4 ms·
You are twisting reality to fit your views :-) You need to compare the % of people driving cars vs dying on car accidents, vs the people working with highly ra
by atmosx 11y ago
You are twisting reality to fit your views :-)
You need to compare the % of people driving cars vs dying on car accidents, vs the people working with highly radio-active material (without protection at the time) vs people dying from radio-active material under that specific conditions :-)
- amelius 11y agoWell, a different premise, but still exemplifying people's fear of radio-active material: nuclear power is still way less deadly than oil (actually, by a factor of 400 or so) [1]. [1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/2/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-de...
- dimitar 11y agoI've heard this claim very often, but I can never be sure if the fatalities includes those from Uranium mining which was historically very dangerous and did cause many deaths in the former Eastern Bloc. A lot of the fatalities are from coal, not oil or natural gas. Coal is much more widely used than nuclear energy, so I'm not sure if they were used on the same amount which would have more casualties. Not to mention that this depends on the country as well, since countries differ wildly in terms of workplace safety and the existence/enforcement of environmental standarts. I would avoid repeating this claim.
- maxerickson 11y agoCoal is at around ~10x the generation of nuclear. The nuclear death rate is ~1/375 that of coal. This is because emissions are a major contributor to the death rate for coal. Looking it up, the first analysis I find says that uranium ore is likely more energy dense than coal[1] so it shouldn't be the case that it is a lot more dangerous than coal mining. [1] http://www.plux.co.uk/energy-density-of-uranium/ http://www.plux.co.uk/energy-density-of-uranium/