Smash Company Splash Image

March 23rd, 2011

In Philosophy

2 Comments

Coal is more deadly than nuclear power

(written by lawrence krubner, however indented passages are often quotes). You can contact lawrence at: lawrence@krubner.com

The eco-system of the Earth can not survive in anything like its current vibrant state, so long as there are 6 billion or more humans on the planet. People live in denial about this fact. People want to have children, and they do not want to face up to the consequences of having children. Like anyone running from an important truth, people get defensive, and they look for scapegoats. The last few weeks have given people a chance to vocalize their concerns about nuclear power. While there are many, many valid reasons to be concerned about nuclear power, very few people are forthright enough to say “I prefer to have the planet destroyed by coal, rather than nuclear power.” Because that is the choice we face. Every society depends on coal, so no society wants to face up to the destructive power of coal. But coal is destructive. It also lethal. Consider this chart:

Source



Check out my book:





RECENT COMMENTS

July 15, 2018 3:17 pm

From Anonymous on Friendly, intelligent flash cards?

"Good to know that I wasn't too late :)..."

July 15, 2018 8:32 am

From lawrence on Friendly, intelligent flash cards?

"Thank you for these comments regarding Anki. It sounds useful. I can imagine having the full context of the se..."

July 15, 2018 6:32 am

From Anonymous on Friendly, intelligent flash cards?

"Anki limits how much you review. I have 10000+ cards across my decks but the program arranges them in such a w..."

July 6, 2018 3:42 pm

From lawrence on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"RK, your comment is irresponsible and pure FUD. These technologies are not being deprecated. Some of them have..."

July 5, 2018 10:21 am

From RK on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Deprecation warning: The Packer, Artifact Registry and Terraform Enterprise (Legacy) features of Atlas will no..."

June 25, 2018 11:58 am

From Barry Jones on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Solid read. I will say that it seems like there is a lot of momentum growing around Ansible these days. It see..."

June 21, 2018 11:25 pm

From Anon on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Thank you for this. Sometimes I feel like I'm living in a bizarre, pro-Docker for everything world. I am prima..."

May 30, 2018 4:35 pm

From Thomas on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Thank you for this beautifully written and relevant piece. I think it has saved me a whole world of pain. ..."

May 29, 2018 10:46 am

From lawrence on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Andrew Reilly, thank you for writing. You make several good points, especially this: "Also an extra layer o..."

May 28, 2018 11:17 pm

From Andrew Reilly on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Nice article, thanks! I think that it's interesting to also look around at the problem from a greater dista..."

May 21, 2018 2:39 am

From xulin on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Elixir & Erlang..."

May 16, 2018 3:28 pm

From Steffen on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"I'll never regret the use of docker cause I never used it (and never will). My advise is the the anti docker ..."

May 15, 2018 1:36 pm

From Clayton Gulick on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Great article. The current Docker craze, imho, is the same old problem where engineers get a hammer and every ..."

May 15, 2018 10:38 am

From lawrence on Docker is the dangerous gamble which we will regret

"Yawar, yes, I have looked at Elixir. And as I mentioned in the article: "They are now examining Go and E..."

May 15, 2018 10:32 am

From lawrence on Docker protects a programming paradigm that we should get rid of

"Agam Brahma, thank you. I have now fixed the typo...."

2 COMMENTS

March 25, 2011
2:03 pm

By Kelly Janes

This is very interesting, and I have some questions. How is the nuclear “death” rate determined? Are they only counting deaths that happen as a result of meltdowns and emergencies like the one they are currently experiencing in Japan? Do they track the radiation effects down family lines? If my two year old were exposed to radiation from a nuclear facility meltdown and became infertile as a result, would that show up in this chart?
On the other hand, I’m curious to know if the oil and coal deaths include only catastrophic events, or if they have devised a way to estimate all the deaths that occur as a result of our use of the fuels. Many questions!

March 25, 2011
3:14 pm

By lawrence

Kelly, those are good questions. The original article is here:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

As it says there:

“The air pollution data is mainly from the World Health Organization and the european study Externe. The World Health Organization compiled peer reviewed health studies on air pollution from many institutions. Occupational health and safety statistics track the deaths of workers in the different industries.”

My sense is that the WHO released a meta survey of other studies. Such studies always need to be taken with a grain of salt. In the end, we can never know for sure how many deaths are caused by any particular energy source. For that matter, we can never know how many people die due to the sun. We have only estimates and uncertainty, as we grope forward in the dark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>