3 ms·

> Including solar and wind. That's wrong.

• mpweiher 10y ago
  No it's not. Fatalities per trillion kWh: Solar (rooftop): 440 Wind: 150 Wind(UK): <1000 Nuclear: 90 Nuclear(US): 0.01 Last I checked, 90 is smaller than 440 or 150, and 0.01 is vastly smaller than 440 or 150. But maybe math works differently on your planet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
  • onli 10y ago
    Went for another thing through my comments, and will take the chance to add an answer here. That table is not a valid source. That goes into the bigger pcuture of you deciding for yourself what fact is and what not, and starting to insult people from your "superior" position. I mean, I'm happy about that, it disqualifies everything you write, and I despise your position. That tables only source is a Forbes Article which has no further direct reference for it. It is coming form the head of one single man. But somehow for you it becomes objective truth. Also, it does not hold up even when just looking at it. There are no big explosions killing people for solar and wind energy. That means the deaths counted there include numbers like people falling from roofs during installation (even then, it's improbable high). However, the number for nuclear energy is that low that it is evident that deaths like "people having an accident on way to work" are obviously not included. And it does not show which numbers are taken for the accidents in three miles, the radiation leaks we had in Germany and France, Chernobyl and Fukushima. I would not be surprised if it were 0, 0, 56 and 0, which is ridiculous. It's one thing to criticize current medical radiation models, it is another to assume radiation is completely harmless.