Let's nuke climate change!

@metal-brain said
I don't want estimates.

Tough! There are ONLY estimates of number of deaths (including from last year) from nuclear and fossil fuels, moron. No exact figures. Stop grizzling and get over it.

You know fully well you did not answer my question.

I answered your question with an estimate because it can only be answered with an estimate as opposed to an exact figure. There are no exact figures for the exact number of deaths from nuclear and fossil fuels, only estimates, and you know it.
So, since you deny this fact, according to YOU, what ARE the EXACT number of deaths last year from nuclear and fossil fuels and what is the source of your information? How were those EXACT figures, not estimates, obtained?

@metal-brain said
Estimates are easily manipulated

So now you imply all those estimates from many independent reputable sources from all over the world that, even allowing the wildest allowed error of estimations (such as for even allowing for, say, a massive 70% error for each estimate), clearly and consistently all show death rates from by fossil fuel usage vastly exceed that from nuclear by orders of magnitude have been "manipulated" in order to, do what? -cover up nuclear causing more deaths than fossil fuels? Totally preposterous. You must be getting desperate. There is no such world wide conspiracy and, if there were, it would have been blown apart long ago because there would have to be too many people involved in it with very wide and confliction interests.
If those figures have been "manipulated" to show a falsehood, show us the ACTUAL figures i.e. the figures before being so "manipulated" ...

@humy said
Tough! There are ONLY estimates of number of deaths (including from last year) from nuclear and fossil fuels, moron. No exact figures. Stop grizzling and get over it.

You know fully well you did not answer my question.

I answered your question with an estimate because it can only be answered with an estimate as opposed to an exact figure. There are no exact fig ...[text shortened]... s and what is the source of your information? How were those EXACT figures, not estimates, obtained?

Are you saying there are not confirmed deaths from Fukushima last year? Maybe you should find out how many obvious deaths were caused by the Fukushima meltdown. We already know people sacrificed their lives to contain that meltdown and clean up the fuel rods years ago. That is one example of a non estimate.
Some cancer cases are clear as well. Thyroid for example. You don't have clear examples like that with fossil fuel extraction. That is why you digressed into estimates, to obfuscate.

You can pout all you want. You are being a fool.

@metal-brain said
Are you saying there are not confirmed deaths from Fukushima last year?

No.
I clearly said nothing even vaguely like that and now you are obviously just trying to change the subject.
Would you say the estimates I showed from multiple reputable sources, that showed death rates from fossil fuel use is much more than from nuclear, are wrong?
If no, you make no point.
If yes, what is your source of information that those estimates I showed are wrong despite coming from multiple reputable sources?

@humy said
No.
I clearly said nothing even vaguely like that and now you are obviously just trying to change the subject.
Would you say the estimates I showed from multiple reputable sources, that showed death rates from fossil fuel use is much more than from nuclear, are wrong?
If no, you make no point.
If yes, what is your source of information that those estimates I showed are wrong despite coming from multiple reputable sources?

Then you failed to answer my question. That makes you a liar.

Nuclear has killed more people in the last year than all fossil fuels combined. Making crap up using BS estimates is just a guess designed to mislead. I can go back hundreds of years and use coal mining accidents before strip mining and safety regulations were common to mislead people as well. Any jerk can do that. Now everyone here knows you are that kind of jerk.

Once again, how many people died from nuclear last year? Not any other year, only last year.

Number of deaths doesn't really matter though. If it did automobiles would be illegal to drive. Nobody really cares about death tolls unless they can be prevented. Unpreventable deaths are accepted throughout society world wide. Human life is the cheapest thing in the world.

@metal-brain said
Nuclear has killed more people in the last year than all fossil fuels combined.

Rubbish.
What is your (claimed) source of this information? -I have repeatedly given mine.
Air pollution alone from burning fossil fuels obviously kills THOUSANDS of people each year and that alone is far more than deaths from nuclear radiation.
I have answered your question and you still refuse to answer mine.

Number of deaths doesn't really matter

I completely disagree.

@humy said
Rubbish.
What is your (claimed) source of this information? -I have repeatedly given mine.
Air pollution alone from burning fossil fuels obviously kills THOUSANDS of people each year and that alone is far more than deaths from nuclear.
I have answered your question and you still refuse to answer mine.

Name 3 people who have died from air pollution in 2018.

@metal-brain said
Name 3 people who have died from air pollution in 2018.

Why? Relevance? Trying to change the subject? Or are you implying nobody did die last year from air pollution because I didn't know them personally thus cannot name them?
-if so, then using that same moronic 'logic' of yours, nobody died last year from nuclear because you cannot name 3 of them.
-if not, what's your point?

@humy said
Why? Relevance? Trying to change the subject? Or are you implying nobody did die last year from air pollution because I didn't know them personally thus cannot name them?
-if so, then using that same moronic 'logic' of yours, nobody died last year from nuclear because you cannot name 3 of them.
-if not, what's your point?

Fine, then let's include "nuclear-related" deaths since you think that is fine. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

https://www.naturalnews.com/049277_Fukushima_disaster_radiation_deaths_thyroid_cancer.html

https://news.sky.com/story/fukushima-deaths-now-higher-than-in-tsunami-10416612

@metal-brain said
Fine, then let's include "nuclear-related" deaths since you think that is fine. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

https://www.naturalnews.com/049277_Fukushima_disaster_radiation_deaths_thyroid_cancer.html

https://news.sky.com/story/fukushima-deaths-now-higher-than-in-tsunami-10416612

Neither of these articles source their data. Both are 4 years old. Where's the update on this provocative "More fatalities are on the horizon?" question by David Gutierrez?

(Mr. Gutierrez, by the way, is famous for writing click bait stories like "Has your DNA been altered by GMOs?". He does this so people who already believe that GMOs must be bad because scientists are evil can link it to their spacebooks and share it and like, even though anyone who reads the article would find out the answer is definitively "NO". Why do you read that stuff?)

From what I can gather (it's hard to tell when authors don't use citations), it seems like the source is the Radiation and Public Health Project. According to the Wiki page, it is ....

a widely critiqued paper published by members of the controversial Radiation and Public Health Project which attempts to ascribe the natural annual cycle of rising and falling adult and infant mortality rates in the United States to Fukushima fallout, suggesting about 14,000 have died.... concluded that "innumerable factors other than radiation" were likely responsible for the major part of the variation in US mortality around the time of the nuclear disaster.[77]

By any objective measure, the Fukushima disaster was a local one. There is no evidence that ocean or air radiation release caused any health problems outside of Japan. I saw one quote on the matter, regarding the detection of Fukushima radiation in Canada that

the levels detected in the sample were so low that even if someone were to swim for six hours a day, every day of the year in water containing twice as much cesium, the radiation received would still be 1,000 times less than what they would receive from a single dental X-ray.

Sound dangerous to you? How can you believe in this fear-mongering garbage?

@wildgrass said
Neither of these articles source their data. Both are 4 years old. Where's the update on this provocative "More fatalities are on the horizon?" question by David Gutierrez?

(Mr. Gutierrez, by the way, is famous for writing click bait stories like "Has your DNA been altered by GMOs?". He does this so people who already believe that GMOs must be bad because scientists are ...[text shortened]... e dental X-ray.[/quote]
Sound dangerous to you? How can you believe in this fear-mongering garbage?

You are clearly trying to digress into nonsense you probably got from some fringe website of questionable content.
Would you eat fish caught in the sea of Japan? All that radioactive water is going to be released into the ocean according to Deepthought. It has not happened yet as far as I know, but are you going to debate Deepthought about it?

After that radioactive release Deepthought thinks is best, would you eat fish caught in the sea of Japan? Do you think Japanese fishermen have a right to be outraged their product will become shunned and demand will plummet? How will they survive when their fish is nearly worthless?

Are you confident enough to tell Japanese fishermen that they are worried over nothing?

@metal-brain said
You are clearly trying to digress into nonsense you probably got from some fringe website of questionable content.
Would you eat fish caught in the sea of Japan? All that radioactive water is going to be released into the ocean according to Deepthought. It has not happened yet as far as I know, but are you going to debate Deepthought about it?

After that radioactive ...[text shortened]... orthless?

Are you confident enough to tell Japanese fishermen that they are worried over nothing?

Yes.

No.

Yes. (although demand is plummeting because of fear-mongering, as far as I know).

Yes. (again, they are worried about demand, not about health risks).

What do you mean "trying to digress"? You keep saying the threat of Fukushima radiation on human health goes beyond Japan, but there's zero evidence that is the case.

@wildgrass said
Yes.

No.

Yes. (although demand is plummeting because of fear-mongering, as far as I know).

Yes. (again, they are worried about demand, not about health risks).

What do you mean "trying to digress"? You keep saying the threat of Fukushima radiation on human health goes beyond Japan, but there's zero evidence that is the case.

I never said the threat of Fukushima radiation on human health goes beyond Japan. False quote.

Not all the radioactive water has been released in the ocean yet. Would you eat fish caught near Fukushima after that happens?

@metal-brain said
I never said the threat of Fukushima radiation on human health goes beyond Japan. False quote.

Not all the radioactive water has been released in the ocean yet. Would you eat fish caught near Fukushima after that happens?

Maybe. I think a reasonable proposal for releasing the contaminated water slowly would not impact aquatic life at all. They do it at oil and gas drilling sites all over the world every single day. Would you eat a fish that was caught near a natural gas extraction site? Chances are (if you eat fish) you already have.

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-material-oil-and-gas-drilling

@wildgrass said
Maybe. I think a reasonable proposal for releasing the contaminated water slowly would not impact aquatic life at all. They do it at oil and gas drilling sites all over the world every single day. Would you eat a fish that was caught near a natural gas extraction site? Chances are (if you eat fish) you already have.

https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-material-oil-and-gas-drilling

I eat very little fish just because mercury is a concern. I would never eat fish from the coast of Japan.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/helen-caldicott-the-fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-continues-unabated/5574756