everyone who supports stupid laws for this reason is insane.
why not go the really really direct root if you're going to take that approach.
Make breathing a crime punishable by death.
make having any body hair a crime punishable by life in prison then you can just punish whoever you feel like at any time for any reason if they're someone you " can't get for any other crime."
far more effecient than having a load of absurd laws on the books which everyone breaks so that you can use them strategically when someone pisses you off.
I'm reading over a translate of it but could I check the translation with you as you're obviously fluent in both languages.
I don't want to make any statments based on mistakes in the translation.
are these reasonably correctly translated? :
________
"Emissionen aus Industrie / Feuerungen und Ãffentlichen WÃrmekraftwerken im Stadtkreis Mannheim 1995, 2000 und 2003 nach EnergietrÃgern"
" Emissions from industrial / combustion and public thermal power plants in Stadtkreis Mannheim 1995, 2000 and 2003 by energy sources "
_______
"der EnergietrÃger Kohle mit Abstand die wichtigste Ursache (86 % bei SO2 und 72 % bei NOX in 2003)"
" the energy of coal is by far the most important cause (86% SO 2 2 und 72 % bei NO and 72% for NO X X in 2003) "
_____
"Meldepflichtige Emissionen des Kohlekraftwerks der GKM AG in Mannheim"
"Reportable emissions from coal-fired power plant in the GKM AG in Mannheim "
____
and is "Quecksilber" mercury?
The translater I used didn't seem to translate the "Beurteilung" section very well. Would you be willing to help me with this bit?
"Ein Neubau von 900 MW installierter Leistung, der eine Ausweitung der KapazitÃt von knapp 700 MW bedeuten würde, wÃre für die Luftsituation in Mannheim fatal, da die ohnehin schon hohe Luftbelastung weiter ansteigen würde."
something about the company planning to install more capacity and the air is all I can follow.
also unfortunatly slashdot screws up the special characters
Anyway, I RESEARCHED now the tower "inhabitant" issue.
then you're almost there!
you're gone away and read up on it!
now all you have to do is open up those document, click on the address bar in your browser, press ctrl-C then reply to this post and hit ctrl-v so that people reading this can see the things you have found, can judge the quality of your source and see how very very wrong I am.
Most simple stuff, like SOx is down to about 25% of the 1990 values (which is already far less than then 1975 values).
And yet it's still terrible. 50% of horrific is still terrible.
No, I assume it is a matter of standpoint. People say: coal is as bad or even worth than nuclear. I say no, and bring some points.
You conclude: aos thinks coal is completely clean.
But I never said that.
to quote someone with the username "angel'o'sphere" a few posts ago.
"Nothing except CO2 escapes a modern coal plant. At least not in the "civilized world". Everything is filtered out"
I call bullshit.
Did you even read it?
Yes. Specifically the part that said that the plants emit things other than C02.
It completely supports my point
no, I think you're using the wrong word there, it utterly contradicts your own statements which I quote above. that's the opposite of supporting your statements.
Uranium, like some posters claimed (and depending how you look at it, they are right), is not exhausted in ANY german plant.
sure, german plants are special and magic and not like the plants anywhere else.
Anyway, they main point people make is: on coal more people die than on nuclear. Then they say: you have to count in mining, but they dont' count in uranium mining and transport.
and again. you're incorrect. They do count uranium mining,processing, transport etc etc and still coal comes out far far far behind.
And I point out: all majour sources agree: coal plant exhaust pollution (with Arsen, Mercury etc.) is so low it does no harm (USA sources and european sources, several posters on/. gave them).
I'd say citation needed but you don't seem to believe in supporting your statements so I'm just going to say "bullshit, prove it"
Then I say: sorry, that cant really be true except if the USA has far worth pollution standards than EU.
based upon? what? your gut feeling? I showed you the pollution standards for the US and germany and showed you that the US has higher standards than germany. yes higher standards. and you hand wave it away based on absolutely nothing except your gut feeling.
But the US plant emits mercury in the dozens of tons rate, while a EU one does 1 or 2 or up to 4 * kilograms*?
Because in the EU the plants emit mercury just the same. because you're deluded. because you apparently can't be bothered actually researching the matter and are instead in denial.
The big picture of all the single sides you quote simply does not add up.
then please, build a better picture, provide better sources, provide actual data rather than just repeating your beliefs over and over.prove me wrong instead of just repeating that you think I'm wrong.
It should be really simple if I'm actually wrong.
Yes coal plants have improved from 25 years ago. they put out far less sulphur dioxide. but they still put out a lot of crap in addition to CO2. And that report doesn't even go into the metals. coal power plants are not clean. They never were and still are not.
Again I ask. where, where in the name of god are you getting your ideas about coal power from? because they seem to be fantasy.
I guess now you're going to insist that in the last 6 years coal has become perfectly clean?
Well then perhaps we could use the "Emissions (CO2, SO2, NOx) intensity of public conventional thermal power electricity and heat production (ENER 008) - Assessment published Jan 2011"
or perhaps coal has cleaned up it's act in the last 2 months?
face it. Whoever has been telling you that nothing comes out of the chimney of a coal plant except CO2 is either a liar or merely horribly misinformed.
Only if i don't know it. I don't research stuff, that I assume I know.
That doesn't seem to be working out too well for you.
What reason should I not have to believe a newspaper magazine claiming it would be 40k people in each tower?
because better sources of information are only a mouse click away, the effort is trivial and it makes your position look a lot stronger if you don't make obvious errors which could be avoided with almost no work.
So your proof is half remembered frantic news reports by reporters who only half understood what they were talking about which apparently were not archived like most news reports of the late 20th century but rather disappeared into the ether???
Nowhere did I say none of the liquidators died. eventually something like 50 of them died of radiation sickness or radiation related health problems.
I often hear silly claims that copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech, that it doesn't inhibit political speech.
Yet here we see a politician trying to use copyright law to prevent publication of his own embarrassing words.
Fair use is only a defense. Copyright shouldn't even apply to political speech yet people could end up in count being sued for showing off how monumentally stupid a politician is. All thanks to the insane copyright laws.
I am in europe. I am european. It just happens that america has a lot of high quality data made public on the matter.
Your ideas about coal are still fantasy. Coal plants are not clean. european coal plants are not significantly cleaner.
The german rules are in fact less strict that the US EPA standards. Germany: Total particulates(smoke):18 ng per joule of heat input. 85% removal of sulpher dioxide. Nitrogen oxides 70 ng per joule of heat input.
United states EPA: Total particulates(smoke):13 ng per joule of heat input. 90% removal of sulpher dioxide. Nitrogen oxides 65 ng per joule of heat input.
Yes. the US standards are more strict than the german ones. sorry to burst your bubble.
In the US problems with water pollution etc simply get a lot more attention than in europe.
The coal plants in europe are so bad that there are places like this:
First: no the 40K for the twin towers is completely wrong, the world trade centre consisted of 7 buildings, not just the 2 which were attacked, in total they could have 50K people working in them. not 40K per tower.
Do you ever do any research? do you even google any of this or do you rely on your gut feeling the whole time. Yes I could google this, I just did. You apparently can't be arsed.
250K dead recruits is fantasy. it is made up. it is not real. it never was.
"Greenpeace scientists" is an oxymoron. they get their figures out of thin air and imagination and anyone with realistic figures are just denounced as part of some kind of conspiracy.
Yes a lot of people worked briefly in the area. Do you know why they worked so briefly? it was to keep their exposure to manageable levels.
even still some of them died. but not many.
If they'd just set out to let them die then they would have had those soldiers keep working until they collapsed from radiation sickness rather than cycling them out after minutes because it would have made the work vastly easier.
"A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."
I also note that they talk about charging it from a normal socket but generally you wouldn't do that: you'd charge an electric car from a high amp socket like what an electric cooker or shower might use which can draw far more electricity. And then of course making a big thing of the power having to come from a power plant...
I get the impression they were reaching hard to make it look bad at the end.
starts off very favourable and then claims it died after 55 miles rather than 200 (anyone with a tesla able to weigh in on how close to 200 it really gets?) and then that the breaks died on it while the engine of the other car overheated.
if the claims are incorrect and the maintainable log contradicts them then it's really very serious.
you mean your basis isn't anything concrete but rather how watching the news when you were 18 made you feel?
On a related note on September 11th I watched the news and they were claiming that 40 thousand people were in the towers: completely absurd and it turned out later that a few news agencies had picked up the numbers for the whole complex and then someone had doubled it and then soeone else got that figure... and doubled it as well thinking "well there are 2 towers, that number must be for one"
news reports on the day are a terrible terrible way to get your information.
no, I'm asking for a citation for your crazy claim that nothing but CO2 escapes from a coal power plant. no amount of googling tells me anything except that vast quantities of poisonous metals and compounds come out along with the CO2.
You seem to have this idea that in 1st world countries coal has been clean for 25 years.
yet all I find is a report from this month about the government bringing in regulations to try to make coal power plants stop emitting heavy metals into the air:
"Jackson said mercury and other emissions covered by the rule damage the nervous systems of fetuses and children, exacerbate asthma and cause lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans."
"Hands down, dating from the mid-1800s, comes from horse racing, where jockeys drop their hands downward and relax their hold when they are sure to win. "
only greenpeace claims 1 million and that appears to come from nothing but their imagination.
the world health organisation which actually did research on the matter rather than pulling random big numbers our of their arse claims about 4000 .
"I'm sure it was about 100,000 at least."
based on? what? did you just kinda decide that's what it had to be or just kinda average out a few of the claims you heard?
"People care about the "RISK". The risk if a plant goes rogue, melts or explodes"
that's exactly what I was talking about. the RISK.
If a chemical plant producing solvents for solar pannels leaks we could have another Bhopal only worse.
If a dam collapses above a big city hundreds of thousands could die. that that's not just a posibility: that ones has actually happened.
In practice the RISK from nuclear is less than from it's competitors, in part because most of them guarantee a steady death toll.
"It is irrelevant that *so far* it has not happend. It is irrelevant that over the last 100 years died X people to coal and Y People should be far more afraid of hydro dams given that individual dam collapses... "
sorry but that's insane. "lets just ignore reality and history and instead go with my gut feeling."
And what had happend if there would have been a nuclear power plant and not a simple dam?
what? That doesn't make any sense at all but the realistic answer is: probably nothing, the towns wouldn't have been washed away.
If you would care to read up the stuff other people link here regarding uranium pollution from coal you would realize: no one ever has died to any pollution coming from coal.
do you own shares in a coal plant or something? work in the marketing department?
"If you would apply the same logic you apply to coal mining also to uranium mining you would realize: oh my god, thousands of people died to uranium mining."
most uranium mining in the first world is done with in-sitiu leaching, no mining shafts, they just pump baking soda into the ground and the uranium dissolves into it and they can pump it back up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach
And the volumes of ore are tiny in comparison to coal so even in the developing world there's far less deaths because there's far fewer working in uranium mining and vastly fewer deaths.
Please, this is a trivial request: when you feel the urge to make things up just google it first, find a source, cite it.
"Do you really think falling down from a framework during painting has anything to do with the technology involved how the power is generated?"
yes. yes I do. it would be dishonest to do otherwise. it would be deluding myself to do otherwise. Because those people are exactly as dead as if they got a lethal dose of radiation or suffocated on the fumes in a facility producing solar panels.
As long as I also count similar deaths in other forms of power generation it only makes the comparison more fair and accurate.
most western civilization coal plants are "clean" the don't have any toxic exhaust at all.
repeat after me: "There is no such thing as clean coal" "'Clean coal' is a myth" "'Clean coal' is a marketing and PR scam" "Coal is the dirtiest, worst source of energy, even in the western world" "Coal plants emit a horiffic quantity of poisonous metals into the air"
coal is, by a wide margin the dirtiest power source which kills the most people.And that's ignoring any radiation or uranium. There might be some exceptional seams with almost no uranium, thorium, radium, phosperous etc etc but good luck with that.that's not your average coal seem.
I've provided sources, if you're going to contend otherwise please link to some analysis of german coal sources showing they don't have similar levels of radioisotopes.
"We are talking about power plants that go rogue, explode or melt."
if you look only at planes that crash you would conclude that planes were horribly unsafe, if you look at all of them then they are clearly safer than most other forms of transport. If you look only at the nuclear plants which have serious problems like Chernobyl,TMI or fukushima then they look terribly unsafe. if you look at the hundreds worldwide then they come far ahead of most other sources of power.
"yes, you agreed that it is used to fill land mils, so... what is your problem then?"
do you consider land fills to be a good place to store poisonous heavy metals and low level radioactive sources?
mainly people die from the other crap that coal plants emit, arsenic, lead etc.
the reason people point out the uranium is that people have a lot of absurd ideas about radiation and uranium( like believing that it's only in coal due to pollution of coal mines.) and it makes the point that it isn't all or nothing.
Radiation will be released no matter what you do, be it mining coal, iron or almost anything else.
which allows the discussion to be framed in a sane manner: ie simple total harm, total risk, how many people will actually die or are likely to die.
and on that front nuclear wins hands down.
but the problem is that it's safer in the same way the air travel is safer than traveling by car. People are more afraid of flying even if they're know that they're more likely to die driving to the airport than while on the plane.
whenever there's an air accident it kills loads of people and makes headlines worldwide, road deaths barely make the local news. When there's an equipment failure it makes the news as the plane tries to land without the landing gear down or with all the engines dead or some such and everyone gets to watch it on the news.
nuclear is like that. People die regularly in coal mining accidents, people die from asthma, people die from lung cancers etc like clockwork, every day and it's booooring much like the little road accidents every single day.
People die falling off their roofs while trying to install solar panels, people fall off wind turbines or die in iron mining accidents getting the metal for wind turbines. but all these deaths are boring and regular and barely make the news.
meanwhile nuclear, every now and then, has a really big spectacular bit of drama. Long run it's safer. long run it kills far less people but every now and then it makes world headlines. Most of the time it turns out with nobody dying like in Three mile island but theres still days or weeks of drama.
And radiation is scary, a cloud of smog isn't scary, it's just annoying.Even arsenic isn't scary, it's something tangible we can understand but plutonium? far far scarier.
People should be far more afraid of hydro dams given that individual dam collapses have in the past killed many times more than the entire nuclear power industry combined and have wiped out entire towns. but water isn't invisible, water isn't scary, water is easy to understand.
all you have to do is close your eyes, clap and wish real hard.
build a working von-neuman machine and set it to work building panels in the sahara and you might get somewhere, until then solar is still a toy energy source and we're a while away from that yet.
exactly how do you think the vast quantities of coal ash are actually stored afterwards? They don't get sealed in lead casks, they don't get locked away in safe storage places, they get put in landfills or ash heaps, completely unsealed.
and ounce for ounce? well the other thing is that thousands of tons of coal ash gets produced for every ounce of nuclear waste to get the same energy and the ash ends up unshielded while the nuclear waste is generally properly taken care of.
actually it is. and it has nothing to do with pollution, uranium occurs naturally in the earths crust, in coal it tends to be a little more concentrated, it's even in seawater though at very low concentrations. it has absolutely nothing to do with pollution, if humans had never existed there would still be uranium and thorium in coal.
"We are talking about power plants that go rogue, explode or melt. "
averaging out or are you assuming that every plant will explode sooner or later?
"But the reason might be that our coal plants filter everything out of the smoke)."
ho ho ho someone's been spinning you a merry tale. Only about 80% of the ash is captured, the rest goes into the air, particularly volatile materials are going to escape completely and even the ash that's captured just gets buried in landfills or similar where it's heavy metals can leech into the groundwater.
"I can not find a singel other source supporting that."
you didn't try very hard then a google for "coal ppm uranium" yielded these on the first 2 pages.
"Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation." http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
Historical analytical data from the period 1992 to 1995 indicate that the fly ash in these deposits contains between 92 and 154 ppm U3O8. The bottom ash contains similar values. These are similar to those in a number of in situ leach type uranium deposits under evaluation in various parts of the world.â http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/uranium-extraction-from-coal-waste/
Slashdot Mirror
you're already sacrificing people for your own greater good.
You're just ignoring it.
You could also point at the poor smuck who gets hit by a drunk driver or by someone who just isn't paying attention.
their lives count just as much.
everyone who supports stupid laws for this reason is insane.
why not go the really really direct root if you're going to take that approach.
Make breathing a crime punishable by death.
make having any body hair a crime punishable by life in prison then you can just punish whoever you feel like at any time for any reason if they're someone you " can't get for any other crime."
far more effecient than having a load of absurd laws on the books which everyone breaks so that you can use them strategically when someone pisses you off.
Thank you very much.
I'm reading over a translate of it but could I check the translation with you as you're obviously fluent in both languages.
I don't want to make any statments based on mistakes in the translation.
are these reasonably correctly translated? :
________
"Emissionen aus Industrie / Feuerungen und Ãffentlichen WÃrmekraftwerken im
Stadtkreis Mannheim 1995, 2000 und 2003 nach EnergietrÃgern"
" Emissions from industrial / combustion and public thermal power plants in Stadtkreis Mannheim 1995, 2000 and 2003 by energy sources "
_______
"der EnergietrÃger Kohle mit Abstand die wichtigste Ursache (86 % bei SO2
und 72 % bei NOX in 2003)"
" the energy of coal is by far the most important cause (86% SO 2 2 und 72 % bei NO and 72% for NO X X in 2003) "
_____
"Meldepflichtige Emissionen des Kohlekraftwerks der GKM AG in Mannheim"
"Reportable emissions from coal-fired power plant in the GKM AG in Mannheim "
____
and is "Quecksilber" mercury?
The translater I used didn't seem to translate the "Beurteilung" section very well. Would you be willing to help me with this bit?
"Ein Neubau von 900 MW installierter Leistung, der eine Ausweitung der KapazitÃt von
knapp 700 MW bedeuten würde, wÃre für die Luftsituation in Mannheim fatal, da die
ohnehin schon hohe Luftbelastung weiter ansteigen würde."
something about the company planning to install more capacity and the air is all I can follow.
also unfortunatly slashdot screws up the special characters
Anyway, I RESEARCHED now the tower "inhabitant" issue.
then you're almost there!
you're gone away and read up on it!
now all you have to do is open up those document, click on the address bar in your browser, press ctrl-C then reply to this post and hit ctrl-v so that people reading this can see the things you have found, can judge the quality of your source and see how very very wrong I am.
almost there!
so close!
nearly!
almost got a coherent, solid, cited argument!
"and you put it down to 50 in total."
I don't , the world health organisation came to that conclusion.
http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf
but of course they're part of the machine, the conspiracy, the plot and can't be trusted.
Most simple stuff, like SOx is down to about 25% of the 1990 values (which is already far less than then 1975 values).
And yet it's still terrible.
50% of horrific is still terrible.
No, I assume it is a matter of standpoint. People say: coal is as bad or even worth than nuclear. I say no, and bring some points.
You conclude: aos thinks coal is completely clean.
But I never said that.
to quote someone with the username "angel'o'sphere" a few posts ago.
"Nothing except CO2 escapes a modern coal plant. At least not in the "civilized world".
Everything is filtered out"
I call bullshit.
Did you even read it?
Yes. Specifically the part that said that the plants emit things other than C02.
It completely supports my point
no, I think you're using the wrong word there, it utterly contradicts your own statements which I quote above.
that's the opposite of supporting your statements.
Uranium, like some posters claimed (and depending how you look at it, they are right), is not exhausted in ANY german plant.
sure, german plants are special and magic and not like the plants anywhere else.
Anyway, they main point people make is: on coal more people die than on nuclear. Then they say: you have to count in mining, but they dont' count in uranium mining and transport.
and again. you're incorrect.
They do count uranium mining,processing, transport etc etc and still coal comes out far far far behind.
And I point out: all majour sources agree: coal plant exhaust pollution (with Arsen, Mercury etc.) is so low it does no harm (USA sources and european sources, several posters on /. gave them).
I'd say citation needed but you don't seem to believe in supporting your statements so I'm just going to say "bullshit, prove it"
Then I say: sorry, that cant really be true except if the USA has far worth pollution standards than EU.
based upon? what? your gut feeling? I showed you the pollution standards for the US and germany and showed you that the US has higher standards than germany. yes higher standards. and you hand wave it away based on absolutely nothing except your gut feeling.
But the US plant emits mercury in the dozens of tons rate, while a EU one does 1 or 2 or up to 4 * kilograms*?
Because in the EU the plants emit mercury just the same. because you're deluded. because you apparently can't be bothered actually researching the matter and are instead in denial.
The big picture of all the single sides you quote simply does not add up.
then please, build a better picture, provide better sources, provide actual data rather than just repeating your beliefs over and over.prove me wrong instead of just repeating that you think I'm wrong.
It should be really simple if I'm actually wrong.
"The acid rain problem is solved since 25 years"
no.
no it has not.
this is from 2006 .
not 25 years ago.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en08-emissions-co2-so2-and/emissions-co2-so2-and-nox
Yes coal plants have improved from 25 years ago. they put out far less sulphur dioxide.
but they still put out a lot of crap in addition to CO2.
And that report doesn't even go into the metals.
coal power plants are not clean.
They never were and still are not.
Again I ask. where, where in the name of god are you getting your ideas about coal power from?
because they seem to be fantasy.
I guess now you're going to insist that in the last 6 years coal has become perfectly clean?
Well then perhaps we could use the "Emissions (CO2, SO2, NOx) intensity of public conventional thermal power electricity and heat production (ENER 008) - Assessment published Jan 2011"
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emissions-co2-so2-nox-intensity-1/assessment
or perhaps coal has cleaned up it's act in the last 2 months?
face it.
Whoever has been telling you that nothing comes out of the chimney of a coal plant except CO2 is either a liar or merely horribly misinformed.
Only if i don't know it.
I don't research stuff, that I assume I know.
That doesn't seem to be working out too well for you.
What reason should I not have to believe a newspaper magazine claiming it would be 40k people in each tower?
because better sources of information are only a mouse click away, the effort is trivial and it makes your position look a lot stronger if you don't make obvious errors which could be avoided with almost no work.
So your proof is half remembered frantic news reports by reporters who only half understood what they were talking about which apparently were not archived like most news reports of the late 20th century but rather disappeared into the ether???
Nowhere did I say none of the liquidators died. eventually something like 50 of them died of radiation sickness or radiation related health problems.
I often hear silly claims that copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech, that it doesn't inhibit political speech.
Yet here we see a politician trying to use copyright law to prevent publication of his own embarrassing words.
Fair use is only a defense. Copyright shouldn't even apply to political speech yet people could end up in count being sued for showing off how monumentally stupid a politician is.
All thanks to the insane copyright laws.
I am in europe.
I am european.
It just happens that america has a lot of high quality data made public on the matter.
Your ideas about coal are still fantasy.
Coal plants are not clean.
european coal plants are not significantly cleaner.
The german rules are in fact less strict that the US EPA standards.
Germany:
Total particulates(smoke):18 ng per joule of heat input.
85% removal of sulpher dioxide.
Nitrogen oxides 70 ng per joule of heat input.
United states EPA:
Total particulates(smoke):13 ng per joule of heat input.
90% removal of sulpher dioxide.
Nitrogen oxides 65 ng per joule of heat input.
Yes. the US standards are more strict than the german ones. sorry to burst your bubble.
In the US problems with water pollution etc simply get a lot more attention than in europe.
The coal plants in europe are so bad that there are places like this:
http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/9670/wm/pd684635.jpg
where the acid rain caused by coal fired power plants has just killed everything.
First: no the 40K for the twin towers is completely wrong, the world trade centre consisted of 7 buildings, not just the 2 which were attacked, in total they could have 50K people working in them.
not 40K per tower.
Do you ever do any research?
do you even google any of this or do you rely on your gut feeling the whole time.
Yes I could google this, I just did.
You apparently can't be arsed.
250K dead recruits is fantasy.
it is made up.
it is not real.
it never was.
"Greenpeace scientists" is an oxymoron. they get their figures out of thin air and imagination and anyone with realistic figures are just denounced as part of some kind of conspiracy.
Yes a lot of people worked briefly in the area.
Do you know why they worked so briefly?
it was to keep their exposure to manageable levels.
even still some of them died.
but not many.
If they'd just set out to let them die then they would have had those soldiers keep working until they collapsed from radiation sickness rather than cycling them out after minutes because it would have made the work vastly easier.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html
"A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004."
I also note that they talk about charging it from a normal socket but generally you wouldn't do that: you'd charge an electric car from a high amp socket like what an electric cooker or shower might use which can draw far more electricity.
And then of course making a big thing of the power having to come from a power plant...
I get the impression they were reaching hard to make it look bad at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DfHyGD7_pM
starts off very favourable and then claims it died after 55 miles rather than 200 (anyone with a tesla able to weigh in on how close to 200 it really gets?) and then that the breaks died on it while the engine of the other car overheated.
if the claims are incorrect and the maintainable log contradicts them then it's really very serious.
you mean your basis isn't anything concrete but rather how watching the news when you were 18 made you feel?
On a related note on September 11th I watched the news and they were claiming that 40 thousand people were in the towers: completely absurd and it turned out later that a few news agencies had picked up the numbers for the whole complex and then someone had doubled it and then soeone else got that figure... and doubled it as well thinking "well there are 2 towers, that number must be for one"
news reports on the day are a terrible terrible way to get your information.
no, I'm asking for a citation for your crazy claim that nothing but CO2 escapes from a coal power plant.
no amount of googling tells me anything except that vast quantities of poisonous metals and compounds come out along with the CO2.
You seem to have this idea that in 1st world countries coal has been clean for 25 years.
yet all I find is a report from this month about the government bringing in regulations to try to make coal power plants stop emitting heavy metals into the air:
http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/california/for-the-media/alacinthenews/epa-proposes-limits-on-coal.html
"Jackson said mercury and other emissions covered by the rule damage the nervous systems of fetuses and children, exacerbate asthma and cause lifelong health damage for hundreds of thousands of Americans."
try reading this:
Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
"Hands down, dating from the mid-1800s, comes from horse racing, where jockeys drop their hands downward and relax their hold when they are sure to win. "
Again.
[Citation needed]
you do know what a citation is don't you?
it means you link to an a reasonably authoritative source which confirms your outlandish claims.
it does not mean "repeat it again"
only greenpeace claims 1 million and that appears to come from nothing but their imagination.
the world health organisation which actually did research on the matter rather than pulling random big numbers our of their arse claims about 4000 .
"I'm sure it was about 100,000 at least."
based on?
what?
did you just kinda decide that's what it had to be or just kinda average out a few of the claims you heard?
"People care about the "RISK". The risk if a plant goes rogue, melts or explodes"
that's exactly what I was talking about. the RISK.
If a chemical plant producing solvents for solar pannels leaks we could have another Bhopal only worse.
If a dam collapses above a big city hundreds of thousands could die. that that's not just a posibility: that ones has actually happened.
In practice the RISK from nuclear is less than from it's competitors, in part because most of them guarantee a steady death toll.
"It is irrelevant that *so far* it has not happend. It is irrelevant that over the last 100 years died X people to coal and Y People should be far more afraid of hydro dams given that individual dam collapses ... "
sorry but that's insane. "lets just ignore reality and history and instead go with my gut feeling."
And what had happend if there would have been a nuclear power plant and not a simple dam?
what?
That doesn't make any sense at all but the realistic answer is: probably nothing, the towns wouldn't have been washed away.
If you would care to read up the stuff other people link here regarding uranium pollution from coal you would realize: no one ever has died to any pollution coming from coal.
do you own shares in a coal plant or something? work in the marketing department?
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html
http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/cleanair.htm
Coal kills a lot of people every year.
"If you would apply the same logic you apply to coal mining also to uranium mining you would realize: oh my god, thousands of people died to uranium mining."
most uranium mining in the first world is done with in-sitiu leaching, no mining shafts, they just pump baking soda into the ground and the uranium dissolves into it and they can pump it back up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-situ_leach
And the volumes of ore are tiny in comparison to coal so even in the developing world there's far less deaths because there's far fewer working in uranium mining and vastly fewer deaths.
Please, this is a trivial request: when you feel the urge to make things up just google it first, find a source, cite it.
"Do you really think falling down from a framework during painting has anything to do with the technology involved how the power is generated?"
yes.
yes I do.
it would be dishonest to do otherwise.
it would be deluding myself to do otherwise.
Because those people are exactly as dead as if they got a lethal dose of radiation or suffocated on the fumes in a facility producing solar panels.
As long as I also count similar deaths in other forms of power generation it only makes the comparison more fair and accurate.
most western civilization coal plants are "clean" the don't have any toxic exhaust at all.
repeat after me:
"There is no such thing as clean coal"
"'Clean coal' is a myth"
"'Clean coal' is a marketing and PR scam"
"Coal is the dirtiest, worst source of energy, even in the western world"
"Coal plants emit a horiffic quantity of poisonous metals into the air"
I almost forgot:
I'm *really* going to need a citation for this:
"ALL ASH is filtered out."
unless you don't consider evaporated arsenic or mercury etc to not be "ash".
"Mercury emissions from a coal-fired power plant in Japan "
"More than 99.5% of the Hg in the stack emissions were in gaseous form and the proportion in particulate form was extremely low. "
Citation:doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00552-0
electrostatic precipitators work well on ash particles, not so well on gas.
coal is, by a wide margin the dirtiest power source which kills the most people.And that's ignoring any radiation or uranium.
There might be some exceptional seams with almost no uranium, thorium, radium, phosperous etc etc but good luck with that.that's not your average coal seem.
I've provided sources, if you're going to contend otherwise please link to some analysis of german coal sources showing they don't have similar levels of radioisotopes.
"We are talking about power plants that go rogue, explode or melt."
if you look only at planes that crash you would conclude that planes were horribly unsafe, if you look at all of them then they are clearly safer than most other forms of transport. ,TMI or fukushima then they look terribly unsafe. if you look at the hundreds worldwide then they come far ahead of most other sources of power.
If you look only at the nuclear plants which have serious problems like Chernobyl
"yes, you agreed that it is used to fill land mils, so ... what is your problem then?"
do you consider land fills to be a good place to store poisonous heavy metals and low level radioactive sources?
"don't say a nucler plant is safe."
Safe? no? safer? sure.
mainly people die from the other crap that coal plants emit, arsenic, lead etc.
the reason people point out the uranium is that people have a lot of absurd ideas about radiation and uranium( like believing that it's only in coal due to pollution of coal mines.) and it makes the point that it isn't all or nothing.
Radiation will be released no matter what you do, be it mining coal, iron or almost anything else.
which allows the discussion to be framed in a sane manner: ie simple total harm, total risk, how many people will actually die or are likely to die.
and on that front nuclear wins hands down.
but the problem is that it's safer in the same way the air travel is safer than traveling by car.
People are more afraid of flying even if they're know that they're more likely to die driving to the airport than while on the plane.
whenever there's an air accident it kills loads of people and makes headlines worldwide, road deaths barely make the local news.
When there's an equipment failure it makes the news as the plane tries to land without the landing gear down or with all the engines dead or some such and everyone gets to watch it on the news.
nuclear is like that.
People die regularly in coal mining accidents, people die from asthma, people die from lung cancers etc like clockwork, every day and it's booooring much like the little road accidents every single day.
People die falling off their roofs while trying to install solar panels, people fall off wind turbines or die in iron mining accidents getting the metal for wind turbines.
but all these deaths are boring and regular and barely make the news.
meanwhile nuclear, every now and then, has a really big spectacular bit of drama.
Long run it's safer.
long run it kills far less people but every now and then it makes world headlines.
Most of the time it turns out with nobody dying like in Three mile island but theres still days or weeks of drama.
And radiation is scary, a cloud of smog isn't scary, it's just annoying.Even arsenic isn't scary, it's something tangible we can understand but plutonium? far far scarier.
People should be far more afraid of hydro dams given that individual dam collapses have in the past killed many times more than the entire nuclear power industry combined and have wiped out entire towns.
but water isn't invisible, water isn't scary, water is easy to understand.
Sorry, correction, I meant to say thousands of pounds, not tons, though it may stray into tons, I haven't had time to do the math.
unfortunately that takes energy, how much of the coal plants output are you willing to spend on the smoke scrubbers?
all you have to do is close your eyes, clap and wish real hard.
build a working von-neuman machine and set it to work building panels in the sahara and you might get somewhere, until then solar is still a toy energy source and we're a while away from that yet.
exactly how do you think the vast quantities of coal ash are actually stored afterwards?
They don't get sealed in lead casks, they don't get locked away in safe storage places, they get put in landfills or ash heaps, completely unsealed.
and ounce for ounce? well the other thing is that thousands of tons of coal ash gets produced for every ounce of nuclear waste to get the same energy and the ash ends up unshielded while the nuclear waste is generally properly taken care of.
"In general this is not true. "
actually it is.
and it has nothing to do with pollution, uranium occurs naturally in the earths crust, in coal it tends to be a little more concentrated, it's even in seawater though at very low concentrations. it has absolutely nothing to do with pollution, if humans had never existed there would still be uranium and thorium in coal.
"We are talking about power plants that go rogue, explode or melt. "
averaging out or are you assuming that every plant will explode sooner or later?
"But the reason might be that our coal plants filter everything out of the smoke)."
ho ho ho
someone's been spinning you a merry tale.
Only about 80% of the ash is captured, the rest goes into the air, particularly volatile materials are going to escape completely and even the ash that's captured just gets buried in landfills or similar where it's heavy metals can leech into the groundwater.
"I can not find a singel other source supporting that."
you didn't try very hard then
a google for "coal ppm uranium" yielded these on the first 2 pages.
"Some coal deposits contain uranium concentration levels as high as 1000 ppm. "
http://www.magnumuranium.com/s/Uranium.asp
"Some trace elements in coal are naturally radioactive. These radioactive elements include uranium (U), thorium (Th), and their numerous decay products, including radium (Ra) and radon (Rn). Although these elements are less chemically toxic than other coal constituents such as arsenic, selenium, or mercury, questions have been raised concerning possible risk from radiation."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
Historical analytical data from the period 1992 to 1995 indicate that the fly ash in these deposits contains between 92 and 154 ppm U3O8. The bottom ash contains similar values. These are similar to those in a number of in situ leach type uranium deposits under evaluation in various parts of the world.â
http://enochthered.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/uranium-extraction-from-coal-waste/