"The notion of cancer risk is only meaningful in relation to something else." I thought it would be obvious from the context in this thread that the relation i

"The notion of cancer risk is only meaningful in relation to something else." I thought it would be obvious from the context in this thread that the relation is to "not being exposed to radiation". "as if the alternative was "simply not using nuclear power"." I never said anything about what I imagine the alternative to be. I don't think I even said nuclear power should be abandoned (although I would like to see it go, true). Just signs for me that you use me as "the imaginary enemy" and don't even look at what I say. "First, the fossil fuel sources which are the only scalable alternative" Now you start to make very broad claims. Obviously a lot would have to change, but I heard that humans actually survived for millenia without any electricity at all (no idea how, but still). Not saying we should abandon electricity, but a lot of things could be changed. For example I would not miss cars - I think abandoning the majority of cars would actually enhance our quality of life, not reduce it. Just one example - but I don't claim to have "the" or even "a" solution. One aspect, though: I think fossile fuels and nuclear power are both limited resources (or is nuclear power a perpeteum mobile?). Even if we take it as a "free gift of capital from earth", perhaps we should use that energy to prepare for a time when it is not available anymore, rather than blow it on entertainment. That is, use it to build infrastructure that is less power hungry. As for the malaria, sorry, but that is bullshit. I know it used to be a problem in areas where it is not now, but I don't think every area without electricity gets a malaria problem. Is there malaria at the north pole?? Isn't malaria far more likely to be caused by politics (and/or population growth), namely groups of people being left in poverty and forced to move into unhealthy regions (swamps) because of that?