@metal-brain saidNo, probably means probably; and I was clearly speaking of a hypothetical isolated case.
In other words, you do not know.
And I do know for sure that, contrary to your absurd claim, air pollution causes many deaths.
@deepthought saidIndeed, that is a problem. A few decades a go I started hearing about small nuclear reactors (SMRs), which were transportable, zero emissions, truck-size power generators capable of stand-alone function or could be hooked into an existing grid on demand (for example, seasonally). Capacity for one would power ~50,000 homes (again, completely emissions-free. Think about the carbon emissions reductions if you park even one of these in the 3rd world). It's also cheaper than solar, I think.
Seems reasonable. The two interesting points, for me, are that contrary to what I've been told by some anti-nuclear advocates the carbon emissions in uranium production and recycling are significantly less than the carbon emissions from generating the energy from fossil fuels. Secondly that fly-ash from coal is a radioactive contaminant.
A point of criticism is that he does not address the proliferation of weapons concerns with nuclear power.
The problem became the security of the fuel. It's still a concern, but I think it can be overcome with smart design and international oversight. The plant and the waste could also be guarded. There are 10's of thousands of nuclear weapons on the planet and they are currently secure, as far as I know.
@metal-brain saidIt is a fact that coal energy produces more radioactive waste than nuclear energy.
No. I am also against fracking.
Just because I don't think fossil fuel burning is a problem doesn't mean I support all extraction methods.
You arguing that nuclear is safe based on manipulated numbers is silly. Humy was even trying to claim fossil fuel pollution is killing people. He couldn't name any people and he doesn't have the excuse that the names were not rel ...[text shortened]... t it is too much risk. It isn't really cost effective, it is unsafe and a threat to the environment.
@wildgrass saidI don't believe that at all. What is your source of information?
It is a fact that coal energy produces more radioactive waste than nuclear energy.
@metal-brain saidI have no interest in discussing your beliefs. Take it to Spirituality.
I don't believe that at all. What is your source of information?
Elsewhere, you have every right to cover your ears and stay willfully ignorant.
@wildgrass saidThat is just an ad hominem attack. Your source of information is incorrect and you know it.
I have no interest in discussing your beliefs. Take it to Spirituality.
Elsewhere, you have every right to cover your ears and stay willfully ignorant.
https://www.southernenvironment.org/uploads/words_docs/Coal_Ash_Recycling_Feasiblity_Assessment.pdf
@metal-brain saidcorrect.
If you knew for sure you would not say "probably".
Which is why I didn't say "probably" air pollution causes many deaths.
Are you now pretending I did?
@humy saidYou said this:
correct.
Which is why I didn't say "probably" air pollution causes many deaths.
Are you now pretending I did?
Also, "death probably by air pollution" isn't normally put on any official death certificate of an individual for obvious reasons
The obvious reason is there is no proof of death from air pollution. It is just a guess. That is what estimates are.
@metal-brain saidSo you ARE pretending I said "probably" air pollution causes many deaths; Got you.
You said this:
Also, "death probably by air pollution" isn't normally put on any official death certificate of an individual for obvious reasons
The obvious reason is there is no proof of death from air pollution. It is just a guess. That is what estimates are.
No surprises that you show your usual dishonesty.
As clearly indicated by my use of the word "individual" there, I was obviously speaking there of an individual case, NOT the population as a whole. If there is a randomly selected population of, say, 10 million individual deaths out of all individual cases were there is, say, a 60% probability of the individual having died from air pollution, then, without allowing ourselves to be completely moronically pedantic, we are rationally certain that at least, say, 4 million of those deaths were caused by air pollution.
OBVIOUSLY I was and am saying I am absolutely CERTAIN air pollution causes many deaths, no 'probable' about it, and you fool nobody here with your dishonest pretence to the contrary.
Your asserting that air pollution does NOT causes many deaths is completely preposterous and not backed up by any evidence. It is a known fact that air pollution causes many deaths. Are you from the flat Earth society?
@humy saidHow can you be certain when you cannot name one person that died from air pollution? If you cannot even get a probably on a death certificate it isn't a death from air pollution. It is a death of unknown cause, yet you are trying to spin it into another lie. Typical of you.
So you ARE pretending I said "probably" air pollution causes many deaths; Got you.
No surprises that you show your usual dishonesty.
As clearly indicated by my use of the word "individual" there, I was obviously speaking there of an individual case, NOT the population as a whole. If there is a, say, 60% probability of each individual having died from air pollution out of a ran ...[text shortened]... nce. It is a known fact that air pollution causes many deaths. Are you from the flat Earth society?
" It is a known fact that air pollution causes many death"
No, it isn't. All you have is an unreliable source of information that you foolishly believed. It isn't my fault you are easily duped.
Now going off-topic; I had previously said;
" If there is a randomly selected population of, say, 10 million individual deaths out of all individual cases were there is, say, a 60% probability of the individual having died from air pollution, then, ....we are rationally certain that at least, say, 4 million of those deaths were caused by air pollution. "
But, changing the subject here and just out of pure maths curiosity, wondered what the maths formula was for that and exactly how improbable it would be equal or less than 4 million deaths.
For this we need to use the CDF of the binomial distribution and let
n = 10,000,000
x = 4,000,000
p = 0.6
and then we have;
CDF(x) = ∑[X=0, x] C(n, X) p^X (1 – p)^(n – X)
= ∑[X=0, 4000000] C(10000000, X) 0.6^X (1 – 0.6)^( 10000000– X)
I tried Wolfram-alphering the above but, not surprisingly, it refused to give me the answer because both the computation time and the factorials are far too large. But at least I did manage to Wolfram-alpher this as a (partial) workaround;
∑[X=0, 4000] C(10000, X) 0.6^X (1 – 0.6)^(10000 – X) ≈ 9.6 ... × 10^-355
which at least (indirectly) tells us that, in layperson terms, the probability of it being less than 4 million deaths (from air pollution in this case) must be MANY times less than one chance out of the number of particles in the whole of the known universe. In other words, without being pedantic, close enough no chance.