If I am hearing you correctly you are cool with an even larger number of people dying of lung disease, construction accidents and exposure to toxic chemicals caused by alternatives to nuclear power because those kinds of deaths are less scary.
I never said that we should not perform actions that cause. On the contrary, I said that deaths are inevitable so we should minimize them by making choices that result in the fewest number of them.
If we didn't build roofs then far more people would die of exposure than die in roof construction accidents
Likewise with electrical power generation going without electricity would kill more people than generating it does.
If by "1950s" you mean 1977 then yes, it was from then but that should be expected because that's when the experiment was performed.
The PDF is an official report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory so I don't see what that has to do with the webserver currently hosting the data.
I assume that you also read the followup study of factors affecting the corrosion rates and you know what they learned about controlling that corrosion, right?
Anything involving solid fuel is a dead end as far as safely improvements go.
The molten salt reactor puts the fuel in liquid form and runs it at atmospheric pressure. The salts used to dissolve the fuels are chemically stable, unlike zirconium. They don't catch on fire and produce hydrogen gas at high temperatures. A molten salt reactor is so inherently safe that the shutdown procedure consists merely of turning off the power. The fuel drains by gravity to a storage tank where it harmlessly cools down and solidifies into an inert solid.
And now, I even more doubt your partiality in defending nuclear plants.
You are the type of guys who refuse reality, just because it goes against their own interests.
Will you at least accept that what you disclosed in your post casts considerable doubt on your objectivity as well?
My wife got her thyroid removed, because of Chernobyl's radiations, so please, think about the future generations, not your current job !
That is truly tragic. I don't want anyone to be harmed by industrial accidents but the unfortunate fact is that every single method for generating electricity harms somebody. Fossil fuels kill people in mining accidents, fires and by air pollution. Wind and solar kill people in construction accidents. Nuclear accidents injure and kill people as well.
Knowing that any solution will inevitably involve accidents the only sensible course is to choose the solution that produces the most power with the fewest number of causalities. Right now that solution is nuclear power. That's not my opinion - it's what the data says.
So what you're saying is that you don't like the results but can't point to any specific flaw in the methodology so you're just going to post angry anonymous tirades instead.
Reality: If you can name an alternative way to produce as much electricity as is currently produced by nuclear power and will result in less people being killed in the process name it.
Funny, I haven't heard of that many deaths from solar power.........
Then you haven't been listening.
There's no such thing as a riskless human activity. Every single possible thing a person can do has a death rate associated with it.
Most solar deaths occur during the construction and installation phase of the life cycle.
The number of deaths is low in absolute terms but since the amount of energy produced over the lifetype of a solar installation is so small compared to denser sources of power it makes each death more signifigant in terms of fatalities per unit of energy generated.
He did do a followup article showing how those numbers have gone down over time as technology improves.
Of course to be fair if you're going to base safety comparisons on what is technologically possible now as opposed to the past you should be comparing "clean coal" and other new technologies to molten-salt reactors and other 4th generation technologies.
As it stands right now the Fukishima death toll is currently 0 due to the reactor incident. The only remaining question how many future cancer deaths will be caused by the incident an as it stands currently the most pessimistic credible estimate is on the order of 1000. That's not enough to the ranking.
You could actually read his report, note the sources he cites and verify for yourself whether or not he accurately quoted them.
You did not do any of those things, however, so after initially assuming that you were asking for a citation in good faith I recognized the fact that you were slinging mud from the beginning rather than offering honest debate
Before expecting an answer why not go to Google and type "how to estimate cancer deaths from radiation exposure", read the top entry and then see if you still have a question.
I'm sure the regulators are doing everything they can to ignore any of their own actions that contributed to the problem but regardless there's enough of the blame that belongs with the company that I've started pronouncing TEPCO as "Shinra".
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps improv was talking about the "dickwolves" controversy?
The historical revisionism is strong with this one.
If I am hearing you correctly you are cool with an even larger number of people dying of lung disease, construction accidents and exposure to toxic chemicals caused by alternatives to nuclear power because those kinds of deaths are less scary.
I never said that we should not perform actions that cause. On the contrary, I said that deaths are inevitable so we should minimize them by making choices that result in the fewest number of them.
If we didn't build roofs then far more people would die of exposure than die in roof construction accidents
Likewise with electrical power generation going without electricity would kill more people than generating it does.
If by "1950s" you mean 1977 then yes, it was from then but that should be expected because that's when the experiment was performed. The PDF is an official report from Oak Ridge National Laboratory so I don't see what that has to do with the webserver currently hosting the data.
Apparently they figure out how to solve that problem.
Take a look at figure 9 and figure 12.
I assume that you also read the followup study of factors affecting the corrosion rates and you know what they learned about controlling that corrosion, right?
Can you explain what you mean by "don't work well" and "difficult to clean up"?
Anything involving solid fuel is a dead end as far as safely improvements go.
The molten salt reactor puts the fuel in liquid form and runs it at atmospheric pressure. The salts used to dissolve the fuels are chemically stable, unlike zirconium. They don't catch on fire and produce hydrogen gas at high temperatures. A molten salt reactor is so inherently safe that the shutdown procedure consists merely of turning off the power. The fuel drains by gravity to a storage tank where it harmlessly cools down and solidifies into an inert solid.
Will you at least accept that what you disclosed in your post casts considerable doubt on your objectivity as well?
My wife got her thyroid removed, because of Chernobyl's radiations, so please, think about the future generations, not your current job !
That is truly tragic. I don't want anyone to be harmed by industrial accidents but the unfortunate fact is that every single method for generating electricity harms somebody. Fossil fuels kill people in mining accidents, fires and by air pollution. Wind and solar kill people in construction accidents. Nuclear accidents injure and kill people as well.
Knowing that any solution will inevitably involve accidents the only sensible course is to choose the solution that produces the most power with the fewest number of causalities. Right now that solution is nuclear power. That's not my opinion - it's what the data says.
For what it's worth I haven't made any anonymous posts to this article.
So what you're saying is that you don't like the results but can't point to any specific flaw in the methodology so you're just going to post angry anonymous tirades instead.
Got it.
Reality: If you can name an alternative way to produce as much electricity as is currently produced by nuclear power and will result in less people being killed in the process name it.
Then you haven't been listening.
There's no such thing as a riskless human activity. Every single possible thing a person can do has a death rate associated with it.
Most solar deaths occur during the construction and installation phase of the life cycle.
The number of deaths is low in absolute terms but since the amount of energy produced over the lifetype of a solar installation is so small compared to denser sources of power it makes each death more signifigant in terms of fatalities per unit of energy generated.
He did do a followup article showing how those numbers have gone down over time as technology improves.
Of course to be fair if you're going to base safety comparisons on what is technologically possible now as opposed to the past you should be comparing "clean coal" and other new technologies to molten-salt reactors and other 4th generation technologies.
I have no idea why it looked like the post I just replied to was a reply to an entirely different post that I made earlier.
Racist? I was trying to make a Final Fantasy 7 joke. Thanks for ruining it.
Less than 0.04 per terawatt-hour.
I spent eight years operating and maintaining the reactor that I slept less than 100 feet away from.
If you want to make things personal what's your experience in this area?
As it stands right now the Fukishima death toll is currently 0 due to the reactor incident. The only remaining question how many future cancer deaths will be caused by the incident an as it stands currently the most pessimistic credible estimate is on the order of 1000. That's not enough to the ranking.
You could actually read his report, note the sources he cites and verify for yourself whether or not he accurately quoted them.
You did not do any of those things, however, so after initially assuming that you were asking for a citation in good faith I recognized the fact that you were slinging mud from the beginning rather than offering honest debate
Before expecting an answer why not go to Google and type "how to estimate cancer deaths from radiation exposure", read the top entry and then see if you still have a question.
Now you're just being a douchebag.
I'm sure the regulators are doing everything they can to ignore any of their own actions that contributed to the problem but regardless there's enough of the blame that belongs with the company that I've started pronouncing TEPCO as "Shinra".
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html