-Oh, and I forgot to mention this historical fact;
http://home.bt.com/news/on-this-day/december-5-1952-thousands-suffocate-as-great-smog-descends-on-london-11363948039187
"....
December 5, 1952: Thousands suffocate as Great Smog descends on London
Dense fog and cold weather combined with smoke from coal fires to envelop London in a deadly smog which killed as many as 12,000 people.
...
...
another major smog blighted a large part of the country almost exactly 10 years later, in December 1962. It spread across 22 counties causing 750 deaths.
..."
which also shows just how preposterous the assertion of " There is no evidence many people have died from fossil fuel pollution." is.
@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link I previously posted. It is a quote from Helen Caldicott.
"The Japanese government has told doctors that they are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof, and in fact if the doctors do do that, they might lose their funding from the government. The IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency interesti ...[text shortened]... are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof as Caldicott stated?
Is it not true that The Japanese government has told doctors that they are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof as Caldicott stated?
I don't know. You seem to think so. The only evidence I see of a cover up is anecdotal (i.e. your interview with Caldicott). What does that have to do with relative risk?
When an experienced climber, who spends years practicing, climbs a 3,000 foot cliff without ropes, it looks a lot riskier than it actually is. He's much more likely to injure himself in a car accident on his way home. The same is true for nuclear power. If you compare the risk to other energy sources (i.e. coal/oil/NG) nuclear is less risky even though the fear mongerers want you to believe that nuclear tumor-riddled fish are washing up all over the world.
You still have not addressed the fact that your favorite energy source also emits large quantities of concentrated radiation into local water supplies. Why does that not concern you?
@wildgrass saidMaybe you should find out. If you don't think there is a cover up you owe it to yourself to know for certain. Denial does not eliminate risk.Is it not true that The Japanese government has told doctors that they are not to talk to their patients about radiation and illnesses derived thereof as Caldicott stated?
I don't know. You seem to think so. The only evidence I see of a cover up is anecdotal (i.e. your interview with Caldicott). What does that have to do with relative risk?
When an experi ...[text shortened]... large quantities of concentrated radiation into local water supplies. Why does that not concern you?
@humy saidEarly deaths? I can make the same claim about cancer. Nobody here is convinced your source of information is reliable.
What a completely preposterous assertion!
Sorry! Nobody here is convinced!
It took me just a 2 minute google search to find yet more websites confirming many people have died from fossil fuel pollution:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/25/air-pollution-kills-7m-people-a-year
"...Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year' ..."
https://www.theguardian ...[text shortened]... known big killer!
So, can you show us any websites that explain how all the above is just a myth?
@metal-brain saidDo you support the continuous and copious release of concentrated radioactive materials produced from fossil fuel extraction?
Maybe you should find out. If you don't think there is a cover up you owe it to yourself to know for certain. Denial does not eliminate risk.
Other than Metal Brain, I am wondering what folks think of this Richard Rhodes article from a few months back. I posted it earlier, but I think it does a good job of addressing advantages/disadvantages of nuclear energy. Obviously he is very well-informed, due to his extensive work in this area, but is he wrong? If so, why?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
@wildgrass saidSeems 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.
Other than Metal Brain, I am wondering what folks think of this Richard Rhodes article from a few months back. I posted it earlier, but I think it does a good job of addressing advantages/disadvantages of nuclear energy. Obviously he is very well-informed, due to his extensive work in this area, but is he wrong? If so, why?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
A point of criticism is that he does not address the proliferation of weapons concerns with nuclear power.
@wildgrass saidNo. I am also against fracking.
Do you support the continuous and copious release of concentrated radioactive materials produced from fossil fuel extraction?
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 released to the public.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-20707753
When Japanese doctors are ordered to not talk about radiation effects on health to their patients you know there is a coverup. The cancer count from radiation is being suppressed. Helen Caldicott didn't make it up. You need to accept she is credible.
The cost of the Fukishima disaster makes it clear that it is too much risk. It isn't really cost effective, it is unsafe and a threat to the environment.
4 edits
@metal-brain saidWhat has that got to do with "...Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year' ..." which proves your assertion wrong?
Early deaths? I can make the same claim about cancer.
Trying to distract us with irrelevancies now?
As confirmed by my many weblinks provided, your assertion that there is no evidence that many people have died from fossil fuel pollution is clearly completely preposterous. Are you from the flat Earth society?
@wildgrass saidhttp://coalashfacts.org/
Other than Metal Brain, I am wondering what folks think of this Richard Rhodes article from a few months back. I posted it earlier, but I think it does a good job of addressing advantages/disadvantages of nuclear energy. Obviously he is very well-informed, due to his extensive work in this area, but is he wrong? If so, why?
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate
http://www.coalashfacts.org/documents/CCP%20Fact%20Sheet%202%20-%20Not%20a%20Hazardous%20Waste_FINAL.pdf
@humy said"Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year"
What has that got to do with "...Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year' ..." which proves your assertion wrong?
Trying to distract us with irrelevancies now?
As confirmed by my many weblinks provided, your assertion that there is no evidence that many people have died from fossil fuel pollution is clearly completely preposterous. Are you from the flat Earth society?
Not true. Simply ridiculous. Name 2 people that died in the USA from fossil fuel pollution.
@metal-brain saidWhy? What an incredibly stupid irrelevant question.
Name 2 people that died in the USA from fossil fuel pollution.
I cannot name 2 USA people out of the many people that died from air pollution simply because I don't know them personally, not because they don't exist. Also, "death probably by air pollution" isn't normally put on any official death certificate of an individual for obvious reasons; air pollution causes lung or heart diseases etc and an official death certificate would state "death by lung disease" or "death by heart failure" etc because that is far more certain than also including the likely causes of that, whether it be pollution or smoking or bad diet or mental stress etc.
And, given the known scientific facts of the harm air pollution does to people's health, it would be a huge mystery if there was NOT many people that died of it!
Can you name 2 people who have died of LOW levels of radioactivity?
If not, then according to your own moronic logic, nobody has ever died of low levels of radioactivity BECAUSE you cannot name them.
See what is wrong with this 'logic' now? -No official death certificate (or record) would state "death by LOW levels of radioactivity".
@humy saidProbably? That says it all.
Why? What an incredibly stupid irrelevant question.
I cannot name 2 USA people out of the many people that died from air pollution simply because I don't know them personally, not because they don't exist. Also, "death probably by air pollution" isn't normally put on any official death certificate of an individual for obvious reasons; air pollution causes lung or heart disease ...[text shortened]... now? -No official death certificate (or record) would state "death by LOW levels of radioactivity".
@metal-brain saidI take it then you are so stupid as to equate "probably" with "not probably".
Probably? That says it all.
@humy saidProbably indicates a lack of certainty. Kind of like saying a Japanese woman's cancer is probably from radiation exposure. It is either confirmed or not and probably is not a confirmation, it is a guess.
I take it then you are so stupid as to equate "probably" with "not probably".
You always insult when you know you are wrong. Pull up your big boy panties and deal with it.