[13years]

Most other accidents have casualties which are easily traceable. Comparing deaths to those that fall from wind turbines is not a fair comparison.

Nuclear accidents happen in slow motion and the effects are not as easily traceable. It will be decades before we know the impact and it will only be due to statistics. Just because you don't die today, doesn't mean you will not die earlier than you normally would have.

Also, to say they are infrequent is not necessarily clear description considering the Fukishima accident is still not over by any means. It is an accident that continues everyday. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/29/is-fukushima-getting-... and http://enenews.com/officials-trillions-becquerels-radioactiv...

[saulrh]

OK, then, let's go tease out every iota of causality we possibly can from the statistics for various energy technologies. Let's start at the top. Hmm. "Global climate change resulting primarily from fossil fuel use has already caused tens of millions of deaths via famine, flooding, and extreme weather and stands a reasonable chance of killing every single human on earth over the course of the next hundred years". Well, that's not going to work.

[Synaesthesia]

Burning Coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere than all human nuclear activity. The particulates are the major killer though. I believe like 100 000 people die from the effects every year. And that's discounting the atrocious toll on the environment.

[13years]

This is true compared to normal nuclear facilities operating normally. However, it is not a comparison to nuclear activity as due to nuclear accidents. http://www.cejournal.net/?p=410

[saulrh]

And what he said above is also true of fossil fuel industry facilities operating normally. He doesn't consider pollution due to spills, oil well fires, or refinery explosions. If wells or refineries failed at the rate you're implying nuclear plants do, our entire planet would be an inch deep in crude. And, yes, I understand that there physically isn't enough oil on earth to do that. That's part of my point. The alternatives to nuclear are strictly worse. There are no tradeoffs. They are just worse in every way, whether they're operating as designed or not.

[13years]

My point is about the disregard of the significance of the Fukishima accident. You must include that in the analysis.

This was written in 2011, and Fukishima has been continuously releasing radiation ever since.

"...every 600 years worldwide coal combustion releases as much radiation as was released from the nuclear accident at Fukushima..." http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.com/2011/12/coal-1-fukushim...

I'm not arguing in favor of any energy source that damages the environment; nonetheless, I would prefer we acknowledge risks where they exist. To not do so, would be to send us down the path of possibly less safe nuclear facilities.

[tptacek]

I feel like you're not getting his point. The coal industry in its steady state reliably kills more people every year than every nuclear accident put together, even when you include imputed civilian cancer fatalities from Chernobyl.

I think you are going to have a difficult time coming up with an evidence-based argument that (a) supplies electricity to everyone in the world currently depending on it, (b) doesn't use nuclear, and (c) kills fewer people as a result of (b). I am ready to be surprised, though.

[pdonis]

> it is not a comparison to nuclear activity as due to nuclear accidents.

But nuclear accidents are rare, and are not a necessary consequence of nuclear power. Coal ash is not rare, and it is a necessary consequence of burning coal.

[pdonis]

> "Global climate change resulting primarily from fossil fuel use has already caused tens of millions of deaths via famine, flooding, and extreme weather and stands a reasonable chance of killing every single human on earth over the course of the next hundred years"

You said statistics, not unproven speculation. (Which is not to say that there aren't statistics showing harms from fossil fuel use. Just that you should focus on actual data.)

[saulrh]

I agree. I'm just pointing out that, since we're talking about unproven speculation, any statement that fits "Chernobyl killed >3e4 people" is also not statistics.

[13years]

Global climate change doesn't have a definable and agreeable source and/or event that can be confined to definite set of parameters. The cause and effect chain is nebulous in comparison.

But damage caused by radiation is well known, definable criteria which is well studied as part of health studies. What would be more comparable would be studies of heart disease for example based on consumption of certain foods. We readily accept such studies as advice on what is health, what is not, and also what drugs work and which do not. The principle is the same.

[mikeash]

Even if you ignore climate change (which is, frankly, irresponsible at this point), coal pollution alone kills something like a million people per year worldwide.