4 ms·

> Probably Turing_Machine was remembering an older report No, I was talking about the United States. Not Chernobyl.

tchaffee 4y ago
So you've cherry picked the data to fit your narrative. You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building. That doesn't speak to the safety of nuclear. That speaks to different safety regulations on different types of construction sites or something similar. You need to look at causation, not correlation. There is nothing less safe about solar (even if we cherry pick the US) when compared to nuclear once you look at actual causes.
- Turing_Machine 4y ago
  I haven't "cherry-picked" anything. The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. Adding Chernobyl into the mix is like adding the (outrageously high) air crash rates from the Soviet Union into the mix and claiming that it's "evidence" that flying is dangerous. > You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. > but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. I think we're done here.
  - tchaffee 4y ago
    > The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? > Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. That's absolutely false. 1961. Steam explosion and meltdown results in three fatalities at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One 1986. Feedwater line-burst at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 2013. One worker was killed and two others injured when part of a generator fell as it was being moved at the Arkansas Nuclear One. > I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. It's not. You're confusing correlation with causation. There is nothing particular about solar installations that would result in a higher fatality rate compared to building tall nuclear cooling towers. You'd need to point to some sort of causation to be believable. The real difference is probably something like big construction sites versus small construction sites. Which says nothing at all about the safety of nuclear vs. solar. In fact it would be a safe bet that large scale solar installations are far safer to build and maintain than nuclear installations.
    - Turing_Machine 4y ago
      > And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? I explain that with 1) outdated plant, 2) magnitude 9.0 (!) earthquake 3) devastating tsunami, 4) massive fire, 5) total loss of power to all control systems. Followed by: 6) still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks.
      - tchaffee 4y ago
        > still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks. So what? Solar isn't killing anyone due to radiation leaks either. The subject is death rate, not death due to radiation leaks. This is yet another example of you trying to get away with cherry picking data. And failing at it. Besides the fact that the radiation deaths from Fukushima will come. At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 175 (0.7%) have received significant radiation doses That will never happen with a solar power plant. Never. And you avoided the question. Does Japan have crap technology? Is that your explanation for the Fukushima disaster? That was your excuse for Russia. What's your excuse for the Fukushima disaster? There have been nuclear power disasters requiring evacuation at the minimum in Russia, the US, and Japan. Can you name a solar power disaster? Several comments ago you said "I think we're done here". And in another comment "Again, I think we're done here". You called that wrong, didn't you? Twice.

So you've cherry picked the data to fit your narrative. You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building. That doesn't speak to the safety of nuclear. That speaks to different safety regulations on different types of construction sites or something similar. You need to look at causation, not correlation. There is nothing less safe about solar (even if we cherry pick the US) when compared to nuclear once you look at actual causes.

Turing_Machine 4y ago
I haven't "cherry-picked" anything. The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. Adding Chernobyl into the mix is like adding the (outrageously high) air crash rates from the Soviet Union into the mix and claiming that it's "evidence" that flying is dangerous. > You're simultaneously claiming that the US can somehow safely build the tall and complex structures for a nuclear plant Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. > but cannot safely install solar panels on a 2 story building I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. I think we're done here.
- tchaffee 4y ago
  > The Soviet Union (and now Russia) is notorious for having crap technology. And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? > Yes. We can. 70 years, no accidents. That's absolutely false. 1961. Steam explosion and meltdown results in three fatalities at National Reactor Testing Station's SL-1 Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One 1986. Feedwater line-burst at Surry Nuclear Power Plant kills 4 2013. One worker was killed and two others injured when part of a generator fell as it was being moved at the Arkansas Nuclear One. > I'm saying that the fatality rate is HIGHER for solar panels. Which it is. It's not. You're confusing correlation with causation. There is nothing particular about solar installations that would result in a higher fatality rate compared to building tall nuclear cooling towers. You'd need to point to some sort of causation to be believable. The real difference is probably something like big construction sites versus small construction sites. Which says nothing at all about the safety of nuclear vs. solar. In fact it would be a safe bet that large scale solar installations are far safer to build and maintain than nuclear installations.
  - Turing_Machine 4y ago
    > And Japan too? They had a major and recent disaster. How do you explain that? Crap Japanese technology? I explain that with 1) outdated plant, 2) magnitude 9.0 (!) earthquake 3) devastating tsunami, 4) massive fire, 5) total loss of power to all control systems. Followed by: 6) still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks.
    - tchaffee 4y ago
      > still didn't kill anybody due to radiation leaks. So what? Solar isn't killing anyone due to radiation leaks either. The subject is death rate, not death due to radiation leaks. This is yet another example of you trying to get away with cherry picking data. And failing at it. Besides the fact that the radiation deaths from Fukushima will come. At least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 175 (0.7%) have received significant radiation doses That will never happen with a solar power plant. Never. And you avoided the question. Does Japan have crap technology? Is that your explanation for the Fukushima disaster? That was your excuse for Russia. What's your excuse for the Fukushima disaster? There have been nuclear power disasters requiring evacuation at the minimum in Russia, the US, and Japan. Can you name a solar power disaster? Several comments ago you said "I think we're done here". And in another comment "Again, I think we're done here". You called that wrong, didn't you? Twice.