel are highly flammable, and those with any brains know not to smoke or have open flame while pouring fuel.
16. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by AmiMoJo · 2011-09-13 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  Thing is I didn't actually say that only school can provide those things, so everything you inferred from that is wrong. You went off half-cocked on your little rant all by yourself, proving without doubt what a reactionary halfwit you are.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When deaths per TWh go down by Quila · 2011-09-12 03:55 · Score: 1

the "unsafe" energy source is more safe.
It sounds useless to me to just give raw numbers. You need some measure of utility.
For example, X number of people killed on highways is a useless number for comparison. More or fewer miles having been driven would make any comparison meaningless. That is why we express it as deaths per 100,000 km or miles.
Same here, X people died means nothing. X people died per terawatt of power provided means a lot, allows for a good safety comparison between the means of power generation. It also allows for future calculation of deaths should we move to one method or another for expanded power generation.
1. Re:When deaths per TWh go down by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  allows for a good safety comparison between the means of power generation.
  In your eyes you are comparing means of safety in power generation. In my eyes you are comparing means of safety in open pit mining and "mine" mining. And you ignore the amount of people involved. So, your numbers are completely flawed.
  Again, my main argument to think about is: if 1 dies out of 100 doing X, or 10 out of 1000 doing Y, or 100 out of 10000 doing Z then it is completely irrelevant what they are doing. Neither X nor Y nor Z is any safer. Only the amount of people involved in it is different.
  And to make it blunt clear, I'm not pro coal or anti nuclear. The point is super simple: you are not listening to facts. You take one singel emotional, oh my god so many coal miners die, and you don't really put it into relation.
  Wtf, you can take bus drivers and get a higher death toll as "percentage".
  Coal miners don't die because nuclear is safe. They die because their working conditions suck.
  The next big nuclear disaster might kill 100,000s ore none at all. And still there would be no relation to coal mine safety.The guys dying in the next nuclear disaster wont be miners but mere citizens happening to sit around the explosion.
  You try to calculate it down to "tera watt hours" produced.
  But you could calculate it down as well to man hours worked or miles driven, or $ spent in safety measures or the amount of hours slept per working day, or to the amount of days per year you get for vacation.
  You know what: I only made an argument in this discussion because I'm meanwhile scared. It seems no one is able to think.
  You for, god sake, don't need to agree, but if you fail to see my stan point, it is helpless.
  Ever heard about devils advocate? Sigh ... try to play his game and look from a different angle. Don't repeat your own arguments 100 times ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
2. Re:When deaths per TWh go down by HungryHobo · 2011-09-12 12:19 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have a mental block against basic common sense.
  I'll try to use small words.
  lets say you need 10 terawats.
  Lets imagine that you have 2 options.
  1: a big plant running on X.
  You need to employ a total of 100 people to mine, process and use X.
  2: a big plant powered by 1,000,000 people on exercise bikes.
  In the course of this 1 of the people dealing with X dies.
  Meanwhile 1000 of the cyclers die of exhaustion.
  We get the *exact same product either way* 10 terrawatts.
  It doesn't matter that each employee had the same chance of dying on the job.
  the product cost more blood and lives to do the stupid way.
  Let me repeat that: you get the exact same product whichever way you do it but it kills more people to do it the stupid way.
  employing more people along the way to achieve the same result just means inefficiency and hurts everyone all across society.
3. Re:When deaths per TWh go down by angel'o'sphere · 2011-09-12 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  Seems you are completely brain dead or?
  You repeat every sentence I say and turn it around and think by that you win an argument.
  Well, why don't you simply say: oh ... another approach to it? Sorry ... you fail to read and think.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thanks for changing the subject line by tp1024 · 2011-09-12 05:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's unfortunately a very rare thing to see such mistakes corrected, so thanks a lot for doing it.
1. Re:Thanks for changing the subject line by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-09-12 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  It seems like a bit of fresh blood around here is working out OK.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Thanks for changing the subject line by tp1024 · 2011-09-12 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Strangely enough, 2M+ UIDs seem to be much rarer than 100k- ...
  
  Dunno if that says anything about Slashdot. Or are those all the anonymous cowards being ashamed of theirs?
macgyver by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-12 05:53 · Score: 0

holy crap! this is exactly what almost happened to macgyver in that episode where some bad dude was stealing nuclear waste material for making a dirty bomb.
I'm surprised by Quila · 2011-09-12 06:25 · Score: 1

Good for the NYT. But it will likely fade quickly.
My favorite example is when a girl disappears. Have you ever seen the national media go crazy for weeks over a missing or abused black girl? No, but we get to hear every detail of Natalee Holloway's disappearance for months.
The last time that happened was Tawana Brawley, but that only hit the news so big because the claims were so over the top with a "whites are evil" racial element (of course, they were lies) and the flames were being fanned by Al Sharpton and his racist activism machine.
1. Re:I'm surprised by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-13 03:04 · Score: 0
  
  Still not fading:
  http://www.smh.com.au/world/scores-killed-as-slum-pipeline-bursts-again-20110913-1k7to.html
Carbonised by Zoxed · 2011-09-12 07:43 · Score: 1

The article I read said that the dead worker had been "carbonised". Bit more information than anyone needed I though :-(
Chernobyl by Quila · 2011-09-12 08:17 · Score: 1

The deaths per terawatt study does not take into account expected thousands of deaths due to thyroid cancer near Tchernobyl.
Then they need to be added, but it's still the best metric.

The worst case scenario for a coal mine will kill 100 or 200 workers.

Ask the global warming lobby about further repercussions of coal.

The worst case for Tchernobyl was a 3 to 5 megaton explosion that could have blown half of Europe
We're talking about the future of nuclear in the modern free world, and you talk about the dangers of an obsolete 60 year-old Soviet design with only three installations remaining? And even those have improved safety, specifically correcting what allowed Chernobyl to explode.
That's compeletely aside from the environment of safety of the USSR, experimenting with a live reactor, going ahead even though parameters had changed, ignoring multiple warnings of unsafe conditions. and conducting the experiment while the reactor was in an extremely unsafe and unstable state. Yes, right in the middle of the reactor becoming unstable with almost all rods removed, they shut down power to the coolant pumps, hoping the residual turbine energy could run them well enough to cool the stack. Then poorly-designed (and since corrected) control rods triggered the explosion when they tried to stop the experiment.
Aside from Chernobyl, nobody has died a radiation-related death due to a civilian nuclear power plant, ever. The closest is that three people died of radiation poisoning in Japan at a reprocessing facility due to their own error. The other handful of deaths connected to nuclear power generation were explosions.
China alone tends to rack up over 5,000 coal mining deaths per year. That's more EACH YEAR than all Chernobyl deaths. But that isn't all: It's estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people die each year due to coal's pollution.
Re:Slashdot the new Million Suns!!! by ArsenneLupin · 2011-09-12 20:17 · Score: 1

For the moment, there is nothing coming out.
No sex within the nuclear facilities: radiation on both of your bodies would be enough that together you'd form a critical mass...
And watch for any stray planes...