Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NNadir

(38,168 posts)
3. The opening statement is correct, the sarcasm afterwards may be addressed by noting...
Sun Dec 8, 2013, 05:36 PM
Dec 2013

...that 100% of the deaths associated with Fukushima have come from the replacement of the reactors with dangerous fossil fuels, abetted by the coal, oil and gas burned by people running servers to express their dire fantasies that Fukushima actually killed someone.

I note, with due contempt, that very little coal, oil and gas has been burned to phase out coastal cities and buildings in Japan and elsewhere, even though these things, unlike the nuclear reactors, killed hundreds of thousands of people in both the Sendai/Fukushima accident, and the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake/Tidal wave.

Scientists from around the world published a survey of the burden of disease for the period from 1990 to 2010 in Lancet, examining the causes of death from various kind of risks. It found that air pollution is responsible for more than 6 million deaths per year.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vol380no9859/PIIS0140-6736(12)X6053-7

Lancet 2012; 380: 2224–60

This covers the period after Chernobyl by the way, and is a worldwide survey, the largest of its kind ever performed.

Deaths from nuclear energy appear nowhere in the document, zero places.

The great climate scientist Jim Hansen has calculated, on balance, including both Fukushima's expected consequences and Chernobyl's observed one that nuclear energy has saved 1.84 million lives.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

It follows that anti-nuke fear and ignorance costs human lives., irrespective of the sarcasm of people who couldn't care less about any of the vast, overwhelming environmental and human tragedies underway except for Fukushima, a relative triviality except in the minds of people who can't think to well,

As noted in the OP, this fantasy not only kills people, but it further impoverishes those who can least afford it. I don't know why anyone else is a Democrat, but - as hopeless as it is becoming as the bourgeois take over this party - I'm an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat, and part of my concern extends to the poor and downtrodden.

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all other alternatives. It only needs to be vastly superior, which it is.

It is amazing that there are people so weak minded as to not see this, despite more than half a century of nuclear operations.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The ONLY answer is more nuclear power. Wilms Dec 2013 #1
The opening statement is correct, the sarcasm afterwards may be addressed by noting... NNadir Dec 2013 #3
How Much Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal-Fired Power Plants Today? FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #9
I see two major errors with that study NickB79 Dec 2013 #13
Still trying to greenwash the behavior of the megaCorps, eh? kristopher Dec 2013 #2
Thank you for quoting the fool investment websites. I'm, um, unimpressed. NNadir Dec 2013 #6
Your concern is *exclusively* with the nuclear industry. kristopher Dec 2013 #8
27% Reduction in World Crop Yeilds due to Global Warming by 2050 FreakinDJ Dec 2013 #10
Meaning: the high speed and low cost of renewables is crucial to a transition from carbon. kristopher Dec 2013 #11
Thank you for offering another opinion on a subject you know nothing about. NNadir Dec 2013 #12
Energy storage will be the determining marsis Dec 2013 #4
Not really. Current research and experience have altered our understanding kristopher Dec 2013 #7
Thanks marsis Dec 2013 #17
It would be an economic decision, here are some references. kristopher Dec 2013 #30
This is a trend that is world wide. The old technologies cannot tsuki Dec 2013 #5
Kick... hunter Dec 2013 #14
What do you think of Canada Free Press? kristopher Dec 2013 #15
If one lives by googling and cut and paste sound bites... NNadir Dec 2013 #16
"Germany has the second highest electricity prices in Europe, after Denmark" kristopher Dec 2013 #18
Actually your evocation of "experts around the world," reminds me of Amory Lovin's 1976 "paper"... NNadir Dec 2013 #19
There you go again. kristopher Dec 2013 #20
There isn't a single anti-nuke "solar will save us" maven who ever uses any word BUT "could..." NNadir Dec 2013 #21
So your claim is that nuclear WILL save us? kristopher Dec 2013 #22
Um...um...I really don't think that you are any more qualified to give grammar lessons than you... NNadir Dec 2013 #33
Did you even bother to look at the publication date? Iterate Dec 2013 #23
“dispossessed”? There is no involuntary homelessness in Germany. Iterate Dec 2013 #24
If German electricity was priced by the usual market methods, Iterate Dec 2013 #25
Graphing German household energy costs kristopher Dec 2013 #29
We could parse the article word-by-word, number-by-number, Iterate Dec 2013 #32
yikes gopiscrap Dec 2013 #26
Lastly, when you fling insults like that Iterate Dec 2013 #27
My, my, my, this is an elaborate series of proofs that all of the poor people in... NNadir Dec 2013 #28
"Have a nice evening" kristopher Dec 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Der Spiegel: How German ...»Reply #3