Solar, Wind Jobs to Boom Over Next Decade

[NNadir]

8. Sorry kid, but I don't get my science from Wikipedia but from the primary scientific literature.

Last edited Wed Nov 1, 2017, 09:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I have little or no respect for anyone who carries on about Fukushima when 7 million people die each year from air pollution.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

In fact, in the Fukushima event which all of our anti-nukes whine and whine and whine about to the point of absurdity, 20,000 people were killed by seawater, and almost no one from radiation.

Still our anti-nukes prattle around and around and around and around working their asses off to spread nonsense that will make seawater deaths even more prevalent as, um, the seas rise because anti-nukes can't think straight.

They think that nuclear energy, and only nuclear energy be required to be risk free or things that have much greater risks will be able to kill millions of people at will and continuously.

Dangerous fossil fuel plants don't need a tsunami to kill people; they kill people when they operate normally.

All of the radioactivity exposures from all of the events associated with nuclear energy in the last half a century of operations, including but not limited to Fukushima and Chernobyl have not killed as many people as will die in the next two days from air pollution, which amounts to about 38,000 dead, at a rate of 19,000 people per day every day.

One of the things that's really striking about anti-nukes is their complete intellectual laziness coupled with a kind of smug arrogance that derives from selective attention coupled with a very low level of inquisitiveness and poor educations.


I have spent a little more than 3 decades surveying the primary scientific literature on issues involving energy and the environment. I actually have hundreds of thousands of papers in my electronic files on the subject of energy and the environment.

The one that I most often cite when I'm presented with the kind of poor thinking that all rote anti-nukes embrace is this one:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)

I read enormous amounts of material about nuclear energy/

I frequently write in fairly explicit scientific detail about the finer points of nuclear engineering and technology on a level that no anti-nuke blog can even dream about, since the authors of anti-nuke blogs are generally only distinguishable for their ignorance and lack of educations.

For example, in this space, most recently I mused on neptunium engineering physics: Industrial drawbacks to the use of neptunium in existing nuclear reactors.

Although I'm not sure that there is a single anti-nuke on this planet bright enough to get it, I am perfectly satisfied that this single post contains infinitely more correct information than stupid rhetoric on a "french/english blog about Fukushima."

As far as I'm concerned, anyone carrying on about Fukushima at this point doesn't give a shit about humanity and is entirely caught up in contemplating - in typical bourgeois fashion - lint in their navels.

I produce pretty much the same links day after day after day after day when confronted by asinine anti-nuke rhetoric, but the hydra like ignorance persists, just like a cancer on humanity's future, which is what anti-nuke rote rhetoric is: a cancer on the future of humanity.

Whether uneducated people get it or not, nuclear energy, because of its high energy to mass ratio is the last best hope of the human race. It is absurd to discuss the pet nonsense topics like so called "nuclear waste" given the existence of the Bateman Equations which define the limits of possible accumulation of radioactive materials. In this case we can compare the risks, quantity and overall accumulated radioactive materials with the risks and properties of dangerous fossil fuel waste which has, is, and will accumulate in essentially unlimited amounts.

The difference between used nuclear fuel and dangerous fossil fuel waste is that used nuclear fuel - a precious resource - hasn't killed anyone in more than half a century, and dangerous fossil fuel waste kills continuously without stop.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect, need not be without risk, nor need not address the paranoid fantasies of every damned anti-nuke on the planet to be vastly superior to everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

Nuclear energy saves lives, and it follows that anti-nuke ignorance kills people.

Have a nice day tomorrow.