Nuclear meltdown! Holy Godzilla NOOOO!!!

The BBQ Pit
1641

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...deaths-180406/ Greenpeace got a report by 52 scientists and they see a hell of a lot more Chernobyl deaths. But since they are lefties, they can not be right, ever.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ancers-dispute The Mission of IAEA is to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s pretend for a moment that Greenpeace is a reputable authority on this, and that these ‘52 scientists’ are 100% correct in their assertions. Here, this is what they are asserting so we’re on the same page:

Leaving aside all the weasel words and waffling, let’s just go with these figures here. So…200k have died in a 15 year period, with another 93k predicted to die, er, sometime in the future (no specifics…not going to bother with their .pdf report, feel free to actually do more work than posting a link next time). So, let’s just round that off…300k dead in some time period between now and whenever everyone involved dies of natural causes some time in the future.

Earlier, Whack-a-Mole cited a source that said that, in the US (where we have at least some regulation of the environment) 22k people die due to respiratory ailments caused by coal smoke PER YEAR. So, in 10 years, that would be 220k. In 15 years it would be 330k…in the US. In the time it will take all the people who were alive during Chernobyl to die (say 0-80 years) what do you suppose the number of deaths in the US due to coal smoke will be by then? Do you think it will be more or less than the 300k Greenpeace is predicting will die, combined, due to Chernobyl?

And that’s really an apples to oranges comparison, unless you truly think that Russia’s air quality standards for their coal plants are higher than the US (leaving aside the fact that Russia and the other provinces mentioned have a higher population than the US of course). You still can’t get really good stats out of the Russian’s, despite the fact that they are more open than they were under the Soviets, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that 22k figure doubles or even triples over the US figures.

So…even with your ridiculous Greenpeace claims that are almost 2 orders of magnitude different than the UN’s IAEA report, can you grasp the fact that even then the numbers, when put in context to something like coal power production, pale?

-XT

1642

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Wow, you’re kind of a cold, heartless, inhuman monster, aren’t you? You really are determined to dehumanize anyone, and any number of someones, who stand between you and your nuclear dream?
[/QUOTE]

And you are an idiot who wants to focus on a human interest story when 10’s of thousands of people have died, and 100’s of thousands are without homes. You probably love this story because it’s deceptive, and one would actually have to open it up and read the whole thing (something you obviously count on people NOT doing) in order to see the deception.

-XT

1643

This is gibberish. It’s not like 22k people suddenly develop Black Lung and keel over every year. You’re talking about the average lifespan being shortened by an insignificant amount of time.

People don’t care that living in a country with cars shortens their lifespan by x number of days, or weeks or whatever. Their lives without cars would suck more.

22k completely fictional theoretical future lives shortened per year means nothing compared to the real-life right now suffering of thousands and thousands of real live people, right now.

Really? Seriously? All everyone has to do is eat a little healthier and walk around the block once in awhile and they’ll extend their lives by far more than coal emissions take away.

1644

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
This is gibberish. It’s not like 22k people suddenly develop Black Lung and keel over every year. You’re talking about the average lifespan being shortened by an insignificant amount of time.
[/QUOTE]

It was pointed out to you at the time that you are wrong. Just because you misread the cite doesn’t make it so. That was the estimated number of people who die per year due to health related problems stemming from coal. No…they don’t suddenly develop ‘Black Lung’…a certain number of people have the probability of developing problems over their life times, and every year a certain small percentage lose the great lottery in the sky and die. You know…the exact same way that people in Japan in the future will develop cancer over their lifetimes due to what’s happening there. Well…not exactly the same, since the numbers will be much smaller, but the same theory.

It’s funny that you seem to grasp that part of it, but can’t grasp the other part…isn’t it? I still can’t tell if this is deliberate deception on your part, or if you are really stupid. It could go either way, seeing posts like this latest gem from you.

Exactly. The benefits outweigh the small risk. Same goes for coal fired power plants…the overall benefit to society far outweighs the risks and the small number (relative to society as a whole) of deaths caused each year. That’s exactly right. Again, it’s funny you see this, but you can’t see that nuclear energy is exactly the same cost to benefit calculation…well, except that the deaths, even when there is a disaster, are much smaller relative to other things in our society.

:stuck_out_tongue: Dude…I know you mean well, but when you say stuff like this you look like an absolute idiot. Well…to everyone but gonzomax, FXM and TSS.

Very true. One of the risks in our society that outstrips both coal AND nuclear (and probably a lot of other stuff combined) is our (westerners, especially American’s) diet. Thanks for making my point. Appreciate that.

-XT

1645

Wrong. This is what you don’t get. 22K fictional people are not the same as 100s of thousands suffering now. The ones suffering now are real. The theoretical people are not. The thousands of people (and their pets, needlessly) suffering right now are real people. They aren’t a theoretical .001% chance of something happening. They are real and they are suffering right now.

No, what you propose is sick. If your goal is to reduce the population by x percent, by far the most humane way to do it is to shorten 7 billion people’s lives by a week than it is to set up a nuclear death lotto by putting these plants everywhere and if your lucky lotto comes up, you and your family and friends and loved ones get to do all the suffering and dying on behalf of the rest of humanity.

No, I don’t think I did.

1646

Of course XT Greenpeace is a lefty leaning organization that meand they can NEVER be right. But an organization that pushes nuclear energy is a fair and balanced source.
If you want to get on the health train, you should bitch about cigarettes and the companies that make them. They kill people and diinish the quality of life for many others in the aim of making profits.

1647

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Wrong. This is what you don’t get. 22K fictional people are not the same as 100s of thousands suffering now. The ones suffering now are real. The theoretical people are not. The thousands of people (and their pets, needlessly) suffering right now are real people. They aren’t a theoretical .001% chance of something happening. They are real and they are suffering right now.
[/QUOTE]

I started to Google up a few cites showing the number of real (pretty easy to do), actual deaths in the US every year due to pollution, but then I really read what you said here and…I don’t believe it. No one (well, besides gonzomax) could be this stupid. Your post is bullshit…I don’t believe it’s sincere, I think you are deliberately trolling me. That’s not illegal in the Pit or anything, but I don’t think I’ll play today. You have shown yourself to be deceptive, now afaiac you are showing yourself to be a troll as well. Ado.

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Of course XT Greenpeace is a lefty leaning organization that meand they can NEVER be right. But an organization that pushes nuclear energy is a fair and balanced source.
[/QUOTE]

Why did you quote my entire post and then respond with this? I covered this in the first half sentence of my post…you should have bothered reading the rest of it.

Or…maybe you should have focused on comprehension, since that seems to be a major stumbling block for you. That thing (ETA: though the typo ‘think’ was pretty funny, on reflection) you heard buzzing over your head? Yeah…the one that flew by you earlier? That was the point. You missed it. Sadly it’s gone now.

-XT

1648

Wow, now you’re comparing nuke deaths to pollution? You’re amazing!

1649

In his defense, at least he’s not borderline retarded like you. :smiley:

1650

Like xtisme said, it’s hard to believe that even you’re this stupid.

Why shouldn’t you compare “nuke deaths” from a reactor accident to pollution? It is a form of pollution, just with radioisotopes instead of coal ash, carbon dioxide, and other assorted nasties. It would be strange to compare “nuke deaths” to pollution, if by “nuke deaths” you meant a nuclear bomb, but that isn’t the case now in Japan.

It actually makes me sick to my stomach to hear you belittling people who are dying right now from coal-pollution related ailments. You say that they’re just “theoretical people” who might die a little sooner than otherwise. This is bullshit, and again it’s hard to believe you’re this stupid. This isn’t theoretical octogenarians who might die peacefully in their sleep three months sooner than they might have. This is real, actual people right now who are dying every year because of COPD, bronchitis, emphysema, lung cancer, etc…

Then immediately after you dismiss coal-pollution deaths as “theoretical”, even after being told that 22K will die this year in the US alone, you go on to say that the people who will suffer “nuke deaths” in Japan number in the 100,000 range and “are real and they are suffering right now.” But the only people who have already suffered measurable harm from the nuclear pollution is 21 people. The possible future consequences of this nuclear accident to a larger number of people are future, theoretical deaths. Much more so than coal-pollution deaths which are already occuring.

So you have your “argument” completely ass-backwards. Not surprising.

1651

Also, it’s interesting that you’ve repeatedly mentioned the number of pets who are suffering due to the evacuation. I wonder how many more pets suffered from the earthquake and tsunami? How many pets were crushed in fallen buildings or were left behind during the tsunami’s approach and were drowned?

Also, all types of disasters affect pets. The nuclear incident in Japan is not unusual in this regard. I remember reading after Hurricane Katrina about all of the pets who were left behind, and weren’t allowed into shelters. This was sad, but it still makes sense that there won’t necessarily be room for lots of pets in crowded shelters.

There are hundreds of thousands of people left homeless due to the earthquake and tsunami. Where is your outrage about their pets? Why do you only care about the pets in the nuclear evacuation zone?

1652

Hey, familiar with the NEI? You should be, it’s the most prolific propaganda arm of the nuclear industry.

Here is a link to where they have a ppt showing the comparison of life expectancy and electrification.

Coal = electricity, electricity = longer, happier life.

It’s simple enough to see without burning coal to produce electricity civilization would be screwed.

You can’t pretend the whole world uses nuke for electricity because it doesn’t, not by a long shot. You build more nuke plants, you get more Chernobyls and Fukushimas, not less.

Coal is getting cleaner and safer all the time, and will eventually be phased out along with nuke, land mines, and slavery. We can hope, at least.

If coal emissions shorten people’s average life span by even a year, it’s more than made up for by the extra 40 years people gain from electrification.

1653

Did you bother to watch the CNN piece about the pets abandoned in the evacuation zone? Pets are allowed in shelters, you heartless inhuman monster.

1654

Um, is it really necessary even in the Pit to call someone a heartless, inhuman monster because of a comment on pets in shelters that one calls into question? We all get it that everyone in this thread really disagrees and believes that trolls, retards, fucking retards and liars are posting on the subject.

1655

I’m tired of **Xtisme **reminding me of such things as “earthquakes and tsunamis kill people, don’t you care??” and now he’s got **Waenara **doing it.

1656

Responding to an idiot sort of confuses things. I’ve heard it’s not a wise move. People may not be able to tell the difference.

1657

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110414-273574.html

Workers are deliberately under reporting their radiation levels. Four reactors are fucked up.

1658

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20110414-273574.html

1659

I just heard a story on TV about BP. They spent 20 million dollars on energy efficiency at all their offices. They replaced lights, insulated ,installed efficient windows etc. They BP auditors said they saved 650 million dollars over the last 2 decades. It seems to work quite well.

1660

Wow, gonzo, what a compelling argument!

You’ve sure convinced me and all the other people in this thread who have been arguing that energy efficiency and responsible energy use is a waste of time.

Wait, no-one has actually been making that argument. I swear that, between you and FXM, this thread looks more like a Dadaist artwork than a rational discussion.