5 ms·

Actually, it is http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#587be0a549d2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2

• dredmorbius 11y ago
  That's not accessible. As I said: IPCC's SRREN gives mortality/GWh statistics, and nuclear is not the safest, by that measure. Data included Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, but not Fukushima. Actually, I've previously discussed both here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are_your_arguments_concerning_nuclear_power/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/267e5e/what_are... NB: Conca is a rather partisan pro-nuclear advocate. I've found his credibility wanting and bias quite evident in past. The IPCC's report: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/ Risks are in one of the appendixes (I'm not on a device which makes sorting this out trivial at the moment).
  • wbc 11y ago
    the report is 1088 pages and has appendices everywhere, can you point out where you found the risk comparison? A ctr-f for risk finds 511 uses
    • dredmorbius 11y ago
      One of the appendices is risks of differrent generating methods. Should show up in the table of contents. And yeah, I know it's long....
    • dredmorbius 11y ago
      Starting at p. 993: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf And p. 745: http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch10.pdf