False hope of renewables...settled science

[westwall]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

More people have died skate boarding. In a year.

You are a fucking liar. And know full well the extent of the lie you have told.

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Minimum death toll of 4000, max of nearly a million. You are a liar totally without any kind of ethics.

Talk about a biased source! Here's what the UN has to say about it....


"In 2005, the UN Nuclear Watchdog indicated that the final direct death toll from Chernobyl could be as low as 56 and it dismissed reports that the toll ran into hundreds of thousands. It did however acknowledge that the figure related to those deaths that were 100% attributable to the accident and it estimated that the final figure including those that had contracted cancer following the explosion to be around 4,000."
How many people died at Chernobyl 8211 History of Russia
So, that's the range that is accepted by REPUTABLE PEOPLE. Notice the emphasis on REPUTABLE? Not your tinfoil hat wearing loonies.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scalesolar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

That was right there in the post. Wind at an unsubsidized price of 3.7 cents a kilowatt, solar at 7.2 cents a kilowatt, and prices still dropping for both. In the meantime, lowest for dirty coal is 6.6 cents a kilowatt, and 6.1 cents a kilowatt for gas.

The market is deciding the future right now, and luddites like Walleyes cannot do a thing about it.

You idiot! It's only because of this fact...Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies" that you keep leaving out of the post, you dishonest twerp, reveal ALL of the facts why don't you? Oh yeah, because the facts.....expose you for the lying POS that you are!
E

Oh my, Walleyes has his tit in a wringer. Yes, the prices that were made possible by the subsidies, at present, were 1.4 cents a kilowatt for wind. 5.1 cents a kilowatt for solar. However, that one Texas utility signed a contract for 20 years to deliver electricity for less than 5 cents a kilowatt. Knowing full well the subsidies may be dropped. They are betting on the economies of scale making the solar much less than a nickel a watt in the near future. Unsubsidized wind can be had today for 3.7 cents a watt.

Poor ol' Walleyes is just squealing like a stuck pig for the lack of oppertunity to expose the children of this nation to mercury, arsenic, lead, and uranium. All products out of the smokestacks of coal fired plants. Less of each for plants built since 1975, but they produce electricity that costs more than 6.6 cents a watt. That figure is for the dirty coal plants.

The only person who is squealing is you dickhead. You're lying through your teeth trying to say that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie. And you know it.

LOL. I did not say that. The utilities in Texas and Oklahoma stated that. You know, those ultra-liberals in Texas and Oklahoma. Old man, you have been rendered completely irrelevant to anything at all today by your continual lies. And you have totally lost the respect of any but other liars here.

 

[westwall]

Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times

Fukushima’s appalling death toll

ARTICLE HISTORY

• PRINT

• SHARE

As the third anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake approaches, new studies of the ongoing effects of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown show that the disaster is far from over.

The latest report from Fukushima revealed that more people have died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies after the disaster than from injuries directly linked to the disaster. The report compiled by prefectural authorities and local police found that the deaths of 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture fall into the former category. That figure surpasses the 1,607 people who died from disaster-related injuries. Another 434 people have died since 3/11 in Iwate Prefecture and 879 in Miyagi Prefecture. These indirect causes are just as deadly as the direct causes, and are likely to last much longer unless the central government takes action.

In another report, the first of its kind since the disaster, the lifetime risk of cancer for young children was found to have increased because of exposure to radiation. While the increase was relatively small — a mere 1.06 percent in areas close to the crippled nuclear plant — the results, which were published in the U.S. science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were the first projections of the harmful effects from exposure to radiation released by the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

From Japan.

Oh, so they died of stress and not radioactivity did they. What a 'tard. When it comes to lying, you've got that corner covered.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Walleyes, you lying dog, what you are claiming is that the people that died from the after affects of Hiroshima should not be counted as victims of the bomb.

 

[Old Rocks]

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

Real scientists doing real science.

 

[Pop23]

I'd pump a few hundred billion into fusion. We could end up with a real replacement.

Modern nuclear technology is a renewable source of nearly unlimited power and it's safe as well

Pity we can't get past the Jane Fonda hype and do something real.

Pity that nuclear power did not deliver on the promises they made in the '50's. Absolutely fail safe, and power so cheap we would not have to meter it. Instead, we have seen two serious disasters, and one near disaster, and nuclear is very high priced electricity.

For someone who tries to speak of how technology can improve life, you are still living in the 50's when it comes to nuclear power. The new tech is safe.

Tell me rocks, how many Americans have died from nuclear power production. You realize the total number is zero, right. And those reactors are very old technology.

You also realize that the new technology actually recycles the fuel. Absolutely renewable and nearly limitless.

And you want to play with wind turbines and mirrors?

If you were truly interested in limiting carbon, you would open your mind.

 

[Pop23]

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

Real scientists doing real science.

Lol, you realize that reactor had zero containment, right? It was built and maintained by possibly the most dis functional government on the planet, right?

Get with current engineering.

You really aren't green at all, are you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure Walleyes, no more deaths from the results of this than from skateboarding. You are truly a total idiot.

 

[Pop23]

Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times

Fukushima’s appalling death toll

ARTICLE HISTORY

• PRINT

• SHARE

As the third anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake approaches, new studies of the ongoing effects of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown show that the disaster is far from over.

The latest report from Fukushima revealed that more people have died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies after the disaster than from injuries directly linked to the disaster. The report compiled by prefectural authorities and local police found that the deaths of 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture fall into the former category. That figure surpasses the 1,607 people who died from disaster-related injuries. Another 434 people have died since 3/11 in Iwate Prefecture and 879 in Miyagi Prefecture. These indirect causes are just as deadly as the direct causes, and are likely to last much longer unless the central government takes action.

In another report, the first of its kind since the disaster, the lifetime risk of cancer for young children was found to have increased because of exposure to radiation. While the increase was relatively small — a mere 1.06 percent in areas close to the crippled nuclear plant — the results, which were published in the U.S. science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were the first projections of the harmful effects from exposure to radiation released by the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

From Japan.

Do you still drive a 1965 impala?

Comparing Fukushima to the new generation reactors implies you do.

Link

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

 

[Old Rocks]

CDC - Uranium Miners 1 - NIOSH Study Summary

Results for White Uranium Miners
The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

Lung cancer
We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in white uranium miners. We expected about 64 deaths, but found 371. This means we found about 6 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.

There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.

Pneumoconiosis
We also found strong evidence for pneumoconiosis, a type of lung disease (other than cancer) which is caused by dust. We expected less than 2 deaths, but found 41. There were about 24 times more of these deaths than expected.

This category includes silicosis, a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.

Tuberculosis
We expected to see about 3 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 13. This is about 4 times more deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.

Emphysema
We expected to see about 22 ½ deaths from emphysema but found 56. This is 2 ½ times more deaths than expected. Some of this result could have been related to cigarette smoking. People who smoke are more likely to get emphysema.

Injuries
We expected to see about 68 deaths from injuries and found 143. This is over 2 times more deaths than expected.

Benign cancers and diseases of the blood
We also saw a greater risk of deaths from the categories "benign and unspecified cancers" and "diseases of the blood". Both of these categories had small numbers of deaths. Therefore, it is possible that the increased risk may not be due to mining.

All deaths
Finally, we saw a greater risk for "all deaths combined". We expected 986 deaths and found 1,595. This is 1 ½ times more deaths than expected.

Pretty bad numbers.

 

[Old Rocks]

CDC - Uranium Miners 1 - NIOSH Study Summary

Results for Non-White Uranium Miners
The study looked at all causes of death. Only the causes of death listed below were significantly above normal. The results for all other causes of death were within the normal range.

Lung cancer
We found strong evidence for an increased risk for lung cancer in non-white uranium miners. We expected about 10 deaths, but found 34. This means we found over 3 times more lung cancer deaths than expected.

There was an exposure-response relationship with exposure to radon daughters in the mines. When radon daughters are breathed in, they decay radioactively in the lung. This can cause lung cancer.

Pneumoconioses and other lung diseases
We also found strong evidence for pneumoconioses and other lung diseases (other than cancer). We expected about 8 deaths, but found 20. This means there were about 2 ½ times more of these deaths than expected.

This category includes many different diseases. They include silicosis. a disease caused by breathing in a particular mining dust, silica. Silicosis causes scarring of the lung and severe breathing problems. The risk of these lung diseases was greater the longer miners had worked in the mine.

Tuberculosis
We expected to see about 4 ½ deaths from the infectious lung disease tuberculosis (TB), but we saw 12. There were about 2½ times more of these deaths than expected. This could have been related to the silicosis. People with silicosis are more likely to get TB.

Same kind of results.

 

[Old Rocks]

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Two very important points here. We have heard the 'cheaper' song and dance many times from the nuclear industry. Has not happened yet. Second, who do you suppose is funding the research on these reactors? You and I, and every other taxpayer, with many more dollars than wind or solar has ever seen.

 

[Pop23]

Solar more deadly than nuclear?

Who knew

Obviously not the greenies

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

 

[Pop23]

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Two very important points here. We have heard the 'cheaper' song and dance many times from the nuclear industry. Has not happened yet. Second, who do you suppose is funding the research on these reactors? You and I, and every other taxpayer, with many more dollars than wind or solar has ever seen.

Red herring. Technology can't become efficient until it's built. Lol

What was the price of a HDTV ten years ago? Today?

You guys crack me up.

Of course you're living in the 50's

 

[Old Rocks]

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Interesting list. Obviously they lowballed the nuclear deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Would like to know to what they attributed the 440 deaths for solar. Falling off of roofs?

The death toll from Chernobyl looks to top 1,000,000 before the total effects are over.
Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

 

[Old Rocks]

A New Molten-Salt Reactor Could Halve the Cost of Nuclear Power MIT Technology Review

High costs, together with concerns about safety and waste disposal, have largely stalled construction of new nuclear plants in the United States and elsewhere (though construction continues in some countries, including China). Japan and Germany even shut down existing plants after the Fukushima accident two years ago (see “Japan’s Economic Troubles Spur a Return to Nuclear” and “Small Nukes Get Boost”). Several companies are trying to address the cost issue by developing small modular reactors that can be built in factories. But these are typically limited to producing 200 megawatts of power, whereas conventional reactors produce more than 1,000 megawatts.

Two very important points here. We have heard the 'cheaper' song and dance many times from the nuclear industry. Has not happened yet. Second, who do you suppose is funding the research on these reactors? You and I, and every other taxpayer, with many more dollars than wind or solar has ever seen.

Red herring. Technology can't become efficient until it's built. Lol

What was the price of a HDTV ten years ago? Today?

You guys crack me up.

Of course you're living in the 50's

Point is, that nuclear is at present real spendy. And I see nothing in the future to change that. Whereas solar and wind are steadily coming down in price. And, with the advent of grid scale batteries, will be 24/7.

 

[Pop23]

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average 170,000 (50% global electricity)

Coal – China 280,000 (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S. 15,000 (44% U.S. electricity)

Oil 36,000 (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas 4,000 (20% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)

Wind 150 (~ 1% global electricity)

Hydro – global average 1,400 (15% global electricity)

Nuclear – global average 90 (17% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Interesting list. Obviously they lowballed the nuclear deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Would like to know to what they attributed the 440 deaths for solar. Falling off of roofs?

The death toll from Chernobyl looks to top 1,000,000 before the total effects are over.
Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

Back to talking 1st generation reactors again???

Does your TV still have a tube?

You do realize that engineers fix problems, Right?

You do realize that the French have reduced their carbon footprint to half of that of their neighbor Germany by building reactors while Germany decommissions theirs in favor of wind/solar, right? Not very green of the Germans.

You also realize that much of the early "no nukes" protest was funded by......

Wait for it


You're good friends known as.......



Big oil!


Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

 

[bripat9643]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

How many people were killed by all three put together?

 

[bripat9643]

Fukushima s appalling death toll The Japan Times

Fukushima’s appalling death toll

ARTICLE HISTORY

• PRINT

• SHARE

As the third anniversary of the Great East Japan Earthquake approaches, new studies of the ongoing effects of the triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown show that the disaster is far from over.

The latest report from Fukushima revealed that more people have died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies after the disaster than from injuries directly linked to the disaster. The report compiled by prefectural authorities and local police found that the deaths of 1,656 people in Fukushima Prefecture fall into the former category. That figure surpasses the 1,607 people who died from disaster-related injuries. Another 434 people have died since 3/11 in Iwate Prefecture and 879 in Miyagi Prefecture. These indirect causes are just as deadly as the direct causes, and are likely to last much longer unless the central government takes action.

In another report, the first of its kind since the disaster, the lifetime risk of cancer for young children was found to have increased because of exposure to radiation. While the increase was relatively small — a mere 1.06 percent in areas close to the crippled nuclear plant — the results, which were published in the U.S. science journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, were the first projections of the harmful effects from exposure to radiation released by the stricken Fukushima nuclear plant.

From Japan.

"died from stress-related illnesses and other maladies"

They didn't die from radiation. That's the bottom line.

 

[bripat9643]

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

More people have died skate boarding. In a year.

You are a fucking liar. And know full well the extent of the lie you have told.

Chernobyl Death Toll 985 000 Mostly from Cancer Global Research

This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.

It is authored by three noted scientists:

Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;

Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and

Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.

The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.

It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.

The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.

Minimum death toll of 4000, max of nearly a million. You are a liar totally without any kind of ethics.

Talk about a biased source! Here's what the UN has to say about it....


"In 2005, the UN Nuclear Watchdog indicated that the final direct death toll from Chernobyl could be as low as 56 and it dismissed reports that the toll ran into hundreds of thousands. It did however acknowledge that the figure related to those deaths that were 100% attributable to the accident and it estimated that the final figure including those that had contracted cancer following the explosion to be around 4,000."
How many people died at Chernobyl 8211 History of Russia
So, that's the range that is accepted by REPUTABLE PEOPLE. Notice the emphasis on REPUTABLE? Not your tinfoil hat wearing loonies.

Almost all of those 4000 deaths could have been prevented simply by having people in the vicinity take Iodine.