3 ms·

Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe Solar kills more people than nuclear per watt, so that’s the reporter’s personal agenda talking https://

Nuclear energy, to start with, is ultimately not safe Solar kills more people than nuclear per watt, so that’s the reporter’s personal agenda talking https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...

dv_dt 7y ago
The killings that nuclear may make are difficult to pin down (did that cancer come from nuclear exposure, or a chemical, or just a chance cosmic ray?) and so may be unattributed.
- funklute 7y ago
  A well-developed statistical model should be able to take that into account. My understanding is that the academic consensus is fairly strongly leaning towards nuclear being the safest energy option, based on robust statistical models. Would be interested in hearing the opinions on this from someone actually in this academic field though...
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    A model could provide an estimate there, but nuclear deaths are not estimated that way from the posted source. They are only directly attributable deaths. e.g. cherynobyl was attributed from the posted source as 7 deaths while statistical modeling puts it in at least the tens of thousands range. Even the 7 of the link is questionable as reports of firefighter deaths during the accident as 27. e.g. https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/how-many-people-died-at-chernobyl/ https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/how-many-people-died-at-chern...
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Sure, but if we count that then let’s attribute all skin cancer to solar.
  - dv_dt 7y ago
    Skin cancer can also come from exposure to material on the skin or ingested... chemical or nuclear, it could come from strong enough exposure to EM radiation. at the point you have cancer, it's very difficult to say exactly what the cause was.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 7y ago
How how do you account for the guy who dies from cancer 500 years from now due to nuclear waste materials stored in dodgy facilities?
- hanwenn 7y ago
  if climate change continues at today's pace, there won't be humans in 500 years from now.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dv_dt 7y ago

The killings that nuclear may make are difficult to pin down (did that cancer come from nuclear exposure, or a chemical, or just a chance cosmic ray?) and so may be unattributed.

funklute 7y ago
A well-developed statistical model should be able to take that into account. My understanding is that the academic consensus is fairly strongly leaning towards nuclear being the safest energy option, based on robust statistical models. Would be interested in hearing the opinions on this from someone actually in this academic field though...
- dv_dt 7y ago
  A model could provide an estimate there, but nuclear deaths are not estimated that way from the posted source. They are only directly attributable deaths. e.g. cherynobyl was attributed from the posted source as 7 deaths while statistical modeling puts it in at least the tens of thousands range. Even the 7 of the link is questionable as reports of firefighter deaths during the accident as 27. e.g. https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/how-many-people-died-at-chernobyl/ https://heavy.com/news/2019/05/how-many-people-died-at-chern...
goatinaboat 7y ago
Sure, but if we count that then let’s attribute all skin cancer to solar.
- dv_dt 7y ago
  Skin cancer can also come from exposure to material on the skin or ingested... chemical or nuclear, it could come from strong enough exposure to EM radiation. at the point you have cancer, it's very difficult to say exactly what the cause was.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Spooky23 7y ago

How how do you account for the guy who dies from cancer 500 years from now due to nuclear waste materials stored in dodgy facilities?

hanwenn 7y ago
if climate change continues at today's pace, there won't be humans in 500 years from now.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]