Let's nuke climate change!

@humy said
yet another straw man from you. ALL types of power stations and/or sources of power sometimes have "problems", including nuclear. I take that into account when making safety comparisons. Where did I imply I didn't? -answer; I didn't. Straw man.

By denying the safety issue

yet another straw man from you; I don't deny any safety issue. There are health and saf ...[text shortened]... by it. I have shown you the links that show that; do you want me to show you those links yet again?

The radioactive water at Fukushima is more radioactive than any fossil fuel waste. That is a fact.
People died from radiation poisoning at Fukushima. Thousands if not millions more will likely die from cancer some time in the future from radiation exposure.

Explain to me how these facts are a Straw man argument? Explain it in detail. I dare you to attempt to make sense of your obvious bull crap.

The radioactive water at Fukushima is more radioactive than any fossil fuel waste. That is a fact.

If that's a fact then it still would be irrelevant to my claims. Show us which of my claims would be contradicted by it...

Thousands if not millions more will likely die from cancer some time in the future from radiation exposure.

It won't be "millions" and the death rate is totally dwarfed from that of fossil fuel power (from accidents and pollution in general, not just radiation exposure in particular).

Explain to me how these facts are a Straw man argument?

PRIOR to this post (but not in this post), I never said/implied anything about the level of radioactivity from Fukushima accident nor anything about cancer deaths some time in the future from that radiation exposure. You clearly imply I did (yet another straw man). I was not even aware of the facts about that accident prior to your post. I got curious so I just looked them up and, among other things, now found this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties
"...
It was the largest nuclear disaster since the Chernobyl disaster of 1986,[10] and the radiation released exceeded official safety guidelines. Despite this, there were no deaths caused by acute radiation syndrome. Given the uncertain health effects of low-dose radiation, cancer deaths cannot be ruled out.[11] However, studies by the World Health Organisation and Tokyo University have shown that no discernible increase in the rate of cancer deaths is expected.[12] Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged[13] in the academic literature from none[14] to hundreds.[11]..."

Thus your assertion that "Thousands if not millions more will likely die from cancer some time in the future from radiation exposure. " is likely false and baseless anyway; judging by the qualified opinion of people who know much more about it than me or you, that number of deaths will likely at most be measured in hundreds, not thousands, of deaths (specifically from direct exposure to radioactivity), and might even be nearly if not actually zero deaths!
Where did you get the figure of "Thousands if not millions" FROM? The horoscope?

@humy said

The radioactive water at Fukushima is more radioactive than any fossil fuel waste. That is a fact.

If that's a fact then it still would be irrelevant to my claims. Show us which of my claims would be contradicted by it...

Thousands if not millions more will likely die from cancer some time in the future from radiation exposure.

It won't be " ...[text shortened]... ually zero deaths!
Where did you get the figure of "Thousands if not millions" FROM? The horoscope?

"PRIOR to this post (but not in this post), I never said/implied anything about the level of radioactivity from Fukushima accident nor anything about cancer deaths some time in the future from that radiation exposure."

That is a lie. Safety based on radiation exposure has been my main position in this thread. Cost was another wildgrass brought up. Any moron can see that.

You are the one bringing up straw man arguments. The deaths from Fukushima and even Chernobyl have yet to be realized. There will be many cancer deaths to come and you pretend to have an accurate death count. You don't.

Your whole argument was based on a link with an article that ignores Fukushima and Chernobyl and bases their findings on the nuclear power plants that run well and have no problems. It was a pathetic article designed to mislead and you were foolish for posting such an obviously biased propaganda piece.

Go ahead and post excerpts from that article to try and prove your point. That way we can all see what a joke it is. I dare you.

@metal-brain said
"PRIOR to this post (but not in this post), I never said/implied anything about the level of radioactivity from Fukushima accident nor anything about cancer deaths some time in the future from that radiation exposure."

That is a lie.

So why do you refuse to prove it is a lie just by quoting what I said to say/imply the contrary? ( Answer; you can't. )

Your whole argument was based on a link with an article that ignores Fukushima and Chernobyl and bases their findings on the nuclear power plants that run well and have no problems.

Nope. The article doesn't 'ignore' Fukushima and Chernobyl because obviously those statistics would take into account all accidents and radiation releases from all nuclear power stations. Do you want me to show you it yet again to remind you what it ACTUALLY says?
And my "whole argument" isn't based on that link in particular or any other one link but rather is based on what the science says.

@humy said
So why do you refuse to prove it is a lie just by quoting what I said to say/imply the contrary? ( Answer; you can't. )

Your whole argument was based on a link with an article that ignores Fukushima and Chernobyl and bases their findings on the nuclear power plants that run well and have no problems.

Nope. The article doesn't 'ignore' Fukushima and Chernobyl ...[text shortened]... based on that link in particular or any other one link but rather is based on what the science says.

That does NOT take into account future cancer deaths. How convenient for your statistical analysis.

@metal-brain said
That does NOT take into account future cancer deaths.

Including those from fossil fuel use?

@humy said
Including those from fossil fuel use?

How many deaths resulted from fossil fuel use last year?

@metal-brain said
How many deaths resulted from fossil fuel use last year?

Vastly more than from nuclear;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents
"urban outdoor air pollution, from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass is estimated to cause 3 million deaths worldwide per year"

https://www.quora.com/On-average-how-many-people-do-nuclear-power-plants-kill-a-year
"...
According to all the reliable sources, on average, about 0.35 deaths per year for a 1000 MW nuclear plant. So that would work out to about a death every 3 years. This includes the mining and transportation of the uranium, the future storage of the waste, Chernobyl, Fukushima, etc.

For comparison, a similar coal plant kills that many people every 18 hours. An oil plant is about half of that.

That’s per plant. When you add up all the power plants, like the question asks, it comes up to 60 for all the nuclear plants, 390,000 for the coal plants, and 324,000 for all the oil plants per year.
..."
-and the above doesn't takes into account all deaths from air polution from fossil fuels (especially from cars, buses etc) and it STILL gives a wildly higher death rate than from nuclear!

@humy said
Vastly more than from nuclear.

What is your source of information?

@metal-brain said
What is your source of information?

I have just given it to you yet again.
Why do you keep asking that same question over and over again to all of us after we keep showing our sources over and over again?
The first link I showed you there I had repeatedly shown you before in this thread. How many more times must I show you it before you notice it? Do you even bother to read it?

@humy said
I have just given it to you yet again.
Why do you keep asking that same question over and over again to all of us after we keep showing our sources over and over again?
The first link I showed you there I had repeatedly shown you before in this thread. How many more times must I show you it before you notice it? Do you even bother to read it?

I asked you how many last year. You never answered that question. Stop lying.

@metal-brain said
I asked you how many last year.

and I answered by giving the weblinks showing the estimated annual death rate (from fossil fuels and nuclear) with the very reasonable assumption that that gives our current best rational estimate of the death rate last year, which is the best estimate I can assume and/or give given there are no weblinks I am aware of specifically for last year's death rates in particular.
So my source of information for my best educated and rational estimate for death rates last year have to be based on the estimated annual death rate from many years, as that's my only source of info I currently have available for such an estimate.
Since it isn't specifically and only last years death rates that count but the average yearly death rates that count, even if I gave you the exact figure, whatever it is, what would be your point? -answer, none. Why would LAST years death rate only be relevant and not, say, the year before?
So, you have no valid complaint and make no point.

@humy said
and I answered by giving the weblinks showing the estimated annual death rate (from fossil fuels and nuclear) with the very reasonable assumption that that gives our current best rational estimate of the death rate last year, which is the best estimate I can assume and/or give given there are no weblinks I am aware of specifically for only last year's death rates in particular. ...[text shortened]... it is, what would be your point? -answer, none.
So, you have no valid complaint and make no point.

I didn't ask what the estimated annual death rate was. Can't you bloody read?

How many last year?

@metal-brain said
I didn't ask what the estimated annual death rate was.

Correct. And I answered your question to the full by giving you the estimated annual death rate.
You asked me what my source of information of the death rate last year (specifically from fossil fuels and nuclear) and I answered it by giving the estimated annual death rate because that is my source of information of the death rate last year because it is my only source of information I have of that.

I just explained that to you with;
"and I answered by giving the weblinks showing the estimated annual death rate (from fossil fuels and nuclear) with the very reasonable assumption that that gives our current best rational estimate of the death rate last year, which is the best estimate I can assume and/or give given there are no weblinks I am aware of specifically for last year's death rates in particular.
So my source of information for my best educated and rational estimate for death rates last year have to be based on the estimated annual death rate from many years, as that's my only source of info I currently have available for such an estimate. ..."

Can't you read?
So the only way we (me and you) currently CAN estimated the death rate LAST year IS by the annual death rate.
Therefore I answered your question by giving the estimated annual death rate because that clearly implies the estimated death rate of last year as last years death rate would be unlikely to mysteriously WILDLY differ from the estimated annual death rate.
Exactly which part of that do you not comprehend?

So what is your point? Answer; none.

@humy said
Correct. And I answered your question to the full by giving you the estimated annual death rate.
You asked me what my source of information of the death rate last year (specifically from fossil fuels and nuclear) and I answered it by giving the estimated annual death rate because that is my source of information of the death rate last year because it is my only source of inform ...[text shortened]... th rate.
Exactly which part of that do you not comprehend?

So what is your point? Answer; none.

I don't want estimates. I want actual proven deaths.

You know fully well you did not answer my question. Last year. Not any other year.

Estimates are easily manipulated and you know it. We could be here for years debating the validity of estimates. You are resorting to straw man arguments again. Get a hobby if that is all you are going to do.

I will not waste any more of my time with your trolling. Everybody knows you are ridiculous.