4 ms·
Unless the point is to say "Wow, Coal is a very dangerous energy source on a global basis." or "Wow, China is really bad at operating coal power plants", this i
by Duff 15y ago
Unless the point is to say "Wow, Coal is a very dangerous energy source on a global basis." or "Wow, China is really bad at operating coal power plants", this isn't very informative.
Obviously, the coal figures are reflecting the health issues created or exacerbated by using the product. So miner deaths, cancers, respiratory illnesses, etc are probably all factored in there.
Just as Chinese coal sticks out as outlier, nuclear sticks out as well.
How can you make an argument based on deaths without accounting for future risks? Some waste products of many nuclear energy generation are dangerous for 10,000 years -- longer than recorded history. And as the article states, one of the issues with nuclear accidents is the difficulty of attributing deaths:
"4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous."
It just seems bizarre to me that someone would discuss at length the hazards of working on a roof, while the US has hundreds of nuclear power plants with adjacent waste ponds that will require active cooling for an indefinite period of time.
- vidarh 15y agoEven if you count ever "possible shortened life" as a result of Chernobyl as a death right now, it has minimal impact on the relative dangers of nuclear vs. coal or oil.
- nekojima 15y ago"4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous." This figure is far less than the number who will die just this year from mining coal (mostly in China and Africa), let alone from the direct health effects of secondary causes of coal pollution which will number in the hundreds of thousands to low millions. There is very little nuclear waste (currently less than three Olympic sized swimming pools for all of Canada's nuclear waste) compared to the primary and secondary industrial waste from coal, oil and other forms of energy production, including solar and wind manufacturing. Solar and wind are only "environmentally friendly" after the units are installed and working. If you add in the production, installation and land requirements, as well as maintenance, solar and wind are not as helpful as claimed. I live between two of the largest nuclear generating stations in the world, within 20km, and I have few concerns. Having visited the sites and educated myself independently on the nuclear issue, I am far happier with this solution than the alternatives, including industrial wind and solar, though solar roof panels can have a place in helping reduce electrical heating of hot water.