Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Nuclear energy kills people

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The cost of wind":

It`s plain stupid to not use windpower and instead create massive amounts of toxic waste which will cost much more to future generations than any other source of energy.

Stop beeing stupid for your childrens sake!

Nuclear energy kills people...thousands of maintanance workers have died since mankind startet to use nuclear energy for civil purpose.

France (and Europe) seems to be a little bit more educated on that issues than Americans who still claim nuclear energy to be anywhere near green.

There are other alternatives...dragonfly windturbines is a start.

TU Delft is working on the laddermill project to use jet streams.

In Italy they are investigating kite karusells

Another alternative...for fuel, diesel and jetfuel is bio-oil.

The breakthrough was 2008 by a German biologist. The technology to breed plancton in open pools is available. phyto plancton is valuable biomass which can be burned or oil (70%!!!) can be extrated and refined to any product that can be made out of oil...cheaper than oil drilling too and contrary to nuclear energy it is safe, clean and co2 neutral.

You can feed it to life is more healthy than sojabeans...more productive for fuel than sugarcane and burns even more emission free.

Aquacultures can be cheap now...infact the biggest prawn producer uses the open pool design from the Germans to feed its fish.

Food will be cheaper and if it is done right the poorest countries in the world would produce this renewable ressource and trade it fair!!

BioGas can produce Energy.

How does it come that all nuclear enervy supporting folks are old men?

Would it be uncool to depend on plancton product.

Dear Anonymous, windmills cost money and generate electricity on a part time basis. I have examined various solutions to the liability of wind, and have noted that the cost of reliable wind generated electricity will be higher than the cost of nuclear power. You have failed to note the depth of my argument, but you have misrepresented my conclusions and having created a strawman, have proceeded to descried it a s stupid.

You allege without evidence the death of thousands of people due to the operation of the nuclear energy industry. This is nothing more than a wild, unproven charge.

You claim that I am being stupid but offer no justification for the insult. You offer bio-oil and bio-gas as solutions, ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly argued that biological sourced fuels violate sound environmental principles. You ignore what I write and then you call me stupid.

Finally you ask. "How does it come that all nuclear enervy supporting folks are old men?"
Perhaps it is because older men do not get carried away by emotional arguments that are not fact based or logical.


Robw said...


Its morons like this that's the biggest obstacle to nuclear revival...not the technology or the production...but I'm sure you already know this.


Soylent said...

Hi anonymous coward. I'm 26 and I support nuclear energy because I studied physics and I have looked at the safety record and cost of nuclear energy and I like what I see.

It would be good if you could be persuaded to put down the kool-aid for long enough to read the UNSCEAR 2000 report on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. You might realize just how deeply you've lied to.

-Markus GĂ„lfalk.

Scott Carleton said...

Long time reader, but not an avid commentator.

Just wanted to say, I'm 23 and my research of nuclear power has led me to believe that it really is the new 'fire' and by far the greatest discovery of the 21st century, if not the millennium.

DV8 2XL said...

It's posters like anonymous that illustrate how deeply us 'old men' have failed the younger generation in the matter of education. While building lives and careers we didn't pay attention to what was being done to the generations behind us, and now we are reaping the grim harvest of that neglect.

I spent years in education politics with my local schoolboard serving in various elected positions and it was disheartening just how little interest parents showed in the real issues that effected their kids schooling. Change the start-stop times by half an hour and you had several hundred people showing up to complain at the next meeting; try and get some interest in an enriched science program, and you were lucky if ten people showed up.

We have raised a generation of ignoramuses, but ignoramuses full of self-confidence, and inculcated with the belief that anything is possible if you want it badly enough. Then we are surprised when they buy uncritically into renewable energy. They know little of physics but much of faith.

Most telling, I have found that by in large those kids that gave up after high school and went out to work have, after a few years, a more measured attitude about nuclear energy than their peers that went on to higher education.

Sovietologist said...

"How does it come that all nuclear enervy supporting folks are old men?"

I'm 25. Unless 'Logan's Run" became reality while I was asleep, I've got awhile to wait before I'm an "old man."

TMSG said...

Oh, I'm fairly sure thousands of nuclear industry workers have died since the atomic power industry started: car accidents, heart attacks, old age... On the other hand, more would have died if they'd worked with coal based energy production, or the chemical industry, etc. But that doesn't really register with true believers, now does it.

Keith said...

To "anonymous"
I have worked in Nuclear Power as an operator SSBN, then Nuclear Engineer BSNE Wisc. and PE since 1969.
I've also (in my life , not now) had a few beers. Obviously you have too.
So the next time you write try to be sober. I forgive you for you don't have a clue......

The North Coast said...

I've been a supporter of nuclear power development since I was a young woman, when I was anti-nuke for perhaps 15 minutes after 3 Mile Island.

I got a grip quickly.

Those who speak of the relative handful of deaths among workers in the nuclear power industry should compare those stats to deaths among firefighters, loggers, police officers, transit workers (we have several transit worker deaths a year on the rails at CTA), oil refineries, and multitudes of other hazardous occupations.

They should then consider the 50,000-plus people killed in auto accidents in the U.S., and the 11,000- plus who die from gunshot wounds.

Most of all, they should consider the MILLIONS who will suffer and die for the lack of electricity should we fail to deliver it in the quantities needed. Try living without electricity for a month, and tell me how life-enhancing is pre-technological life. The losses from lack of basic sanitation and hygiene, as well as running, potable water, heat, advanced medical technology, rapid emergency response, and all the other things that would be impossible were it not for the vast quantities of electric power that can be had only from fossil fuels or fissionables, is impossible to calculate, and would be random, and on a mass scale.

I would really have thought that the biofuel scam would have altogether lost currency by now, but I guess some folks simply can't be bothered to question the hype surrounding it. The fact is that, in order to keep even a fraction of our systems running, we would have to take every acre of farmland out of food production and dedicate it to fuel production.

And then we would rediscover one of the planet's biggest killers of humans, which is FAMINE.

Finrod said...

Charles, where is the post you are referring to? Is it on DK?

Charles Barton said...

Finrod, see posts like my "crime against Humanity" post.

Yogi said...

The really sad thing about the sort of misinformation being spread by the anti-nuclear movement is that by blocking nuclear, and offering only impractical alternatives, they are effectively encouraging the continued use of coal. This is causing at least 10,000 deaths a year I the U.S. alone from air pollution, and poses a far greater public health threat than nuclear energy.

Jason Ribeiro said...

It seems there is quite a range of ages for pro-nuclear advocate bloggers. Some are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, so there is no group of "old" men that dominate the scene. There ought to be some more women involved though.

Finrod said...

But where is the post which 'anonymous left his comment on?

Charles Barton said...

Finrod asked, "But where is the post which 'anonymous left his comment on?"


Blog Archive

Some neat videos

Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
Dr. Joe Bonometti speaking on thorium/LFTR technology at Georgia Tech David LeBlanc on LFTR/MSR technology Robert Hargraves on AIM High