Wait, is this that after-market for conversion like we saw for Y2K?
Just the reverse imho. Y2K had lots of buy-in and few real problems. Today we have lots of problems, from routing table explosion to address exhaustion, with very little buy-in to the only thing that remotely resembles a solution. Of course, the powers that be only give a thought to the easiest and most trivial of the problems, address exhaustion.
Also, forgive the poor phrasing, but can everyone in IPv6 see each other?
No. Unless he-cogent has been solved. I could login and check if I weren't so lazy. I'm sure this is not the only case of this problem.
The internet is basically a big collection of unidirectional traffic exchange (this is how BGP works). This *could* lead to a full graph (everyone can communicate with everyone else), but it doesn't. There are a few technical caveats, which sometimes interrupt connectivity (e.g. ghost routes, bgp loops,...). But mostly there are political problems which prevent global routing from working (and I'm not talking about Iran and China, I'm talking disputes between companies.
Can we just ditch all that eHow and Experts Exchange junk all in one swoop?
No, in fact IPv6, by expanding everything, will probably expand this problem too. The alternative is censorship, let's not go there.
It's like a giant Reset Button for the Internet.
Unless we network engineers collectively and massively screw up, no it isn't. Nobody wants that. And we certainly don't want international censorship to be implemented as a result of the transition.
"Everything that matters will migrate because the people that care will do it. 15 years of legacy will fall away."
Again, no it won't. New and more troubling versions of all problems in IPv4 have already manifested and are affecting at least some backbones. Furthermore, running dual-stack has a lot of new problems as well.
Most OS'es will use IPv6 in the dual-stack case if at all possible (which leads to it's own problems : the IPv6 route table isn't nearly as well-guarded as the IPv4 one, so there are more routing problems and they don't get fixed nearly as fast).
With some luck, this won't totally overload their helpdesks and they'll continue it. Because, frankly, $11.26 once is a hell of a lot cheaper than customer service per customer on a yearly basis.
The sad fact is, just a year ago apple was hailed as the company that broke microsoft domination and anticompetitive practices.
Turns out apple is a LOT worse than microsoft lock-in wise. Okay, partly because the cloud is so closed-source it makes the NSA's security policies look open-minded (ever tried getting data out of the cloud ? It's most instructive to try this once), but you have to admit that apple does *not* treat it's customers well at all.
IPv6 routers also exist. It's just that nobody uses them.
And 3dTV's have the advantage that they're "cool", while once IPv6 is implemented, your internet will work... exactly as it does now. It's just that if people *keep* refusing to go to IPv6, a cost shared between all participants of "the internet" will start going up. It will become ever more expensive to host something on the internet.
(not that IPv6 is a full solution to all exhaustion problems, but it's a necessary first step)
Lots of production network stuff is still in draft mode. Half of MPLS for one. This doesn't bother anyone.
It's just simply that end-users don't care, and they aren't confronted with the problem. You'd expect hosters to fix this (and they do), but if the website hosters pay google's profits for a few more eyeballs... it seems unlikely they'd be willing to drop ipv4 accessibility "for the greater good", no ? That'd be dropping 99.99%+ of your traffic.
It's an incentive problem. The transition we will actually see will be normal ISP users going to NAT.
If you calculate what reasonable energy levels would be using only renewable sources, and food using only organic farming without fertilizer and divide that by what it takes for a USian to be comfortable, you only get near 100 million, not even 250 million.
The problem with any number far below the current population size is that the only way to accomplish such a number is by killing. If you limit births, you depopulate medical centers, while creating a huge supply of care-needing older people. If you choose to populate the medical centers, that labor cannot be used for the actually productive parts of the economy, adding to the problem. The only way to get it down even a single billion humans, in a way that does not crash the world economy, is by killing a billion humans. That sucks ? Of course, but the alternatives suck more : if we do crash the world economy, we will probably lose more than a billion humans...
As for efficiency improvements, that's worse than doing nothing : Jevon's paradox.
In reality the only viable option going forward, while losing oil, is converting our energy infrastructure to nuclear, and make sure we can electrically create food from water + co2 + trace elements. That *could* (in theory) work, and sustain 6 billion people, or even 100. But hey, you have fukushima and such idiocies like "natural food is healthier" (just ask anyone over 50 exactly how true that statement is), so politically, we're pretty much doomed to try the non-working things.
some *tiny* amount of warming -> more warming -> yet more warming -> even more warming
First, why exactly isn't it 500 degrees (or something like that) on the surface if every warming causes more warming ? Note what that skepticalscience page says : more co2 -> warming warming -> more co2 (and by now "natural" co2 release far, far outstrips human co2 release)
You must see that if that's true, then it's over. Since human co2 emissions are drops in an ocean compared to what oceans throw into the athmosphere as a reaction to warming. It may very well be true that humans caused the initial, tiny, temperature spike (but that would be the humans of ~ 1800-1850, and the real cause of present time global warming is a ridiculously small event), but everything else was a feedback loop that's unrolling until the oceans run out of co2 and we lowly humans just don't have the resources to prevent it from happening.
I mean, answer me this question : if there is a feedback loop, then we're doomed to let the warming run it's course, independant of how many economic sacrifices we make or don't make. Increasing human co2 output makes little difference. Decreasing it makes little difference (even a full stop of human co2 emissions - we all drop dead after stopping our car - would not stop the warming, or even mitigate it's effects by 1%).
So if people truly believe in the feedback loop theory of global warming (and without the feedback loop theory, you can't have AGW as far as I understand it), then why do these people support co2 limiting policies ? If there is a feedback loop between the athmosphere and the oceans that's warming up the planet, then limiting co2 output is like trying to rescussitate an Egyptian mummy : the ship has sailed.
Please, answer this if you can. It's very hard to get decent answers to questions like this.
And a highschool chemistry lab probably contains all you need to read exactly what was under the blacked out portions of a "real" document too. If they used those thick pens to black out printed ink (e.g. laserprinter ink), all you need is some alcohol. Of course, in the general case, it requires a bit of knowledge.
But If you're lucky with the paper type, all you need is a lightbulb.
Laserprinter ink can be made to perform an especially cool trick, saving a lot of time. For at least 48 hours after printing the ink will still attract other pieces of metal (not big ones, obviously). So no matter how well it's blacked out, metal filings can easily reveal whatever was printed. Just drop em on the paper and shake it a little bit.
A small remark... a lot of primate species have (extremely simple) languages.
Most animals have oral communication and are capable, at the very least, to coordinate group movements through use of sounds. A lot of mammals are capable of more complex sounds, not just primates.
Sure, but you must realize the advantages of working in flash too. Flash is consistent across platforms... try that with HTML (even HTML5). Flash supports a consistent set of playback formats across all it's implementations. Flash supports audio (and video) recording and sending to a server (needed for e.g. a softphone).
Flash, unfortunately, has lots of things no "open" solution has.
Fortunately that problem has been "solved" by turning the company producing them into "Government Motors", then demanding they use 10% of our tax money on fantasy projects, which they'll never ever recuperate. Of course, with tax money, that's never an issue.
You know, they don't actually say what this does... There's a webinar, but it's basically a commercial, you know the "this will change everything and Microsoft, Einstein and Jesus Christ were minor characters compared to what you're going to see on this webinar" type.
So, anyone ? What does this do ?
It seems it's for running spring applications... wauw (!)
Believe it or not, chemical and radioactive properties must combine before you'd have a real problem. Cesium will bind to water and therefore get dispersed enormously in a very short time (doubly so in a region that borders an ocean). Additionally your body is not very likely to absorb cesium. On top of that, it's a beta-decay isotope (that means it releases a high-energy electron, no gamma radiation). Relatively large quantities of cesium, as long as they remain outside of the body are less dangerous than an old tv set (I believe it takes 5-6 kilos before you have something equally dangerous to a tv set). When ingested somehow, there's zero danger as long as they're inside the digestive tract, and only a tiny percentage gets absorbed.
So Cesium will not do much damage. It won't remain concentrated at all, it's only very weakly radioactive, it's beta-decay, and on top of that it has the habit of staying on the outside of human beings (or animals, or plants) even when ingested.
Iodine-137 is a bigger problem, as your body is very keen to absorb Iodine atoms, and will immediately transport them into a relatively cricital system : the thyroid gland, where it will irradiate the gland itself and young cells of the immune system. Both are problematic. However, the resulting disease, thyroid cancer, is very treatable and has very, very few fatalities. If detected in time (and in this case, nearly all cases will obviously be very early stage cancers which have 100% survival rate). And this is not a big if : the government has announced a campaign to detect this disease.
There will not be a single lethal victim of the radiation released. Chances are better than 50% that no-one will EVER get sick as a result of this radiation release (just like at three mile island).
There's just a lot of baseless propaganda and scaremongering. It's shameful, really, it's not often that Fox news gets called a bastion of sanity, but this time they really did it.
By contrast, had this been an oil spill (like has happened at other locations in Japan) you can bet a number of people will also get cancer, and much less treatable ones.
Now can I ask you a question ? The consequences that the quake and tsunami had inside power plants resulted in casualties : - solar power : 5-6 lethal victims - wind power : one or two dozen lethal victims - oil power : close to hundred lethal victims, dozens poisoned - gas power : several dozen lethal victims - nuclear power : zero victims (apparently two people were thrown against the plant's walls as a direct result of the tsunami, they were probably counting on the purpose-built seawall to stop the tsunami, which it failed to do)
Why are you railing against nuclear power ? Solar power is at least double as dangerous as nuclear, and all other options are at least 10 times more lethal than nuclear power.
Do you enjoy knowing people are dying or something ?
Given the short halflife of these isotopes, this is comparable to an oil spill. Except for two things 1) we can't "clean it up" : we don't have the technology for that 2) we don't have to... we just have to wait a week
Cute detail about the wind turbines. Can you say the same about repair workers 30 meters off the ground ?
Radiation exposure, obviously does not "keep ticking". Only if you ingest a large quantity of radioactive nuclei does that problem exist (and there are solutions). Radiation exposure itself does damage immediately, and the damage will out soon enough.
Given that the only radiation sources released have a half-life of a few days, it won't take long for everything to go back to normal. Even the plant grounds itself are not a lost cause, and they will certainly not remain radioactive for any prolonged period of time.
Also, I wonder what the difference is with other power sources... People have been evacuated due to oil disasters. Hell I've seen a village get evacuated because a wind turbine was about to blow up (technically it's "mechanical failure", but it sure looks like it blows up). I'm sure coal, gas, and so on have had their share of evacuations. The only permanent evacuations I know of, were not caused by nuclear power, but by oil spills.
Total number of Fukushima victims : 0 (1 worker wounded, and given that their facility had an 8 meter high wave smash into the outer walls... ) Total number of victims of other power plants : at least 150, and still rising (including victims of solar power (rooftops + quakes : not a good combination) and wind (standing on a large pole + quake : likewise))
(additionally, unlike the socialist politicians of Chernobyl, the Japanese government did not send people walking unknowingly into a plutonium/uranium cloud to save a few bucks, or rubles as the case may be)
Now if only this would matter... Oh well propaganda before facts I suppose. Nuclear bad... mmmmkay ?
What a bullshit study is that? Counting the deaths from steel production, building and maintenance for Wind and Solar, but only counting the deaths from chernobyl for nuclear. What does he think nuclear plants are build of?
Actually it's only the deaths from installing & maintaining the installations that get counted. And by far most deaths in wind power occur during maintenance (and is that such a surprise ? We're talking a 2 megawatt generator in a tiny room (as compared to the same thing in a power plant I mean), with a gearbox that turns 10x the speed of the one in your car as the main component that fails (often catapulting steel components at huge speed right into the maintenance room), and all of this is suspended atop a 30 meter high tower, sometimes at sea. Guess what ? That causes accidents. Big surprise, right ?). Additionally, if the gearbox fails, the blades will start turning faster and faster until they are torn off, sometimes catching fire in the process. The result ? A 10m long, sometimes burning, 2 ton weighing pole getting launched at several 100 km/h into the air... Best to keep your distance (and yes, someone climbed into that thing trying to repair it before it failed. Repair failed (emergency brakes broke the second they were applied), and the worker was back out before the catastrophic failure. If he had arrived at the scene, say 20 minutes later, and climbed into the tower, do you think he would have had any chance at all to walk out of that thing alive ?).
Solar power is similar : most deaths occur during repairs executed on roofs. Guess what, working on rooftops, people slip and fall. Additionally electrical accidents happen because home electricians make mistakes during installation or changes to the electrical system (which becomes hugely more complex and dangerous as a result of installing solar panels: a normal electrical system is basically a secured plug, a solar system installation is a power routing system that must be able to move power around to various components in both directions : to/from battery, to/from electrical utility. Complex electrical systems maintained by often underqualified staff results in fried electricians, again, is that such a big surprise ?).
Additionally, solar panels are classified as dangerous waste, because of the toxic components. So solar power also contributes to "no-go zones". Wind power requires enormous amounts of petroleum processing (manufacturing the blades) and coal use (to manufacture the steel pole and various turbine components). Additionally, I'm sure they contain some toxic components.
And large oil spills are yearly events. Small ones, I don't have any data, but I'm thinking weekly.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, is this that after-market for conversion like we saw for Y2K?
Just the reverse imho. Y2K had lots of buy-in and few real problems. Today we have lots of problems, from routing table explosion to address exhaustion, with very little buy-in to the only thing that remotely resembles a solution. Of course, the powers that be only give a thought to the easiest and most trivial of the problems, address exhaustion.
Also, forgive the poor phrasing, but can everyone in IPv6 see each other?
No. Unless he-cogent has been solved. I could login and check if I weren't so lazy. I'm sure this is not the only case of this problem.
The internet is basically a big collection of unidirectional traffic exchange (this is how BGP works). This *could* lead to a full graph (everyone can communicate with everyone else), but it doesn't. There are a few technical caveats, which sometimes interrupt connectivity (e.g. ghost routes, bgp loops, ...). But mostly there are political problems which prevent global routing from working (and I'm not talking about Iran and China, I'm talking disputes between companies.
Can we just ditch all that eHow and Experts Exchange junk all in one swoop?
No, in fact IPv6, by expanding everything, will probably expand this problem too. The alternative is censorship, let's not go there.
It's like a giant Reset Button for the Internet.
Unless we network engineers collectively and massively screw up, no it isn't. Nobody wants that. And we certainly don't want international censorship to be implemented as a result of the transition.
"Everything that matters will migrate because the people that care will do it. 15 years of legacy will fall away."
Again, no it won't. New and more troubling versions of all problems in IPv4 have already manifested and are affecting at least some backbones. Furthermore, running dual-stack has a lot of new problems as well.
Go Go Gadget Nevinyrral's Disk!
Go !
Most OS'es will use IPv6 in the dual-stack case if at all possible (which leads to it's own problems : the IPv6 route table isn't nearly as well-guarded as the IPv4 one, so there are more routing problems and they don't get fixed nearly as fast).
With some luck, this won't totally overload their helpdesks and they'll continue it. Because, frankly, $11.26 once is a hell of a lot cheaper than customer service per customer on a yearly basis.
The sad fact is, just a year ago apple was hailed as the company that broke microsoft domination and anticompetitive practices.
Turns out apple is a LOT worse than microsoft lock-in wise. Okay, partly because the cloud is so closed-source it makes the NSA's security policies look open-minded (ever tried getting data out of the cloud ? It's most instructive to try this once), but you have to admit that apple does *not* treat it's customers well at all.
IPv6 routers also exist. It's just that nobody uses them.
And 3dTV's have the advantage that they're "cool", while once IPv6 is implemented, your internet will work ... exactly as it does now. It's just that if people *keep* refusing to go to IPv6, a cost shared between all participants of "the internet" will start going up. It will become ever more expensive to host something on the internet.
(not that IPv6 is a full solution to all exhaustion problems, but it's a necessary first step)
Lots of production network stuff is still in draft mode. Half of MPLS for one. This doesn't bother anyone.
It's just simply that end-users don't care, and they aren't confronted with the problem. You'd expect hosters to fix this (and they do), but if the website hosters pay google's profits for a few more eyeballs ... it seems unlikely they'd be willing to drop ipv4 accessibility "for the greater good", no ? That'd be dropping 99.99%+ of your traffic.
It's an incentive problem. The transition we will actually see will be normal ISP users going to NAT.
If you calculate what reasonable energy levels would be using only renewable sources, and food using only organic farming without fertilizer and divide that by what it takes for a USian to be comfortable, you only get near 100 million, not even 250 million.
The problem with any number far below the current population size is that the only way to accomplish such a number is by killing. If you limit births, you depopulate medical centers, while creating a huge supply of care-needing older people. If you choose to populate the medical centers, that labor cannot be used for the actually productive parts of the economy, adding to the problem. The only way to get it down even a single billion humans, in a way that does not crash the world economy, is by killing a billion humans. That sucks ? Of course, but the alternatives suck more : if we do crash the world economy, we will probably lose more than a billion humans ...
As for efficiency improvements, that's worse than doing nothing : Jevon's paradox.
In reality the only viable option going forward, while losing oil, is converting our energy infrastructure to nuclear, and make sure we can electrically create food from water + co2 + trace elements. That *could* (in theory) work, and sustain 6 billion people, or even 100. But hey, you have fukushima and such idiocies like "natural food is healthier" (just ask anyone over 50 exactly how true that statement is), so politically, we're pretty much doomed to try the non-working things.
Ever since condoms sex drive and children have little to do with one another, don't you think ? And if that's not enough, there's abortion.
some *tiny* amount of warming -> more warming -> yet more warming -> even more warming
First, why exactly isn't it 500 degrees (or something like that) on the surface if every warming causes more warming ? Note what that skepticalscience page says :
more co2 -> warming
warming -> more co2
(and by now "natural" co2 release far, far outstrips human co2 release)
You must see that if that's true, then it's over. Since human co2 emissions are drops in an ocean compared to what oceans throw into the athmosphere as a reaction to warming. It may very well be true that humans caused the initial, tiny, temperature spike (but that would be the humans of ~ 1800-1850, and the real cause of present time global warming is a ridiculously small event), but everything else was a feedback loop that's unrolling until the oceans run out of co2 and we lowly humans just don't have the resources to prevent it from happening.
I mean, answer me this question : if there is a feedback loop, then we're doomed to let the warming run it's course, independant of how many economic sacrifices we make or don't make. Increasing human co2 output makes little difference. Decreasing it makes little difference (even a full stop of human co2 emissions - we all drop dead after stopping our car - would not stop the warming, or even mitigate it's effects by 1%).
So if people truly believe in the feedback loop theory of global warming (and without the feedback loop theory, you can't have AGW as far as I understand it), then why do these people support co2 limiting policies ? If there is a feedback loop between the athmosphere and the oceans that's warming up the planet, then limiting co2 output is like trying to rescussitate an Egyptian mummy : the ship has sailed.
Please, answer this if you can. It's very hard to get decent answers to questions like this.
That's no moon
And a highschool chemistry lab probably contains all you need to read exactly what was under the blacked out portions of a "real" document too. If they used those thick pens to black out printed ink (e.g. laserprinter ink), all you need is some alcohol. Of course, in the general case, it requires a bit of knowledge.
But If you're lucky with the paper type, all you need is a lightbulb.
Laserprinter ink can be made to perform an especially cool trick, saving a lot of time. For at least 48 hours after printing the ink will still attract other pieces of metal (not big ones, obviously). So no matter how well it's blacked out, metal filings can easily reveal whatever was printed. Just drop em on the paper and shake it a little bit.
A small remark ... a lot of primate species have (extremely simple) languages.
Most animals have oral communication and are capable, at the very least, to coordinate group movements through use of sounds. A lot of mammals are capable of more complex sounds, not just primates.
Sure, but you must realize the advantages of working in flash too. Flash is consistent across platforms ... try that with HTML (even HTML5). Flash supports a consistent set of playback formats across all it's implementations. Flash supports audio (and video) recording and sending to a server (needed for e.g. a softphone).
Flash, unfortunately, has lots of things no "open" solution has.
So, what can you not do with HTML5 that you can do with Flash / Silverlight?
Well, just one thing I would like to be able to do is to record audio (preferably live).
Oh, and availability of an actual 8-bit datatype would be nice.
Fortunately that problem has been "solved" by turning the company producing them into "Government Motors", then demanding they use 10% of our tax money on fantasy projects, which they'll never ever recuperate. Of course, with tax money, that's never an issue.
Given that you have to separate out very small quantities of materials, so it would be a good guess that it takes a hell of a lot of energy.
But why not stick to the illusion that "energy savings" advertised on the box are the absolute ultimate truth. Hey, it works for solar panels.
You don't answer the question at all
You know, they don't actually say what this does ... There's a webinar, but it's basically a commercial, you know the "this will change everything and Microsoft, Einstein and Jesus Christ were minor characters compared to what you're going to see on this webinar" type.
So, anyone ? What does this do ?
It seems it's for running spring applications ... wauw (!)
Believe it or not, chemical and radioactive properties must combine before you'd have a real problem. Cesium will bind to water and therefore get dispersed enormously in a very short time (doubly so in a region that borders an ocean). Additionally your body is not very likely to absorb cesium. On top of that, it's a beta-decay isotope (that means it releases a high-energy electron, no gamma radiation). Relatively large quantities of cesium, as long as they remain outside of the body are less dangerous than an old tv set (I believe it takes 5-6 kilos before you have something equally dangerous to a tv set). When ingested somehow, there's zero danger as long as they're inside the digestive tract, and only a tiny percentage gets absorbed.
So Cesium will not do much damage. It won't remain concentrated at all, it's only very weakly radioactive, it's beta-decay, and on top of that it has the habit of staying on the outside of human beings (or animals, or plants) even when ingested.
Iodine-137 is a bigger problem, as your body is very keen to absorb Iodine atoms, and will immediately transport them into a relatively cricital system : the thyroid gland, where it will irradiate the gland itself and young cells of the immune system. Both are problematic. However, the resulting disease, thyroid cancer, is very treatable and has very, very few fatalities. If detected in time (and in this case, nearly all cases will obviously be very early stage cancers which have 100% survival rate). And this is not a big if : the government has announced a campaign to detect this disease.
There will not be a single lethal victim of the radiation released. Chances are better than 50% that no-one will EVER get sick as a result of this radiation release (just like at three mile island).
There's just a lot of baseless propaganda and scaremongering. It's shameful, really, it's not often that Fox news gets called a bastion of sanity, but this time they really did it.
By contrast, had this been an oil spill (like has happened at other locations in Japan) you can bet a number of people will also get cancer, and much less treatable ones.
Now can I ask you a question ? The consequences that the quake and tsunami had inside power plants resulted in casualties :
- solar power : 5-6 lethal victims
- wind power : one or two dozen lethal victims
- oil power : close to hundred lethal victims, dozens poisoned
- gas power : several dozen lethal victims
- nuclear power : zero victims (apparently two people were thrown against the plant's walls as a direct result of the tsunami, they were probably counting on the purpose-built seawall to stop the tsunami, which it failed to do)
Why are you railing against nuclear power ? Solar power is at least double as dangerous as nuclear, and all other options are at least 10 times more lethal than nuclear power.
Do you enjoy knowing people are dying or something ?
You mean the halflife ?
Given the short halflife of these isotopes, this is comparable to an oil spill. Except for two things ... we just have to wait a week
1) we can't "clean it up" : we don't have the technology for that
2) we don't have to
Cute detail about the wind turbines. Can you say the same about repair workers 30 meters off the ground ?
Radiation exposure, obviously does not "keep ticking". Only if you ingest a large quantity of radioactive nuclei does that problem exist (and there are solutions). Radiation exposure itself does damage immediately, and the damage will out soon enough.
Given that the only radiation sources released have a half-life of a few days, it won't take long for everything to go back to normal. Even the plant grounds itself are not a lost cause, and they will certainly not remain radioactive for any prolonged period of time.
Also, I wonder what the difference is with other power sources ... People have been evacuated due to oil disasters. Hell I've seen a village get evacuated because a wind turbine was about to blow up (technically it's "mechanical failure", but it sure looks like it blows up). I'm sure coal, gas, and so on have had their share of evacuations. The only permanent evacuations I know of, were not caused by nuclear power, but by oil spills.
Well, you're right of course. But let's analyze that scenario, shall we ?
Not cutting revenue before cutting spending boils down to putting a large pile of money in front of ex-lawyers, and expecting them not to touch it.
So I'm not sure there's much of a choice there.
In case you haven't noticed, it seems a large group here seems to feel underrepresented.
Mod parent up
Total number of Fukushima victims : 0 (1 worker wounded, and given that their facility had an 8 meter high wave smash into the outer walls ... )
Total number of victims of other power plants : at least 150, and still rising (including victims of solar power (rooftops + quakes : not a good combination) and wind (standing on a large pole + quake : likewise))
(additionally, unlike the socialist politicians of Chernobyl, the Japanese government did not send people walking unknowingly into a plutonium/uranium cloud to save a few bucks, or rubles as the case may be)
Now if only this would matter ... Oh well propaganda before facts I suppose. Nuclear bad ... mmmmkay ?
What a bullshit study is that? Counting the deaths from steel production, building and maintenance for Wind and Solar, but only counting the deaths from chernobyl for nuclear. What does he think nuclear plants are build of?
Actually it's only the deaths from installing & maintaining the installations that get counted. And by far most deaths in wind power occur during maintenance (and is that such a surprise ? We're talking a 2 megawatt generator in a tiny room (as compared to the same thing in a power plant I mean), with a gearbox that turns 10x the speed of the one in your car as the main component that fails (often catapulting steel components at huge speed right into the maintenance room), and all of this is suspended atop a 30 meter high tower, sometimes at sea. Guess what ? That causes accidents. Big surprise, right ?). Additionally, if the gearbox fails, the blades will start turning faster and faster until they are torn off, sometimes catching fire in the process. The result ? A 10m long, sometimes burning, 2 ton weighing pole getting launched at several 100 km/h into the air ... Best to keep your distance (and yes, someone climbed into that thing trying to repair it before it failed. Repair failed (emergency brakes broke the second they were applied), and the worker was back out before the catastrophic failure. If he had arrived at the scene, say 20 minutes later, and climbed into the tower, do you think he would have had any chance at all to walk out of that thing alive ?).
Solar power is similar : most deaths occur during repairs executed on roofs. Guess what, working on rooftops, people slip and fall. Additionally electrical accidents happen because home electricians make mistakes during installation or changes to the electrical system (which becomes hugely more complex and dangerous as a result of installing solar panels: a normal electrical system is basically a secured plug, a solar system installation is a power routing system that must be able to move power around to various components in both directions : to/from battery, to/from electrical utility. Complex electrical systems maintained by often underqualified staff results in fried electricians, again, is that such a big surprise ?).
Additionally, solar panels are classified as dangerous waste, because of the toxic components. So solar power also contributes to "no-go zones". Wind power requires enormous amounts of petroleum processing (manufacturing the blades) and coal use (to manufacture the steel pole and various turbine components). Additionally, I'm sure they contain some toxic components.
And large oil spills are yearly events. Small ones, I don't have any data, but I'm thinking weekly.