3 ms·
> 9.25 deaths per TWh. It looks pretty dangerous then, given that. I'm sorry, you're saying that less deaths per TWh than Oil, Coal, Biofuel, and Peat looks pr
by sorbus 16y ago
> 9.25 deaths per TWh. It looks pretty dangerous then, given that.
I'm sorry, you're saying that less deaths per TWh than Oil, Coal, Biofuel, and Peat looks pretty dangerous? That looks really safe to me, at least in comparison to our other options.
> It is grotesque doing this sort of calculation in the midst of unfolding events.
I'll give you that, if you admit that it's also grotesque to use current events to support related agendas, given that our information about them isn't nearly as comprehensive as it could be.
- eliasmacpherson 16y agoThere's no mention of how the figure for Biofuel is arrived at so I'm not sure that I can agree with it (the idea that arable land is spent on biofuel, thus driving up food prices was doing the round a while ago). With that possible exception, my opinion is that all four are pretty dangerous. It seems they are all at least twice as dangerous as Natural gas. I disagree that it looks really safe compared to the others. I agree that it is grotesque to use current events to support related agendas.