Replacing fossil fuels

[Pup]

I have a hard time calling this accident a disaster when no one has died and there has been no environmental damage. Besides, if it's a disaster, would it be of the natural or nuclear variety? When you are crushed by a floating, flaming four-square hurdling a giant wave, do you blame Mamma Nature, or the inherent dangers of conventionally-framed housing? I think you've fallen victim to the sensationalism of the press.

At 8.9, this was indeed Japan's worst recorded earthquake in history.

How do you define 'very, very dangerous'? (And how much safer is that than 'very, very, very dangerous?) Chernoble claimed 56 lives I think it was, which is a tragedy. But like I said, when you look at there being over 5,000 coal-mining deaths each and every year, then you tend to put it in perspective. You seem to be enamored of facts (or, FACTS), but oddly you seem reluctant to provide any. So, do you have any numbers or other fact-stuff to back you up? 'Cause it all sounds like opinion to me.

And really, Hitler? Twice? That is desperation defined.

[autogyro]

160 people are now showing signs of radiation exposure and tens of thousands have been evacuated.
Of course just like past 'disasters' the complete death toll will be kept from the general public by the nuclear criminals.
As most sensible people realise those who die from radiation poisoning linger on in many cases for decades making it convenient for those in charge to massage the figures.

Those are the figures for today Pup, I will keep you posted.

Somehow I dont think this is press sensationalism.
Can you quantify the 5000 coal mining deaths, this and every year?
People can of course make up their own minds as to what is very very dangerous.
I have an idea that those dieing from radiation will have a different view to you.
Hitler was of course a fully paid up supporter of nuclear fission.(three)

[andrew]

So everyone that is in favour of nuclear power is akin to Adolf Hitler?

[autogyro]

Second explosion at the facility.
That confirms the very 'very' dangerous description.

[autogyro]

Fuel rods are now exposed in reactor 2.
Does this warrant another 'very' to the danger.

It is now possible for a large land area of Japan to be made uninhabital for many many years. Care to comment on the 'many'?

Nobody can deny that this is a huge disaster for Japan and that there is ongoing risk of a nuclear melt down.
I hope everyone will hope and if it is their thing, pray that this does not happen.

It was all caused by the earth and its natural function, over which humans have little if any control.
Surely this should be the primary fact, for considering the continued long term use of nuclear energy as a replacement for fossil fuel?
The earth is capable of much bigger earthquakes than this one and any future earthquake larger than this one in Japan will almost certainly result in nuclear melt down somewhere.
This does not even touch on potential terrorist attack.
The risk is far to high for continueing nuclear power.

[andrew]

Here's a couple interesting facts.

In the USA, there have been 966 accidents between 1980 and December 2010 caused by wind turbines. 67 have been fatal.

In the USA, there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009. There has also been 3 fatal accidents between January 1961 and March 2011 at nuclear power plants.

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 here

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 here

[autogyro]

Accidents 'caused' by wind turbines?
Can you be a bit more specific.

[andrew]

Read what has been provided and you may find out.

[autogyro]

Oh your links dont work andy.
Its those nuclear gremlins probably, or probably Wiki franticaly sorting the facts.

[andrew]

Work fine me.

[autogyro]

I love their reference to a low level event, with a little dicky bird flying off with a peiece of nuclear material and dieing in its nest.
I wonder who does the charts, Woody Alan.

[hollus]

Here's a couple interesting facts.

In the USA, there have been 966 accidents between 1980 and December 2010 caused by wind turbines. 67 have been fatal.

In the USA, there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants from 1952 to 2009. There has also been 3 fatal accidents between January 1961 and March 2011 at nuclear power plants.

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 here

Summary of Wind Turbine Accident data to 31 December 2010 here

Is it just me, or under "nuclear related" you are only counting radiation exposure incidents, while under "turbine related" you are including the whole life cycle of the turbine?
So nuclear reactors don't need to be built, don't involve transport, don't ever have fires, are never updated, are not related to mining, etc...

Play fair, Andrew.

[autogyro]

http://www.gigha.org.uk/windmills/TheSt ... dmills.php

These wind turbines have been paying the people of Gigha a profit since 2003.
So what on earth are these nuclear NIMBYs on about.

Every Town and Village should do the same and we should build as many wind turbines as possible. We should also put at least two in the front gardens of each and every nuclear NIMBY.

[Shrieker]

Chernoble claimed 56 lives

Twisting the truth at it's best...

Multiply that by a hundred and that's the minimum number of casualties caused by the after efects of Chernobyl in the long term, only in Turkey. There were fears of soil contamination in northern Turkey (where most of the tea production is), and minister of Industry and Commerce at the time took a cup of tea and drank it in front of TV cameras saying nothing was wrong. Talk about nuclear criminals.

Nuclear is dangerous, period. The likelihood of a leak (by any means) is very very small, but when that event occurs, the likelihood of disastrous consequences to human health in a wide spread area is very high. Which is unacceptable.

We need to invest in wind turbines, solar panels and generation by wave/sea current power.

[Pup]

Cite your sources if you're so sure. My source is the UN's own 20-year study on health effects related to Chernobyl, which states:

There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.

Studies which predict large amounts of radiation-related deaths were based entirely on the now largely discredited linear no-threshold model of predicting the health effects of long-term radiation exposure. In fact, the Chernobyl disaster itself helped to disprove that model, as the predicted spikes in both thyroid cancer and leukemia did not occur.

Besides, I was avoiding the long-term issue anyway by only comparing the direct casualties of Chernobyl vs mining accidents. Though I would argue that even if you accepted what I think are grossly overstated long-term casualty rates cited by reports like the one by greenpeace or the green party's TORCH report, those numbers would still pale in comparison to the long-term detrimental health effects attributable to coal.