30 ms·

My point is that you or your child getting thyroid cancer, even if you or she recovers, is a pretty horrific outcome, and might deserve to be considered somehow

by pinko 16y ago

My point is that you or your child getting thyroid cancer, even if you or she recovers, is a pretty horrific outcome, and might deserve to be considered somehow -- not just fatalities.

mquander 16y ago
True, but if you're counting that, there must surely be many other equally bad externalities worth counting; e.g. environmental damage due to oil spills and incidence of lung cancer due to air pollution from coal mining. You have to draw the line somewhere to make the chart, and drawing it at fatalities seems sort of reasonable. It certainly doesn't seem overly gracious to nuclear power.
borism 16y ago
that's what nuclear fanatics here don't seem to get. as I argued in other thread about the original numbers, what matters aren't direct deaths attributed to one or the other energy source. what matters (to me at least) is how different energy sources affect our quality of life. I suspect nuclear isn't the worst offender here, but it isn't all butterflies and roses either. For the record: I am responsible nuclear fission proponent.
- NickPollard 16y ago
  Wikipedia[1] cites a claim that France (which generates on the order of 80% of it's power from Nuclear) has the cleanest air of any industrialised nation, due in large part to the lack of fossil fuel burning plants. I for one think that's a reasonable trade to make for a few nuclear waste dump designated areas being radioactive until we can get some breeder reactors or similar to break them down more quickly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
  - borism 16y ago
    really? Some better [citation needed]. 2002: Scandinavia and the Baltic countries had the cleanest air in Europe this summer while Greece, France and Italy faced the worst smog levels, said the European Environment Agency (EEA). http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574 http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574 And BTW, I am fully in favor of replacing coal plants with nuclear.
    - tjogin 16y ago
      Scandinavia is mostly driven by nuclear and hydro power. So the point still stands.
      - borism 16y ago
        Hydro - yes. Nuclear - no. Denmark and Norway - no nuclear. Sweden - 45% nuclear. Finland - 30% nuclear.
        tjogin 16y ago
        Uh, you're saying nuclear no, but then nuclear 45% of Sweden and 30% of Finland, so you must mean nuclear yes.
    - kiujhgtfghjk 16y ago
      Smog is generated by petro chemicals, heat and sunlight. That's why LA gets smog and Alaska doesn't - now why would hot sunny France with lots of people (and cars) get Smog but sparsely populated cold Scandanvia not?
baguasquirrel 16y ago
The elevated rates of asthma occurring in inner city kids is also pretty shitty. One of the better things they did in NYC was to shut down most of the power plants that were actually in the city.
khafra 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year

by pinko 16y ago

My point is that you or your child getting thyroid cancer, even if you or she recovers, is a pretty horrific outcome, and might deserve to be considered somehow -- not just fatalities.

mquander 16y ago

True, but if you're counting that, there must surely be many other equally bad externalities worth counting; e.g. environmental damage due to oil spills and incidence of lung cancer due to air pollution from coal mining. You have to draw the line somewhere to make the chart, and drawing it at fatalities seems sort of reasonable. It certainly doesn't seem overly gracious to nuclear power.

borism 16y ago

that's what nuclear fanatics here don't seem to get. as I argued in other thread about the original numbers, what matters aren't direct deaths attributed to one or the other energy source. what matters (to me at least) is how different energy sources affect our quality of life. I suspect nuclear isn't the worst offender here, but it isn't all butterflies and roses either. For the record: I am responsible nuclear fission proponent.

NickPollard 16y ago
Wikipedia[1] cites a claim that France (which generates on the order of 80% of it's power from Nuclear) has the cleanest air of any industrialised nation, due in large part to the lack of fossil fuel burning plants. I for one think that's a reasonable trade to make for a few nuclear waste dump designated areas being radioactive until we can get some breeder reactors or similar to break them down more quickly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
- borism 16y ago
  really? Some better [citation needed]. 2002: Scandinavia and the Baltic countries had the cleanest air in Europe this summer while Greece, France and Italy faced the worst smog levels, said the European Environment Agency (EEA). http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574 http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574 And BTW, I am fully in favor of replacing coal plants with nuclear.
  - tjogin 16y ago
    Scandinavia is mostly driven by nuclear and hydro power. So the point still stands.
    - borism 16y ago
      Hydro - yes. Nuclear - no. Denmark and Norway - no nuclear. Sweden - 45% nuclear. Finland - 30% nuclear.
      - tjogin 16y ago
        Uh, you're saying nuclear no, but then nuclear 45% of Sweden and 30% of Finland, so you must mean nuclear yes.
  - kiujhgtfghjk 16y ago
    Smog is generated by petro chemicals, heat and sunlight. That's why LA gets smog and Alaska doesn't - now why would hot sunny France with lots of people (and cars) get Smog but sparsely populated cold Scandanvia not?

baguasquirrel 16y ago

The elevated rates of asthma occurring in inner city kids is also pretty shitty. One of the better things they did in NYC was to shut down most of the power plants that were actually in the city.

khafra 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year